The Attorney Grievance Commission Of Maryland has reviewed Eric Menhart's website and "found that it may include various misrepresentations." Young Eric has been given 15 days to respond. See Page One. Also Page Two.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Mark Whitney - Comedian, Storyteller, Emcee
Book a private performance of FOOL FOR A CLIENT, Mark's award-winning, 90 minute, one-man political-dramedy, at the next celebratory gathering of your state, county or local bar association! Email mark@markwhitney.com for avails.
Click here for an HD version of this video.
Click here for an HD version of this video.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Eric Menhart Publishes Materially False Credentials
On his promotional website Eric Menhart claims MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc., 166 Md.App. 481, 890 A.2d 818 (Md.App. 2006) is an example of his prevailing as a so-called "appellate advocate." He goes on to say that MaryCLE constitutes "legal precedent that has been relied upon by courts across the nation." (emphasis added)
Both statements are materially false in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1343, the Federal Criminal Wire Fraud Statute.
The upshot is that a prospective client browsing Eric's site could easily conclude that MaryCLE wisely decided to retain Eric, whereupon Eric, as a duly licensed member of the Maryland Bar, actively represented the company on appeal, conducted oral argument, prevailed and established legal precedent that has been cited by courts from coast-to-coast.
But, that's not what happened, is it? Would it be too much to simply call Eric Menhart a fraud? Does this "principle attorney" of "the firm" ever simply tell the truth?
Both statements are materially false in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1343, the Federal Criminal Wire Fraud Statute.
In the three years since MaryCLE (young Eric's alter-ego) has been on the books it has never, ever been followed in a published judicial opinion.
Additionally, Attorney Michael S. Rothman prosecuted the appeal. The case was decided in January 26, 2006, nearly five months before Eric was admitted to the Maryland Bar. Can you say, 'Wire Fraud?'
As reported by the Baltimore Sun, Eric's alter-ego was the client in this litigation. Moreover, Eric affirmatively manufactured the underlying controversy.
As for Eric's bald claim that MaryCLE constitutes "legal precedent that has been relied upon by courts across the nation" this statement is completely untrue and has no basis whatsoever in reality.
The subsequent history of MaryCLE is that it was cited once in Dring v. Sullivan, 423 F.Supp.2d 540 (D.Md. 2006). Dring involves a pissing contest in connection with some candidate up for election to the governing board of a tae kwon do referees' group. I know. Good times.
Not only does young Eric's name not appear anywhere in the caption of MaryCLE, but the case was cited once and rejected by the Dring Court. It has never been relied upon by any court, to say nothing of having been cited as "legal precedent by courts across the nation." Jesus, Eric!
West Attorney Editors have since tagged MaryCLE with a cautionary 'yellow flag.'
As reported by the Baltimore Sun, Eric's alter-ego was the client in this litigation. Moreover, Eric affirmatively manufactured the underlying controversy.
As for Eric's bald claim that MaryCLE constitutes "legal precedent that has been relied upon by courts across the nation" this statement is completely untrue and has no basis whatsoever in reality.
The subsequent history of MaryCLE is that it was cited once in Dring v. Sullivan, 423 F.Supp.2d 540 (D.Md. 2006). Dring involves a pissing contest in connection with some candidate up for election to the governing board of a tae kwon do referees' group. I know. Good times.
Not only does young Eric's name not appear anywhere in the caption of MaryCLE, but the case was cited once and rejected by the Dring Court. It has never been relied upon by any court, to say nothing of having been cited as "legal precedent by courts across the nation." Jesus, Eric!
West Attorney Editors have since tagged MaryCLE with a cautionary 'yellow flag.'
The upshot is that a prospective client browsing Eric's site could easily conclude that MaryCLE wisely decided to retain Eric, whereupon Eric, as a duly licensed member of the Maryland Bar, actively represented the company on appeal, conducted oral argument, prevailed and established legal precedent that has been cited by courts from coast-to-coast.
But, that's not what happened, is it? Would it be too much to simply call Eric Menhart a fraud? Does this "principle attorney" of "the firm" ever simply tell the truth?
Eric Menhart: 'You Must Retain An Attorney'
Still more delusional, gamesmanship from the ubiquitous Eric Menhart. At 08:20 AM 5/28/2009 Eric emails me:
Mr. Whitney:
On Saturday, I wrote the below message to you. Since then, you have written numerous e-mails, including some from the new address "shakedownsuit@hotmail.com."
Accordingly, if you wish to communicate further regarding this matter, you must retain an attorney. Your chosen attorney should contact me directly on your behalf. Any further communications from you or your organization that do not come directly from a third-party attorney that you have retained on your behalf will not be returned.
Eric Menhart, Esq.
CyberLaw P.C.
1200 G St NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-904-2818
Fax: 202-403-3436
http://www.cyberlaw.pro/
****
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:12:14
To: "CyberLaw.Pro" <contact@cyberlaw.pro>
From: Mark Whitney <mwhitney@thelaw.net>
Subject: RE: Case No. 0003615-09
Dear Junior, Eric, CyberLaw, MaryCLE, or Whatever Your Name Is This Week:
When you say, "You must retain an attorney" is that legal advice? Because I don't think you're licensed to practice law in California.
