Jordan Edmund's lawyer is attempting to strongarm a blogger to get him to take down a post revealing his client's identity.

Edmunds, currently a campaign manager for Ernest Istook (R-OK) turns out to be a Republican, so his involvement in the Foley scandal, and his obvious interest in a political career for himself, explain his desire to make this all go away.

Fat chance.

This is his lawyer's communciation to Bill Kerr at PassionateAmerica:

From: Rod Nixon

Date: Oct 5, 2006 10:17 AM

Subject: Jordan Edmund

To: PassionateAmerica@gmail.com

Dear William Kerr and Passionate America:

Please be advised that I represent Jordan Edmund. It is our understanding that you and Passionate American are identifying Mr. Edmund with certain Instant Messages ("IMs"). You have indicated that ABC News mistakenly published these alleged Ims and that you should not have been able to obtain this information. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. Without any foundation or legal permission, you are stating that our client is the person associated with the Ims. Neither ABC News nor Brian Ross have been error free in their reporting in the past. You should not assume that they are correct now. Like all individuals and institutions, they occasionally make mistakes. Therefore, I respectfully demand that you cease any further efforts to identify our client with these alleged Ims and cease publishing such information on Passionate America. Neither you nor Passionate American is authorized to use any photograph of him, his name or his personal information. You should consult with an attorney who is experienced in civil and criminal liability regarding the internet. If you are correct that ABC News should not have released the alleged AOL screen name and that ABC News has risked civil and criminal liability because of the unauthorized release, then your republication of the unauthorized release likewise exposes you to possible liability.

Sincerely,

Stephen Jones

JONES, OTJEN, DAVIS, NIXON & JUHL

114 E. Broadway, Suite 1100

P.O. Box 472

Enid, Oklahoma 73702

An interesting effort in light of this article in the Washington Post on the realities of the new media

Kerry advisers think the most important factor in his loss was the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which attacked his war record. The group initially received scant attention in old media outlets, but its accusations were fanned by the Drudge Report, Fox News and other new media platforms. By the end, the accusations dominated coverage in both old and new media.

Each time a similar episode occurs, it is often covered as an isolated and even eccentric event. But Clinton, in an earlier interview, said his party should understand that the ideological and financial incentives among politicians and media organizations mean that every election cycle will feature such episodes -- and it should plan accordingly.

But he said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies -- and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses.

"We're all that way, and I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."

Few conservatives would make a similar miscalculation. Many of the first generation of new media platforms, including Limbaugh's show and Drudge's Web site, first flourished because of a conviction among conservatives that old media were unfair.

All this has given Republicans a comfort and skill at using new media to political advantage that most Democrats have not matched. At the Republican National Committee, leaking items to the Drudge Report is an official part of communications strategy..

Its a new world--adapt or face extinction.

Free speech is for Democrats only.

Voting is a Democrat (rather than democratic) right.

Don't worry though, Republicans get something too--legal accountability.

Harry Reid's penalty for influence peddling on sweet land deals for his buddies in exchange for bennies for himself and his family? Millions of dollars, a pass from the legal system and a yawn from the media.

Bob Ney's penalty for the very same offense? 27 months in jail (hey, it could have been 10 years...)

...but wait. The penalty for treason in this country?

28 months in jail.

A firebrand civil rights lawyer who has defended Black Panthers and anti-war radicals was sentenced Monday to nearly 2 1/2 years in prison _ far less than the 30 years prosecutors wanted _ for helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his followers on the outside.

Lynne Stewart, 67, smiled, cried and hugged supporters after U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl pronounced the sentence of 28 months.

The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between her client and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct."

But in departing from federal guidelines that called for 30 years behind bars, he cited Stewart's more than three decades of dedication to poor, disadvantaged and unpopular clients.

"Ms. Stewart performed a public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation," Koeltl said.

The judge said Stewart could remain free while she appeals, a process that could take more than a year.

Basically, being a Republican is a hanging offense in this country. We're going to need 20 years to clean out all these cockroaches, so don't be silly and get out and vote in November.

In what could be the preliminary to a disbarment, the North Carolina Bar has filed ethics charges against District Attorney Mike Nifong.

