Taubman Sucks!

TaubmanSucks.com
WillowBendSucks.com
WillowBendMallSucks.com
ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

Act 111: Taubman Responds to Our "New Rulings" Letter

On January 24, 2003, Taubman's attorney Julie Greenberg sent a letter to the Court of Appeals in response to a letter we had a submitted a couple of weeks earlier, in which we called the Court's attention to several recent appellate court rulings that are relevant to my case. (Note that this graphic actually represents pieces of three pages that I've "pasted" together.)

Although the legal technicalities in the letter are a little too arcane for me to comment on, I was taken with Ms. Greenberg's reference to my "cybersquatting scheme" as having "the unspoken, but clearly ever present goal of reaping some benefit at Taubman's expense." Given that my goal was "unspoken," I must say that I'm impressed with Ms. Greenberg's mind-reading abilities. But what's most remarkable about this characterization of my intent is its contrast to the way in which it was portrayed by Ms. Greenberg's partner Doug Sprinkle in his presentation to the Court of Appeals a few months ago.

Mr. Sprinkle, you may recall, confidently assured Judge Boggs that he, Ms. Greenberg, and I had engaged in multiple telephone conversations in which we had discussed Taubman's paying me to settle the case, and that these discussions had occurred prior to their $1,000 settlement offer. And yet Ms. Greenberg now describes my goal as being "unspoken" – which leads me to wonder how I communicated that goal in the telephone conversations that Mr. Sprinkle described during the appeals hearing. Did I tap some kind of message into the phone? Did they detect some kind of code-oriented pattern in my breathing?

Of course, the real answer is that the conversations described by Mr. Sprinkle were entirely fictitious. I'm grateful that, despite Mr. Sprinkle's failure to retract his misstatements, Ms. Greenberg is tacitly acknowledging the spuriousness of her partner's claims by noting that my so-called "goal" was, in actuality, "unspoken."

By the way, I should also mention that I've been told that letters written to cite "supplemental authority" (and responses to those letters) are limited to 350 words by federal rules, and that Ms. Greenberg has greatly exceeded this limit. It appears that, despite her frequent insistence that I be held to a strict construction of every rule (even when I was representing myself), she seems to feel that she is free to ignore those rules herself.