Save your poobah routine for the amateurs. You've picked a fight you cannot and will not win. Counsel will be representing TheLaw.net Corporation only. I represent myself. I am NOT retaining counsel to represent me. I will be pro se.
I will be serving interrogatories and conducting full and independent discovery. I'm taking this to a jury and I'm looking forward to getting you on the stand - you little weasel! Reporters from Baltimore Sun, Washington Post and the blogosphere will be there, too.
You come into this case with unclean hands and divided loyalties. Have you cleaned up your website yet?
D.C. City Council will be hearing from me and other concerned legitimate business-to-business vendors. You can drop this case tomorrow. Doesn't matter. I GUARANTEE you Eric's Law will be REPEALED.
Moreover, I am going to contact every legitimate company you sue and offer my assistance in their defense. You can write that down.
To emphasize, counsel for TheLaw.net Corporation is not authorized to settle this case. Counsel has been retained to get the case dismissed as to TheLaw.net Corporation or to go to trial.
Counsel for TheLaw.net Corporation is not authorized or retained to discuss any issues related to the case as to me personally.
Whether or not you contact me directly is up to you.
Mark Whitney
Pro se
Mr. Whitney:
On Saturday, I wrote the below message to you. Since then, you have written numerous e-mails, including some from the new address "shakedownsuit@hotmail.com."
Accordingly, if you wish to communicate further regarding this matter, you must retain an attorney. Your chosen attorney should contact me directly on your behalf. Any further communications from you or your organization that do not come directly from a third-party attorney that you have retained on your behalf will not be returned.
Eric Menhart, Esq.
CyberLaw P.C.
1200 G St NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-904-2818
Fax: 202-403-3436
http://www.cyberlaw.pro/
****
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:12:14
To: "CyberLaw.Pro" <contact@cyberlaw.pro>
From: Mark Whitney <mwhitney@thelaw.net>
Subject: RE: Case No. 0003615-09
Dear Junior, Eric, CyberLaw, MaryCLE, or Whatever Your Name Is This Week:
When you say, "You must retain an attorney" is that legal advice? Because I don't think you're licensed to practice law in California.
Save your poobah routine for the amateurs. You've picked a fight you cannot and will not win. Counsel will be representing TheLaw.net Corporation only. I represent myself. I am NOT retaining counsel to represent me. I will be pro se.
I will be serving interrogatories and conducting full and independent discovery. I'm taking this to a jury and I'm looking forward to getting you on the stand - you little weasel! Reporters from Baltimore Sun, Washington Post and the blogosphere will be there, too.
You come into this case with unclean hands and divided loyalties. Have you cleaned up your website yet?
D.C. City Council will be hearing from me and other concerned legitimate business-to-business vendors. You can drop this case tomorrow. Doesn't matter. I GUARANTEE you Eric's Law will be REPEALED.
Moreover, I am going to contact every legitimate company you sue and offer my assistance in their defense. You can write that down.
To emphasize, counsel for TheLaw.net Corporation is not authorized to settle this case. Counsel has been retained to get the case dismissed as to TheLaw.net Corporation or to go to trial.
Counsel for TheLaw.net Corporation is not authorized or retained to discuss any issues related to the case as to me personally.
Whether or not you contact me directly is up to you.
Mark Whitney
Pro se
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Eric Menhart Sues TheLaw.net Corporation
The job market for recent law school graduates has rarely been tighter and sometimes the only client a freshly minted lawyer can find is himself.
Eric J. Menhart is a young attorney in D.C., where the job market is particularly tight for attorneys, especially those who exercise poor judgment. Eric has an apparent fondness for representing himself and you know what they say about people who represent themselves.
Even at his tender age, Eric has already been "gang tackled" by the intellectual property blogosphere.
'Eric's Law,' the subject of this memo, can be found at D.C. ST secs. 5001, 5002, and 5003.
As a claimed D.C. resident (via his Cyberlaw P.C. alter ago), Eric lobbied on behalf of 'Eric's Law' which he now uses to represent himself in lowball litigation.
As part of his self-serving, unilateral lobbying effort, Eric testified to the Council of the District of Columbia in relevant part: "Marketers are extraordinarily talented at masking themselves and creating very complicated paths to their true identities."
My name is Mark Whitney, sole publisher of this blog. I reside in San Diego. I founded TheLaw.net Corporation. My company sells legal research subscriptions to attorneys whose clients cannot afford to subsidize the absurd fees charged by West and Lexis. Nearly 100,000 attorneys have regular access to the amazing database that is the centerpiece of our offering. I founded TheLaw.net Corporation based on my belief that searchable, citable, checkable American law had become too much of a commodity and I am passionate about the role my company plays in leveling the playing field for the local practitioner.
By leveraging technology, TheLaw.net is able to service subscribers at approximately half the price charged by Fastcase, our closest competitor, and about 5% of the price charged by market leader Westlaw, while also delivering superior search flexibility and functionality. TheLaw.net's marketing mix includes Google Adwords, word of mouth, a referral program, passive search and direct online contact to potential attorney subscribers. As founder of TheLaw.net Corporation I have found passive marketing models, such as magazine advertising to be a complete waste. The failure of passive advertising models to deliver results in this fragmented media market is the reason traditional magazines and newspapers are closing, cutting back and otherwise struggling.
