Yea! Lawsuit Threats!
OK well I pulled down the post… as I guess I should have said The Strategy Group owned the rights to the video they used of Bueher in this attack ad. I shouldn’t have said he “stole” it. However, who would do business with these guys after biting a former client in the ass like that?
From Scott Pullins himself:
Matt,
My firm has long represented Rex Elsass and The Strategy Group for Media, Inc. The post that you have authored today is, in my opinion, clearly false and libelous. The Strategy Group for Media, Inc. clearly owns the Buehrer footage that you reference pursuant to their standard contract which is normal and customary for the industry. To accuse a company or an individual of stealing intellectual property that they already own is clearly false and libelous. In addition, Mr. Buehrer requested and purchased a copy of this footage for himself from The Strategy Group for Media, Inc. You could have verified this information easily.
My client is willing to give you 24 hours to retract and correct this post. After that, my client has authorized me to file suit against you in the Delaware County Common Pleas Court for both injunctive relief and for money damages. Please provide your answer to me in writing, via email. Thank you.
Scott A. Pullins, Esq.
Scott A. Pullins, Ltd., LPA
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
110 East Gambier Street, P.O. Box 1186
Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050-1186
740-392-3505
614-224-2785
61-437-9879 Facsimile
There…. I retract and apologize. But I think it is still an unfortunate move for a tv ad firm to bite a former client like that with an attack ad.
And, I’m within my legal rights to suggest that anyone in the political arena should not do business with Rex Elass or his firm, The Strategy Group, because I personally believe that even though this act was legal, it is unethical.
Good job on threatening legal action against bloggers, Rex.
I am absolutely appalled by this fiasco. How can Rex Elsass possibly rationalize using a former client’s extra footage against him? Oh, he owns the footage. Um, ok. I am not talking legally rationalize his actions, but ethically.
To put it in a way that Scott Pullins can understand. Let’s say you have a lawyer who has a client who is suing a former client of that same lawyer. Then the lawyer decides, “hey, I have some confidential information that is damning of this former client and I am gonna use it for my new client”.
Would this lawyer not be a total douchebag and be in violation of the ethics code? I know we have no ethical code in politics (insert joke here), but we should try to police ourselves.
I am so disappointed in this sad episode. Here is a big Boo Hiss to Latta, Rex Elsass and Scott Pullins on this one.
Well, guess I should get ready to be sued now.
Good point.
Also, for being the former Chair of an Ohio based anti-tax group, Scott certainly sticks his neck out frequently for tax raisers!
I’d also add that I don’t believe all, but I believe much of the liberal Plain Dealer’s reporting on the OTA. But if I went into detail, I might get sued!
Instead of tort reform, maybe Ohio should look into making it more difficult to pass the bar exam.
This is one of the most unethical campaign practices I have ever heard of. Why would anyone ever hire Rex Elsass again? How could you trust him if you knew he might pull something like this?
Latta should immediately pull his ad and show something resembling ethics.
Of all the crap that has been flung back and forth in this race, this very well could be the catalyst that blows it open.
How long until the MSM, mainly the Blade, remember that this was the same group who did the Resnick ad in 2000? Not that I am a fan of Resnick or the Blade, but they are going to go nuts about this.
I think this could really hurt Latta.
Also, Matt, I am sure I can find you a good lawyer to defend you.
Thanks- I thought about just allowing the lawsuit to go forward… but I honestly think Scott is right in the matter. But it doesn’t change the fact that Rex’s firm is, in my opinion, unethical… and I will skunk them until the end of time.
Par for the course for Scott. Let’s not forget that the OTA was nothing more than a front-group for Larry Householder…and they did indeed offer cover for legislators to support a massive tax increase (at Larry’s direction)…sue me for not remembering which one, but it’s the truth.
As a result, the NTU came to town and revoked his affiliation with the organization…he didn’t withdraw like he would like people believe.
I agree that it is certainly underhanded to sell footage paid for by Party A to Party B simply because you own the footage. Nevertheless, it could have been contracted around. That is, A could have contracted for ownership of the footage and avoided this problem.
Additionally, the analogy to confidential information supplied to an attorney is poor. There is a very clear difference between a plain business relationship and a fiduciary relationship between attorney and client.
Luke
Smoke If You Got ‘Em