As a D.A., Nifong is untouchable, but the North Carolina legal community seems to have found a way to side track any political aspirations he might have had, even if public disgust with the Duke case wasn't already enough already.

Ankle-biting pundit is enraged by how Nifong's conduct besmirches prosecutors everywhere.

What burns me is that Nifong is giving prosecutors everywhere a horrible reputation. Every prosecutor I ever worked with, and those that I have dealt with since going into private practice have been straight as an arrow in ensuring that there was a fair trial. I may not have liked some of them for their unwillingness to compromise, but it was never done out of malice to the process or my client, but rather because of what they felt was right given the circumstances.

I like this line from Ace of Spades HQ:

It's a liberal tenet that most black people are good, wise, and honest, and most white people (save those who are members of the Church of Latter Day Liberals) are lying, cheating, oppressive and greedy bigots, the sort of people who would rape a black stripper just because they could.

Cathy Davidson -->

While DA Nifong has been vilified and pilloried--justifiably so--for pursuing the Duke rape case in the media and without the benefit of actual evidence, in my view the significant of the incident is far better represented by the Duke 88.

The eighty-eight represent faculty members at Duke.

Last April I added my name to an ad published in the Duke Chronicle. The ad said that we faculty were listening to the anguish of students who felt demeaned by racist and sexist remarks swirling around in the media and on the campus quad in the aftermath of what happened on March 13 in the lacrosse house.

The insults, at that time, were rampant. It was as if defending David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann necessitated reverting to pernicious stereotypes about African-Americans, especially poor black women. Many black students at Duke disappeared into humiliation and rage as the lacrosse players were being elevated to the status of martyrs, innocent victims of reverse racism.

As it turned out, 87 other faculty members were alarmed at this distressing side-effect of the lacrosse incident and signed the ad. I am positive I am not the only professor who was and continues to be adamant about the necessity for fair and impartial legal proceedings for David, Collin and Reade while also being dismayed by the glaring social disparities implicit in what we know happened on March 13.

Darlene Druyun ------>

Lee Davidson, of the DesNews, misses a more provocative story underlying his report of essentially a non-issue. Davidson obtained an audit stating the Air Force paid $4.5M too much to Boeing for maintenance of KC-135 tankers. The report conveniently blames Darlene Druyun, the former Air Force acquisition official convicted of violating conflict of interest laws regarding her relationship with Boeing, for rushing the contract and not allowing the completion of a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit. On the surface this looks just like one more favor to Boeing the so called “Dragon Lady” could add to her list of confessions, eerily similar to those obtained by the Soviet politburo:

- Agreeing to a higher-than-warranted price in a since-canceled $23.5 billion deal to lease 100 Boeing 767 planes as tankers, which she called "a parting gift to her future employer." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who led a congressional investigation of the transaction, said it could have cost taxpayers billions of dollars too much.

- Awarding $100 million to Boeing in 2002 through restructuring of the NATO Airborne Warning and Control System contract. She said it could have been lower, but she favored Boeing because her daughter and son-in-law worked there and she was considering working there, too.

- Overseeing awarding $4 billion to Boeing in 2001 to modernize avionics on the C-130J. She admitted she favored Boeing because the company had hired her son-in-law.

- Agreeing to a $412 million settlement in 2000 for Boeing over a clause in a C-17 contract. She admitted to favoring the settlement because her daughter's then-fiance was seeking a job with Boeing.

The Wall Street Journal has a front page piece noting the legal sector lags the economy:

A slack in demand appears to be part of the problem. The legal sector, after more than tripling in inflation-adjusted growth between 1970 and 1987, has grown at an average annual inflation-adjusted rate of 1.2% since 1988, or less than half as fast as the broader economy, according to Commerce Department data.

Some practice areas have declined in recent years: Personal-injury and medical-malpractice cases have been undercut by state laws limiting class-action suits, out-of-state plaintiffs and payouts on damages. Securities class action litigation has declined in part because of a buoyant stock market.

While most of the article dwells on the plight of law school graduates who are ranked below their top-tier classmates; I have to consider this good news overall. I can't help but wonder if the economy in general has received a boost because of those laws limiting class action suits. I'm sure, however, we'll see news about the plight of America because of the dearth of law suits.