There is a class system in U.S. legal research known only to the legal research community. The system is structured to favor institutional researchers such as the FIRE Industries (finance, insurance and real estate), multinational corporations and governmental instrumentalities. TheLaw.net Corporation has worked hard to change that by providing access to a collection of databases - for less than $50 a month - that a single attorney would expect to pay Westlaw approximately $10,000 a year to obtain. TheLaw.net Corporation makes national legal research affordable to all, making it less expensive for your local practitioner to represent you in family, criminal or bankruptcy court.
TheLaw.net Corporation also happens to be a thought leader when it comes to legal research best practices. For example, to our knowledge, we are the first company to note the woefully incomplete nature of the West Statutes Annotated. Such information is vital to the modern practice of law. It is this sort of leading edge, high quality, free content to which hundreds of thousands of attorneys tacitly subscribe.
It is in furtherance of these and other objectives, that TheLaw.net Corporation regularly originates contact with attorneys - and only attorneys - via the Internet. We take tremendous pride in this lawful, ethical, business-to-business, online advertorial model.
It can be annoying being solicited, be it someone knocking on your door, calling you on the phone, sending you a direct mail or an email. But, marketing is nothing without a plan to originate contact with potential customers. Without marketing, there would be no taxes. Without taxes there would be no government. Without government there would be no laws. Without laws there would be no Eric Menhart. See how everything comes full circle, Eric?
The rule at TheLaw.net Corporation is that we don't want people hearing from us via email who would prefer to not to hear from us via email. That's why we provide four readily available free removal mechanisms: (a) Toll Free Line - 1.877.452.9638, (b) physical mailing address - 6640 Lusk Blvd. Suite A205, San Diego, CA 92121, (c) a dedicated inbox - remove@thelaw.net and (d) http://www.thelaw.net/remove.htm
Pursuant to Federal law, TheLaw.net Corporation treats the targeted lawyer recipient's decision not to remove themself as a tacit opt-in request - essentially a free subscriber - until such time as that lawyer becomes a paid subscriber or submits a request to be removed via one of our four free removal mechanisms.
As a young lawyer in a tight economy, Eric Menhart has proven himself to be a clever little bastard. So clever in fact, that he's apparently been able to back himself into litigation in an apparent attempt to create a profit center for himself by lobbying for the passage of laws that permit him to represent himself against online marketers who do not come close to fitting the profile of those who might be given to "masking themselves and creating very complicated paths to their true identities."
Like Travelocity, Amazon, Ebay and Scottrade, TheLaw.net Corporation is a creature of the Internet and an excellent online citizen that is whitelisted with the major email service providers. If every online marketer had our database management processes in place, no one would have clamored for 'Can Spam.' TheLaw.net Corporation was 'Can Spam Compliant' years before the passage of 'Can Spam.'
My experience with direct marketing at TheLaw.net Corporation, teaches that remove requests are less than approximately one-third of one percent when recipients receive information that is directly relevant to their business and profession.
Eric J. Menhart is a young attorney in D.C., where the job market is particularly tight for attorneys, especially those who exercise poor judgment. Eric has an apparent fondness for representing himself and you know what they say about people who represent themselves.
Even at his tender age, Eric has already been "gang tackled" by the intellectual property blogosphere.
'Eric's Law,' the subject of this memo, can be found at D.C. ST secs. 5001, 5002, and 5003.
As a claimed D.C. resident (via his Cyberlaw P.C. alter ago), Eric lobbied on behalf of 'Eric's Law' which he now uses to represent himself in lowball litigation.
As part of his self-serving, unilateral lobbying effort, Eric testified to the Council of the District of Columbia in relevant part: "Marketers are extraordinarily talented at masking themselves and creating very complicated paths to their true identities."
My name is Mark Whitney, sole publisher of this blog. I reside in San Diego. I founded TheLaw.net Corporation. My company sells legal research subscriptions to attorneys whose clients cannot afford to subsidize the absurd fees charged by West and Lexis. Nearly 100,000 attorneys have regular access to the amazing database that is the centerpiece of our offering. I founded TheLaw.net Corporation based on my belief that searchable, citable, checkable American law had become too much of a commodity and I am passionate about the role my company plays in leveling the playing field for the local practitioner.
By leveraging technology, TheLaw.net is able to service subscribers at approximately half the price charged by Fastcase, our closest competitor, and about 5% of the price charged by market leader Westlaw, while also delivering superior search flexibility and functionality. TheLaw.net's marketing mix includes Google Adwords, word of mouth, a referral program, passive search and direct online contact to potential attorney subscribers. As founder of TheLaw.net Corporation I have found passive marketing models, such as magazine advertising to be a complete waste. The failure of passive advertising models to deliver results in this fragmented media market is the reason traditional magazines and newspapers are closing, cutting back and otherwise struggling.
There is a class system in U.S. legal research known only to the legal research community. The system is structured to favor institutional researchers such as the FIRE Industries (finance, insurance and real estate), multinational corporations and governmental instrumentalities. TheLaw.net Corporation has worked hard to change that by providing access to a collection of databases - for less than $50 a month - that a single attorney would expect to pay Westlaw approximately $10,000 a year to obtain. TheLaw.net Corporation makes national legal research affordable to all, making it less expensive for your local practitioner to represent you in family, criminal or bankruptcy court.
