3 ms·

> ... letters were so clearly fake that I replied telling him to piss off (in exactly so many words). In this case I wonder if you should contact the law firm

> ... letters were so clearly fake that I replied telling him to piss off (in exactly so many words). In this case I wonder if you should contact the law firm the letter is purportedly from (or Stanek if the firm doesn’t exist) warning them that some idiot is impersonating them and sending ridiculous letters, with a copy of one attached. Even if they really sent them it feels like an amusing way of telling them that their allegations are absurd. I think I saw an example of this happening in another case, perhaps for a letter received by a baseball stadium.

raphlinus 6y ago
https://lettersofnote.com/2011/02/14/regarding-your-stupid-complaint/ https://lettersofnote.com/2011/02/14/regarding-your-stupid-c... I don't think this is a scalable technique.
notacoward 6y ago
> the law firm the letter is purportedly from I quickly determined that there was no such entity; that's part of why I felt completely comfortable responding as I did. Here's another example of fake legal threats in this affair, from what I would consider the canonical site about it. http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/stanek-responds-to-his-critics/ http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/stanek-responds-to... IIRC (it was a long time ago) the email I received wasn't quite the same, but it was broadly similar - fake identity, clearly from someone barely educated let alone educated in law, same general amateurishness as Stanek's books and reviews. BTW, while I'm here: this deep dive into l'Affaire Stanek might seem indulgent and off topic, but it's not. This is the archetype. This is how online defamation and anti-defamation campaigns play out. They're ugly, they're messy, lots of third parties get dragged in, and people do get hurt. To a defamer, merely getting your target involved in something so obviously tawdry is almost as good as having the initial accusations stick. The internet's infinite memory can be used in more than one way to get revenge, and I think that's important to know.

raphlinus 6y ago

https://lettersofnote.com/2011/02/14/regarding-your-stupid-complaint/ https://lettersofnote.com/2011/02/14/regarding-your-stupid-c... I don't think this is a scalable technique.

notacoward 6y ago

> the law firm the letter is purportedly from I quickly determined that there was no such entity; that's part of why I felt completely comfortable responding as I did. Here's another example of fake legal threats in this affair, from what I would consider the canonical site about it. http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/stanek-responds-to-his-critics/ http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/stanek-responds-to... IIRC (it was a long time ago) the email I received wasn't quite the same, but it was broadly similar - fake identity, clearly from someone barely educated let alone educated in law, same general amateurishness as Stanek's books and reviews. BTW, while I'm here: this deep dive into l'Affaire Stanek might seem indulgent and off topic, but it's not. This is the archetype. This is how online defamation and anti-defamation campaigns play out. They're ugly, they're messy, lots of third parties get dragged in, and people do get hurt. To a defamer, merely getting your target involved in something so obviously tawdry is almost as good as having the initial accusations stick. The internet's infinite memory can be used in more than one way to get revenge, and I think that's important to know.