Another scumbag lawyer threatens to sue yours truly.

Will California's anti SLAPP statute ride to the rescue again?

Beti Bergman is, in my opinion, a scumbag lawyer.

There I was thinking that tonight would be boring when I opened my email and received the loveliest letter. I got so excited I needed to share it with everyone.

Beti is none too happy with the article I published right here on Substack two days ago. As such, no one should read it. You should definitely NOT check out the interview I did with Frank Raymond. It would be the worst calamity if that video went viral. Then, Beti would experience first-hand the Streisand Effect, and we don’t want that.

Frank and I begin discussing Beti’s role approximately eighteen minutes in, if you want to head straight to the most controversial portion.

This is a really exciting time for me because it’s not every day I get a cease-and-desist letter. It’s also not the first day I’ve gotten one; Beti may have thought she was special. She is, but not that special.

Fortunately, I have already written a post which is meant to be a guide in exactly these situations. That post is called, “Tips for dealing with scumbag lawyers.”

Beti, when I say, “scumbag lawyer”, that’s a term of endearment. I may date you.

just for fun, let’s see what I suggested to do when dealing with the Beti Bergman’s of the world.

1) The law is written in English, and it means what it says.

Fortunately, Beti wrote her letter in English, so I understand what it means.

Beti’s specific beefs are all listed in paragraph one. She claims that she has not filed any untimely motions and that she is acting in Klea Dole’s best interest.

Bergman is Ms. Dole’s guardian ad litem in a conservatorship in Los Angeles County, California. Frank is Klea’s son.

Bergman is trying to remove Frank from managing multiple properties for his mom and her evidence is suspect.

Interestingly, she did not list this as one of the defamatory statements. Beti claims that Frank is embezzling money, and her evidence is that an accountant told her.

“Mr. Trojan {the accountant} opines that by what has been reported, it appears that Frank has been appropriating funds for himself.” Beti said in a motion.

Trojan never testified or even provided an affidavit, so this seems thin.

Yet, Beti continues to use this allegation as the basis for removing Frank. I can see where Frank would not think Beti was acting in his mother’s best interest.

As to the first complaint, Beti did file more than one motion the day before a hearing.

As Jack Ross once opined in A Few Good Men, “those are the facts, and they are indisputable.”

Frank and I never used the term “untimely.” We said she filed them on the eve of a hearing and the judge allowed her to present arguments at the hearing, despite being filed the day before. Our problem was with the judge, not Beti.

I have to wonder how big a reputational hit it could be if she’s known for filing motions late.

That’s why her next paragraph is a head scratcher.

“Your defamatory acts are negligent, reckless, and intentional. Your statements have caused damage to the personal and professional reputation of Beti Bergman, shame, mortification, stress and strife.”

To borrow from my favorite twitter account 3yearletterman, “That’s quite a word salad just to say you never lettered in shit.”

Let’s see what my next tip is.

Many lawyers are bullies

I don’t think Beti is a bully. This is potentially my future girlfriend we’re talking about. Still, I have to face facts. There’s a miniscule chance Beti is a bully.

What is the best way to deal with a bully? You stand up to them. It’s a good thing I wrote this post then.

All proper cease and desist letters have several elements

Beti’s cease and desist letter has most of the elements. She identifies the alleged defamatory statements. She demands they be retracted. She did forget one element. She does not state what will happen if I don’t comply. We can assume she’ll sue, but she does not say it.

That may be because Beti is an estate lawyer and not a defamation lawyer.

Beti does not list defamation law among her specialties on her website.

If she had consulted with a defamation lawyer, that lawyer may have added that a lawsuit was coming. She didn’t. As such, her cease-and-desist letter, while good, is not quite perfect.

I’m pretty sure a defamation lawyer would have told her she had no case.

Anti-SLAPP can be your best friend

Anti SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

A SLAPP suit is a frivolous lawsuit which is designed not to be meritorious but to harass the defendant so that they stop exercising their first amendment rights.

As such, many states have anti SLAPP statutes to help dismiss SLAPP suits quickly, easily, and cheaply. California’s is one of the best.

California has a strong anti-SLAPP law. To challenge a SLAPP suit in California, defendants must show that they are being sued for “any act . . . in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16 (2019). Under the statute, the rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue include four categories of activities: statements made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by a governmental body; statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; and any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or petition rights in connection with “a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 425.16(e).

California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest. Rivero v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 81, 89–90 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). Under this standard, statements that report or comment on controversial political, economic, and social issues, from the local to the international level, would certainly qualify. Conversely, a California court has held that statements about a person who was not in the public eye did not relate to an issue of public interest. Dyer v. Childress, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).

The California anti-SLAPP law allows a defendant to file a motion to strike the complaint, which the court will hear within 30 days unless the docket is overbooked. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(f). Discovery activities are placed on hold from the time the motion is filed until the court has ruled on it, although the judge may permit “specified discovery” if the requesting party provides notice of its request to the other side and can show good cause for it. § 425.16(g).

I reminded Beti about it when I responded by email.

I think most of these statements amount to opinions or can be shown to be accurate. 

If you sue, I'll file under anti SLAPP which means if and when I win you will pay my court costs. It's also my opinion that your {sic} a scumbag lawyer.

Nothing is going to be removed. 

I know I misspelled you’re. I also know what you’re thinking…this scene from Friends.