TheLaw.net Corporation also happens to be a thought leader when it comes to legal research best practices. For example, to our knowledge, we are the first company to note the woefully incomplete nature of the West Statutes Annotated. Such information is vital to the modern practice of law. It is this sort of leading edge, high quality, free content to which hundreds of thousands of attorneys tacitly subscribe.
It is in furtherance of these and other objectives, that TheLaw.net Corporation regularly originates contact with attorneys - and only attorneys - via the Internet. We take tremendous pride in this lawful, ethical, business-to-business, online advertorial model.
It can be annoying being solicited, be it someone knocking on your door, calling you on the phone, sending you a direct mail or an email. But, marketing is nothing without a plan to originate contact with potential customers. Without marketing, there would be no taxes. Without taxes there would be no government. Without government there would be no laws. Without laws there would be no Eric Menhart. See how everything comes full circle, Eric?
The rule at TheLaw.net Corporation is that we don't want people hearing from us via email who would prefer to not to hear from us via email. That's why we provide four readily available free removal mechanisms: (a) Toll Free Line - 1.877.452.9638, (b) physical mailing address - 6640 Lusk Blvd. Suite A205, San Diego, CA 92121, (c) a dedicated inbox - remove@thelaw.net and (d) http://www.thelaw.net/remove.htm
Pursuant to Federal law, TheLaw.net Corporation treats the targeted lawyer recipient's decision not to remove themself as a tacit opt-in request - essentially a free subscriber - until such time as that lawyer becomes a paid subscriber or submits a request to be removed via one of our four free removal mechanisms.
As a young lawyer in a tight economy, Eric Menhart has proven himself to be a clever little bastard. So clever in fact, that he's apparently been able to back himself into litigation in an apparent attempt to create a profit center for himself by lobbying for the passage of laws that permit him to represent himself against online marketers who do not come close to fitting the profile of those who might be given to "masking themselves and creating very complicated paths to their true identities."
Like Travelocity, Amazon, Ebay and Scottrade, TheLaw.net Corporation is a creature of the Internet and an excellent online citizen that is whitelisted with the major email service providers. If every online marketer had our database management processes in place, no one would have clamored for 'Can Spam.' TheLaw.net Corporation was 'Can Spam Compliant' years before the passage of 'Can Spam.'
My experience with direct marketing at TheLaw.net Corporation, teaches that remove requests are less than approximately one-third of one percent when recipients receive information that is directly relevant to their business and profession.
Over the course of approximately the past 10 years TheLaw.net Corporation has timely recoded as 'removes' approximately 750,000 electronic attorney profiles out of what I would estimate to be 300 million attempted impressions. A member of the Direct Marketing Association, TheLaw.net Corporation owns all of its own servers and accordingly acts as its own ISP.
Yesterday I received notice that Eric made the enormous mistake of suing me personally, together with TheLaw.net Corporation pursuant to "Eric's Law.' Eric did this even though he never requested us to remove his address. He never provided it to us, not ever.
Part of Eric's 'business' is to sue legitimate business-to-business marketers like TheLaw.net Corporation. Illegitimate marketers, as Eric, of all people knows, are a tad difficult to find.
TheLaw.net Corporation does not 'spam.' It is settled law that not every unsolicited commercial email is 'spam.' If you are a woman who has received an email promising to add inches to your penis - that's 'spam.' That you receive such messages is happenstance. Nefariously carpet bombing consumers, surreptitiously spoofing headers and ignoring remove requests is conceptually distinct from a carefully targeted, professionally executed, B2B marketing campaign.
It is not happenstance that TheLaw.net Corporation originated contact with Eric Menhart. It was by design. TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 is not intended for use by individual consumers or layman. It is a a sophisticated search facility designed for trained lawyers performing hardcore Federal and state legal research. Accordingly, TheLaw.net Corporation specifically targets practitioners in the United States because that is our lone potential subscriber base. TheLaw.net Corporation does this with full disclosure. Our online marketing is frequently educational, sometimes mission critical and consistently entertaining and good natured. TheLaw.net Corporation complies with the controlling law and then some. The first time a recipient requests an email address to be removed via one of our four free removal mechanisms, it is done.
In my opinion, Eric Menhart is a sociopathic, economic terrorist. To me he's nothing more than a highly sophisticated con man cloaked in a J.D. Except in Eric's case the J.D. might more appropriately stand for Juris Disingenuous.
As an American Entrepreneur for nearly 30 years, I believe that I have an obligation to do whatever the law permits to ensure that young Eric Menhart changes his ways.
Eric says people are "much more willing to pay attention to you if they know it's going to cost them. That's the way the world works. ... People pay attention to lawsuits."
If you engage in legitimate online business-to-business marketing, there's a decent chance you'll be hearing from Eric Menhart. To me he seems to be nothing more than an unethical, disingenuous, vexatious litigator. If you do hear from Eric, let me know and I will consider funding your defense, together with your defamation claim.
