Lionel Hutz alert!

I had a little bit of fun in my last post about Warren Kinsella's Lionel Hutz-like legal skills -- how he didn't know that lawyers in Canada can practise in any province; how he didn't think Ontario clients could have an Alberta lawyer; how he didn't think I could use a law firm as an agency for service, etc. I didn't just report that stuff for fun -- I did it to show that Warren Kinsella, despite describing himself as an "Ass-Kicker", is all hat and no cattle. Bloggers don't have to be scared of his threats anymore.

So I was not surprised to read Kinsella's blog post today -- poking fun at the new Union of Bloggers, but not mentioning a word about his legal threat against Blazing Catfur. That's what I predict most victories will look like for the Union of Bloggers: blowhards just going away once they realize they're facing a fight.

But Kinsella wrote something weird: he claimed that I had recently taken down a blog post of my own because I received a legal demand from him to do so. Huh?

I sent a note to Kinsella today, asking him to re-send that legal demand to me, because I hadn't seen it. (He really should read a book about service of legal documents.) Here's what he wrote back. It looks like the great barrister tried to send me a demand letter, but sent it to my evil twin, who has an e-mail address spelled "ezrra". D'oh!

Kinsella is right on one thing: I did take down a post a few weeks ago that was a little too jubilant at a setback he had at the National Post. Kinsella says I took down the post because of his demand letter and that it's bad form for the Shop Steward of the Union of Bloggers to have surrendered so quickly. I'd agree, if it were true -- but, as I wrote, I took down my post because it embarrassed the manager who had to rein Kinsella in.

I thought I was being a mensch about it. Instead, Kinsella is trying to use that as an indication that the Union of Bloggers isn't serious. I don't think too many people believe Kinsella these days, but it is important that there be no shadow of doubt: the Union of Bloggers doesn't buckle to politically-motivated, baseless threats. It's just so important that there be no question about it. So I've simply got to put that blog post back up -- even if it causes some discomfort to Kinsella's bosses at the Post.

I didn't save the original entry, but I can sum it up thusly:

Because of concerns about the accuracy of some of Kinsella's writing, he is not longer allowed to write about me in the Post. Kinsella has had one entire rant pulled, and two others redacted, to comply with this. (I didn't request this ban, by the way -- I sort of like sparring with the guy and pointing out his errors, but the Post has better things to do.)

I don't remember everything else I wrote, but I stand by it, including my assertion that Kinsella has written about his clients. I'll keep you posted if Hutz fires back -- assuming he can spell my e-mail address correctly.