Whatever you do, do not settle with this bottom feeder. Do not give him a single dime before talking to me and together we'll show young Eric "how the world works."
Yesterday I received notice that Eric made the enormous mistake of suing me personally, together with TheLaw.net Corporation pursuant to "Eric's Law.' Eric did this even though he never requested us to remove his address. He never provided it to us, not ever.
Part of Eric's 'business' is to sue legitimate business-to-business marketers like TheLaw.net Corporation. Illegitimate marketers, as Eric, of all people knows, are a tad difficult to find.
TheLaw.net Corporation does not 'spam.' It is settled law that not every unsolicited commercial email is 'spam.' If you are a woman who has received an email promising to add inches to your penis - that's 'spam.' That you receive such messages is happenstance. Nefariously carpet bombing consumers, surreptitiously spoofing headers and ignoring remove requests is conceptually distinct from a carefully targeted, professionally executed, B2B marketing campaign.
It is not happenstance that TheLaw.net Corporation originated contact with Eric Menhart. It was by design. TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 is not intended for use by individual consumers or layman. It is a a sophisticated search facility designed for trained lawyers performing hardcore Federal and state legal research. Accordingly, TheLaw.net Corporation specifically targets practitioners in the United States because that is our lone potential subscriber base. TheLaw.net Corporation does this with full disclosure. Our online marketing is frequently educational, sometimes mission critical and consistently entertaining and good natured. TheLaw.net Corporation complies with the controlling law and then some. The first time a recipient requests an email address to be removed via one of our four free removal mechanisms, it is done.
In my opinion, Eric Menhart is a sociopathic, economic terrorist. To me he's nothing more than a highly sophisticated con man cloaked in a J.D. Except in Eric's case the J.D. might more appropriately stand for Juris Disingenuous.
As an American Entrepreneur for nearly 30 years, I believe that I have an obligation to do whatever the law permits to ensure that young Eric Menhart changes his ways.
Eric says people are "much more willing to pay attention to you if they know it's going to cost them. That's the way the world works. ... People pay attention to lawsuits."
If you engage in legitimate online business-to-business marketing, there's a decent chance you'll be hearing from Eric Menhart. To me he seems to be nothing more than an unethical, disingenuous, vexatious litigator. If you do hear from Eric, let me know and I will consider funding your defense, together with your defamation claim.
Whatever you do, do not settle with this bottom feeder. Do not give him a single dime before talking to me and together we'll show young Eric "how the world works."
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Eric Menhart Refers To Self As 'The Firm'
On his website, young Eric refers to his apparent one man show as "the firm" on at least 65 separate occasions. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean for a guy who apparently spends more time representing himself than real clients. From his virtual office "four blocks from the White House." I guess when you think about it, there really is no difference between young Eric's apparent identity crisis and say, Jones Day. Technically they are both 'firms.' Of course, one firm has an office. Then there's Eric. One firm has real clients. Then there's Eric. One firm has the respect of the legal establishment. Then there's Eric. One firm enjoys a great reputation. Then there's Eric. One firm is hired to resolve cases and controversys. The other manufactures them. One firm doesn't flat out lie as to alleged 'client successes.' Then we have Eric. Otherwise, I suppose these two "firms" are identical.
Eric Menhart Puffs Credentials To Lure Clients
On his page captioned Attorney, Eric Menhart throws around terms liked "held positions" and "worked" to describe what the Baltimore Sun more accurately calls "internships." Also known as, on the job training. Also, often performed at no charge.
Apparently Eric's puffery is not working, as young Eric appears to spend most of his time representing himself in shakedown litigation against legitimate companies like mine.
If you are a legitimate online marketer being victimized by an Eric's Law Shakedown Suit, let me know and I'll consider funding your defense and your defamation claim.
Apparently Eric's puffery is not working, as young Eric appears to spend most of his time representing himself in shakedown litigation against legitimate companies like mine.
If you are a legitimate online marketer being victimized by an Eric's Law Shakedown Suit, let me know and I'll consider funding your defense and your defamation claim.
Eric Menhart 'Has A Lot To Learn' Says Attorney
Eric Menhart "has a lot of learn about cyberlaw -- and common sense." ~Corynne McSherry is Staff Attorney at EFF, specializing in intellectual property and free speech issues. Prior to joining EFF, Corynne was a civil litigator at the law firm of Bingham McCutchen, LLP. Corynne has a B.A. from the University of California at Santa Cruz, a Ph.D from the University of California at San Diego, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. While in law school, Corynne published Who Owns Academic Work?: Battling for Control of Intellectual Property (Harvard University Press, 2001). Continue reading.
Eric Menhart Condemned By 'Real Lawyers'
Young Eric has a way of bringing out the best in others.
"Cyberlawyer Gang Heckled Into Submission" ~Brett Trout, Esq., Editor, Blawg IT
"Internet Lawyers Still Laughing" ~Sam Bayard, Esq., Editor, City Media Law Project
"Cyberlawyer Gang Heckled Into Submission" ~Brett Trout, Esq., Editor, Blawg IT
"Internet Lawyers Still Laughing" ~Sam Bayard, Esq., Editor, City Media Law Project
Eric Menhart Openly Mocked By Law Professor
"Last month we all had a good laugh over self-proclaimed Cyberlawyer Eric Menhart's trademark application for the term 'CyberLaw' to describe his Cyberlaw practice. (In case it wasn't clear, we weren't laughing WITH him...)."
Continuing, Professor Goldman writes: "Historically, it has been fairly rare to see bona fide public evaluations of a lawyer by his or her peers; that kind of reputational information was often well known among lawyers practicing in the geographic/doctrinal area and effectively unavailable to everyone else. Now, through the Internet, everyone--including Menhart's prospective clients--can easily find out what his peers think of Eric Menhart's choices, enabling this reputational information to have a much greater effect at rewarding or punishing marketplace participants as appropriate."
~Continue reading, Technology & Marketing Law Blog by Eric Goldman, Esq., Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law and director of the school's High Tech Law Institute. Bio. Curriculum Vitae.
Continuing, Professor Goldman writes: "Historically, it has been fairly rare to see bona fide public evaluations of a lawyer by his or her peers; that kind of reputational information was often well known among lawyers practicing in the geographic/doctrinal area and effectively unavailable to everyone else. Now, through the Internet, everyone--including Menhart's prospective clients--can easily find out what his peers think of Eric Menhart's choices, enabling this reputational information to have a much greater effect at rewarding or punishing marketplace participants as appropriate."
~Continue reading, Technology & Marketing Law Blog by Eric Goldman, Esq., Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law and director of the school's High Tech Law Institute. Bio. Curriculum Vitae.
Eric Menhart Refers to Self As 'Attorney Roster'
On his homepage young Eric invites potential clients to review "the services provided by the law firm and its attorney roster". But he publishes no roster of attorneys. There is only young Eric with an HQ address primarily representing himself in vexatious litigation.
Eric Menhart 'In Prison For Life'
Paul Kroto quoted in Baltimore Sun: "People like Menhart should be locked up in prison for life."
Eric's Law Victim Publishes Self Defense Portal
Here's a link to some of the resources I've studied in connection with the defense of my personal Eric's Law Shakedown Suit.
Eric's Law Table Of Authorities
If you are an Eric Menhart victim, read the judicial opinions and statutes I may cite in my defense. If you are a legitimate online business-to-business marketer Eric's Law Shakedown Suits are easy to defend.
If you are a legitimate online marketer and cannot afford to retain counsel, please contact me and I will consider funding your defense. If you have retained counsel to defend you, email counsel this link and you will save thousands of dollars in legal research expenses which are typically billed by the hour.
Based on my experience, it seems that young Eric banks on the fact that you will do the pragmatic thing and settle. When I offered to talk settlement, he bit immediately and asked for a confidentiality agreement, persumably so no one will know that he's willing to settle.
But, you should never settle a manufactured controversy created by an individual who in my opinion is a complete fraud and a disgrace to the legal profession.
The following research was performed using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. However, I uploaded Westlaw versions of the opinions to this portal as the opinion formatting may be more familiar to your counsel should you choose to share these resources.
FEDERAL JUDICIAL OPINIONS
U.S. Supreme Court
395 U.S. 6
510 U.S. 517
U.S. Court Of Appeals
983 F.2d 455
73 F.3d 497
420 F.3d 366
461 F.3d 309
469 F.3d 348
U.S. District Courts
948 F.Supp. 436
962 F.Supp. 1015
422 F.Supp.2d 523
If you are a legitimate online marketer and cannot afford to retain counsel, please contact me and I will consider funding your defense. If you have retained counsel to defend you, email counsel this link and you will save thousands of dollars in legal research expenses which are typically billed by the hour.
Based on my experience, it seems that young Eric banks on the fact that you will do the pragmatic thing and settle. When I offered to talk settlement, he bit immediately and asked for a confidentiality agreement, persumably so no one will know that he's willing to settle.
But, you should never settle a manufactured controversy created by an individual who in my opinion is a complete fraud and a disgrace to the legal profession.
The following research was performed using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. However, I uploaded Westlaw versions of the opinions to this portal as the opinion formatting may be more familiar to your counsel should you choose to share these resources.
FEDERAL JUDICIAL OPINIONS
U.S. Supreme Court
395 U.S. 6
510 U.S. 517
U.S. Court Of Appeals
983 F.2d 455
73 F.3d 497
420 F.3d 366
461 F.3d 309
469 F.3d 348
U.S. District Courts
948 F.Supp. 436
962 F.Supp. 1015
422 F.Supp.2d 523
Eric Menhart Tacitly Urges New Clients To Steer Clear Of The 'Office'
"Strategically located" just "four blocks from the White House" though it may be, young Eric takes pains to steer potential new clients away from his so-called "office."
On his page captioned Contact Cyberlaw, young Eric goes to great lengths to encourage potential new clients to contact him via his website, rather than calling or stopping by the office.
On his page captioned Contact Cyberlaw, young Eric goes to great lengths to encourage potential new clients to contact him via his website, rather than calling or stopping by the office.
"Potential new clients are strongly encouraged to initially contact the firm via the below form to allow the most efficient review and response," Eric writes.
Could it be "the firm" doesn't even have a receptionist?
Could it be "the firm" doesn't even have a receptionist?
I'm thinking and have written previously as to my suspicion that Eric's highfalutin D.C. address is nothing more than a front.
I'm thinking young Eric may not want you to discover that "the firm" he repeatedly references in his capacity as "principle attorney" may be nothing more than a front for young Eric to represent himself in chickenshit Eric's Law Shakedown Suits as reported by the Baltimore Sun.
If you or your small business is sued by this guy, contact me and I'll consider funding your defense and your defamation claim.
As a man who for the past decade has had thousands of ethical lawyers as paying clients, I say you'd be crazy to do business with Eric Menhart.
Baltimore Sun Reports On Eric Menhart 'Extortion' & 'Blackmail' Schemes
Nirvana for an attorney would be getting paid attorney money without having to deal with all those pesky clients. As the Baltimore Sun reports, that's what Eric's Law is all about.
Eric's Law Victim Invites Suit For Defamation
Earlier today I sent an email to young Eric inviting him to sue me for defamation. Here is the relevant text:
Eric: I know you're probably busy running that 'Search & Replace' routine on your lawsuit template. But, it's a long weekend. I'm thinking maybe you could find the time to sue me personally for defamation. I would love it you would do that. Please. If you're too busy, I could even draft the pleadings for you. My hope is that you'll sue me for defamation in some Federal court that's far, far away so that I can incur the highest expenses possible. I want travel expenses. I want attorneys' fees. I want the nice hotels. I want you out of commerce. This week I'm going to link your lawsuit and our email exchanges to the nation's attorneys. I'm just getting warmed up. What do I have to do to get you to sue me for defamation? Actually, what would one have to say to defame you? There really are no words. Hugs and Kisses. Mark Whitney
Eric: I know you're probably busy running that 'Search & Replace' routine on your lawsuit template. But, it's a long weekend. I'm thinking maybe you could find the time to sue me personally for defamation. I would love it you would do that. Please. If you're too busy, I could even draft the pleadings for you. My hope is that you'll sue me for defamation in some Federal court that's far, far away so that I can incur the highest expenses possible. I want travel expenses. I want attorneys' fees. I want the nice hotels. I want you out of commerce. This week I'm going to link your lawsuit and our email exchanges to the nation's attorneys. I'm just getting warmed up. What do I have to do to get you to sue me for defamation? Actually, what would one have to say to defame you? There really are no words. Hugs and Kisses. Mark Whitney
Report Eric Menhart To The FBI
At a minimum, Eric Menhart appears to be guilty of committing the ongoing Federal criminal act of Wire Fraud as set out more fully in this post.
If Eric Menhart's promotional website induced you to consider retaining him as counsel, do the world a favor and immediately please report him to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center.
Eric Menhart Cites Self As 'Client Success'
On his page captioned Client Successes, young Eric states the following in relevant part:
"The Challenge: Maryland's state law seeking to regulate spam e-mail was under attack by marketers who argued that the state laws were preempted by certain federal laws.
Taking Actions: Carefully examining the relevant issues using comprehensive legislative history analysis, professionals analyzed legislative intent and worked to make a complicated topic more understandable to courts who were not familiar with much of the more technical background in information technology. The case was so compelling that the Maryland Attorney General and the United States Internet Service Providers Association each submitted amicus curiae briefs in support.
Successful Result: The plaintiff prevailed in Maryland state appellate courts, creating legal precedent that has been relied upon by courts across the nation."
Here's what Eric fails to disclose:
1. The referenced litigation originated on behalf of an entity young Eric created pursuant to legal fiction.
2. The trial judged laughed the case out of court.
3. Westlaw's attorney-editors have since 'yellow flagged' the case.
4. Attorney Michael S. Rothman of Rockville prosecuted the appeal. Not Eric.
5. Young Eric was not admitted to the Maryland Bar until June 13, 2006. The appeal is dated January 26, 2006.
I wonder if young Eric has read up on the elements that need to be proven to demonstrate a violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute?
Listen up folks. Thousands of lawyers have paid my company millions and millions of dollars over the course of the past decade. I know the difference between a real lawyer and a shakedown artist. All I'm saying is that if I was your best friend, I would suggest that you should beware of doing business with young Eric, a newly minted attorney, in a tight job market, who seems to be little more than a sophisticated con man cloaked in a J.D., who appears to make rent for his apparent virtual office by representing himself in shakedown suits.
"The Challenge: Maryland's state law seeking to regulate spam e-mail was under attack by marketers who argued that the state laws were preempted by certain federal laws.
Taking Actions: Carefully examining the relevant issues using comprehensive legislative history analysis, professionals analyzed legislative intent and worked to make a complicated topic more understandable to courts who were not familiar with much of the more technical background in information technology. The case was so compelling that the Maryland Attorney General and the United States Internet Service Providers Association each submitted amicus curiae briefs in support.
Successful Result: The plaintiff prevailed in Maryland state appellate courts, creating legal precedent that has been relied upon by courts across the nation."
Here's what Eric fails to disclose:
1. The referenced litigation originated on behalf of an entity young Eric created pursuant to legal fiction.
2. The trial judged laughed the case out of court.
3. Westlaw's attorney-editors have since 'yellow flagged' the case.
4. Attorney Michael S. Rothman of Rockville prosecuted the appeal. Not Eric.
5. Young Eric was not admitted to the Maryland Bar until June 13, 2006. The appeal is dated January 26, 2006.
I wonder if young Eric has read up on the elements that need to be proven to demonstrate a violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute?
Listen up folks. Thousands of lawyers have paid my company millions and millions of dollars over the course of the past decade. I know the difference between a real lawyer and a shakedown artist. All I'm saying is that if I was your best friend, I would suggest that you should beware of doing business with young Eric, a newly minted attorney, in a tight job market, who seems to be little more than a sophisticated con man cloaked in a J.D., who appears to make rent for his apparent virtual office by representing himself in shakedown suits.
Eric Menhart Just Four Blocks From The White House
On his page captioned Strategic Alliances, young Eric states in relevant part: "The law firm of CyberLaw PC is strategically located in the heart of Washington, D.C., only 4 blocks from the White House, near the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Federal Circuit and within 100 miles of three other Federal Circuits. CyberLaw is 12 blocks from the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Congress and numerous private technology companies and interest groups."
A search on young Eric's alleged office address reveals that young Eric apparently shares 'Suite 800' with hundreds, if not thousands, of other tenants. Looks like one of those HQ deals.
Imagine! You too could be "foour blocks from the White House."
A search on young Eric's alleged office address reveals that young Eric apparently shares 'Suite 800' with hundreds, if not thousands, of other tenants. Looks like one of those HQ deals.
Imagine! You too could be "foour blocks from the White House."
What Eric Menhart seemingly fails to realize is that he may well be closer to a cell block than the White House.
File A Complaint With The D.C. Bar
How to File a Complaint
Download a version of the complaint form from the list below. - Complete and/or print the form.
- Mail to:
Office of Bar Counsel
Board on Professional Responsibility
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street NW
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, DC 20001
or, for incarcerated complainants:
- Download a version of the complaint form from the list below.
- Complete and/or print the form.
- Mail to:
Office of Bar Counsel
Board on Professional Responsibility
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street NW
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, DC 20001
Alternatively, you may write your own statement in lieu of filling out a complaint form. To do so:
- Write your own statement
- Your statement should include your name and address, your attorney's name and address, and an explanation of the circumstances and details of your complaint
- Mail completed written statement to:
Office of Bar Counsel
Board on Professional Responsibility
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
515 5th Street NW
Building A, Suite 117
Washington, DC 20001
Supporting documents, such as copies of a retainer agreement, proof of payment, correspondence between you and your attorney, the case name and number if a specific case is involved, and copies of papers filed in connection with the case, may be useful to our investigation.
D.C. Rules Of Professional Conduct
On August 1, 2006, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order amending the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, effective February 1, 2007. The following is a 155-page, 440.90 KB PDF file. It is not intended to be read online, but downloaded and saved to your computer.
Eric Menhart Quick To Bite Settlement Hook
Within minutes of receiving my Eric's LAw Shakedown Suit in the amount of get this - $23,500 against TheLaw.net Corporation and myself personally, I emailed young Eric in my capacity as a pro se individual defendant, stating the following in relevant part: "If this is a money deal, let me know how much you want to settle this matter as I am a very busy guy."
Shortly thereafter young Eric took the bait, responding in relevant part: "I appreciate your offer to discuss settlement....[P]lease have the chosen third party contact me via e-mail to discuss a time at which we could schedule a phone call on Tuesday the 26th or Wednesday the 27th....Settlement would be governed by a general release with a confidentiality clause."
My intuition was that Eric was a settler and a shakedown artist - a sophisticated con man who can't get real clients and my intuition rarely fails me.
Shortly thereafter young Eric took the bait, responding in relevant part: "I appreciate your offer to discuss settlement....[P]lease have the chosen third party contact me via e-mail to discuss a time at which we could schedule a phone call on Tuesday the 26th or Wednesday the 27th....Settlement would be governed by a general release with a confidentiality clause."
My intuition was that Eric was a settler and a shakedown artist - a sophisticated con man who can't get real clients and my intuition rarely fails me.
D.C. Bar Office Of Bar Counsel
The Office of Bar Counsel was created in 1972 as a result of the Court Reorganization Act, which established the D.C. Court of Appeals. Pursuant to Rule XI of the D.C. Court of Appeals Rules Governing the Bar, the Office of Bar Counsel serves as the chief prosecutor for attorney disciplinary matters involving active or inactive attorneys who are members of the D.C. Bar.
In this capacity, the Office of Bar Counsel has a dual function: to protect the public and the courts from unethical conduct by members of the D.C. Bar and to protect members of the D.C. Bar from unfounded complaints.
The Office of Bar Counsel investigates all complaints and allegations of ethical misconduct and initiate appropriate resolutions, ranging from diversions, dismissals, and informal admonitions, to the preparation of formal charges.
In cases in which charges are formally presented by petition, the Office of Bar Counsel has responsibility for prosecuting the charges before a hearing committee, the Board on Professional Responsibility and ultimately the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Eric's Law Victim Offers To Fund Defenses
If you are a legitimate online marketer who has been victimized by one of Eric Menhart's many lawsuits, contact me and I will consider funding your defense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
