Pro Tip: Don't Send A Completely Bogus Defamation Threat To A Website That Employs A Former ACLU Badass
from the just-a-suggestion dept
If you happen to recognize the name Jamie Lynn Crofts, it may be from the truly amazing amicus brief she filed two years ago in the nutty SLAPP lawsuit that coal boss Bob Murray filed against comedian John Oliver after Oliver did a (very funny) segment about coal and coal jobs that talked a fair bit about Bob Murray. Crofts, at the time working for the ACLU in West Virginia, filed an amicus brief that was truly wonderful to behold, including sections entitled “The Ridiculous Case at Hand” and “Anyone Can Legally Say “Eat Shit, Bob!” and “You Can’t Sue People for Being Mean to You, Bob” and “You Can’t Get a Court Order Telling the Press How to Cover Stories, Bob.”
Anyway, it appears that Jamie has since moved on from the ACLU, and it appears that she’s now regularly writing about legal issues for Wonkette, and doing a pretty damn good job of it as well, looking through her recent stories. I wish I’d known that before, as I would have followed her coverage much more closely. However, Jamie truly shines when dealing with bullshit censorial threats, and apparently the performance artists known as “Diamond and Silk” decided to send a laughably sketchy “cease and desist” letter to Wonkette over some of their coverage of Diamond and Silk and whatever it is that they do. Jamie’s response is entitled In The Matter Of Diamond And Silk’s Very Real Lawyer v. Wonkette: Bring It, Sh*thead, which maybe gives you a sense of the spirit of her reply.
Normally, in this space, we’d go through and highlight the absurdity of the threat letter, but, honestly, we can’t do half as good a job as Jamie does (we probably couldn’t do 20% as good a job). So you should go read the whole thing, but here’s a snippet.
They gave us 24 hours to STOP THE BESMIRCHES, lest we FACE THE WRATH of the consummate professional who wrote this letter.
Libelizing and Slanderification!
Let’s talk about how the law actually works, here. Here in the US of A, we have this little thing called the First Amendment. And because of it, you don’t get to sue people for being mean to you. In fact, making fun of assholes is a proud American tradition, much like obesity and electing white supremacists.
Even private citizens can only sue for false statements of fact that harm their reputation. And for public figures, which Diamond and Silk unfortunately and undeniably are, it’s a lot harder. Public figures have to show that any actual false statements were made “with actual malice.”
It’s a pretty basic thing in American law that you don’t get to sue media organizations — or mommybloggers — just because you don’t like what they have to say. The US Supreme Court has been pretty clear throughout the years that political speech, in particular, receives the most protection. That’s because “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 74-75 (1964).
What’s really fun about the truth requirement is that it means you get to request documents from the other side and argue in court about whether or not the particular statements are, in fact, true. So if Calcite and Burlap actually sued us for this, one of the actual issues would be whether Wonderbitch really does hate them for being so dumb. And they’d have to show that their “reputation,” such as it is, was harmed by what she wrote.
Discovery would be LIT.
Not only would we get to explore exactly how Quartz and Cotton-Poly Blend prop up white nationalism, we’d get to ask them why they think our articles are false and what kind of sketchy sources they get their money from.
I swear there’s a lot more there and it just gets better and better and better. So go read it. And, yeah, maybe don’t send a bogus legal threat letter to a site that employs a former ACLU 1st Amendment lawyer who is famous for filing a brief in court about how it’s legal to say “Eat Shit, Bob!”
Filed Under: defamation, diamond and silk, jamie lynn crofts, threats
Companies: wonkette
Comments on “Pro Tip: Don't Send A Completely Bogus Defamation Threat To A Website That Employs A Former ACLU Badass”
Oh, dear. Back to your precious "right" to be vulgar.
You’re middle-aged, an alleged Ivy League Doctor but still acting and writing like a 13-year old, not just delighting in naughty words, but such a trivial topic when are any number more important on Drudge Report.
By the way: Infowars still gets mentioned fairly often on Drudge with its 900-some million page views a day, which gives fair idea of YOUR importance, Masnick. You’ll have to get sued again to get on Drudge, but you’ve been COWED from that and are down to CRAP.
Re:
Telling that you don’t have anything to say about the article itself. Don’t you have a toilet you could be cleaning?
Re: Re: Oh, dear. Back to your precious "right" to be vulgar.
I don’t. I clean up as go, and I’m inured to your stupidity so rarely have to go vomit after visiting here.
Thanks also for exampling your right to be stupid. Every time you write, you weaken the nation, and it’s obvious that’s your intent.
Re: Re: Re: Re:Back to your precious right to be an ignorant “motherfucker
“Every time you write, you weaken the nation, and it’s obvious that’s your intent.”
That’s some stupendous self projection coming from you azure huevos.
Re: Re: Re: Oh, dear. Back to your precious "right" to be vulgar.
do you clean your tongue before or after you clean the toilet with it?
Re: Re: Re: Oh, dear. Back to your precious "right" to be vulgar.
By the way OhLaugh, don’t forget to make sure that you let everyone know where you got the paraphrased quote, "Every time you write, you weaken the nation." from because you certainly didn’t create it.
The original quote is, "Every time you think, you weaken the nation."
Re: Re: Re:
His tongue is still sore from last weekend…
Re: Re: Re:
Dolt.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I meant, Olag, my dear dolt.
Re: Oh, dear. Back to your precious "right" to be vulgar.
but such a trivial topic when are any number more important on Drudge Report.
Yup. Like this one for example. Front page on Drudge, where blue-bus riding window-lickers get their information so they can own the libs:
https://www.infowars.com/swedish-behavioral-scientist-suggests-eating-humans-to-save-the-planet/
Much more important for sure.
This is why we think that people like you are retarded.
Re: Oh, dear. Back to your precious "right" to be vulgar.
https://www.techdirt.com/submitstory.php
On behalf of the law firm of Dewey Cheatem & Howe, I represent both quartzes and cotton-poly blends, and my clients strenuously object to being linked in any way with Diamond and Silk.
If you value the First Amendment, say what you think valuable.
Not just to you but for the good of society.
Masnick and you kids WASTE speech with vulgarity, and you are losing even the ability to appear worthwhile. Do you think anyone really cares whether you can be VULGAR? Even you don’t.
And meanwhile, Corporatist Masnick says that corporations can control YOUR speech, but you don’t have enough sense to see where that leads.
Re:
Well, if you insist…
shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits
There. Seven dirty words, all valuable because without the First Amendment, there could be (and would be) laws that declare those words to be “vulgar” or “obscene” and outlaw their usage in any context. Unpopular speech, no matter who deems it unpopular or why, is the speech most in need of First Amendment protections. (Protections from the consequences of that speech is a whole other matter.) The most valuable speech is that which gives protection to all other speech.
…you motherfucker. ????
Re: If you value the First Amendment, say what you think valuabl
Masnick and you kids WASTE speech with vulgarity
I surely don’t fucking think so, jackass. I mean, what the fuck happened to the first godamned fucking amendment if I can’t drop a "fuck," "shit," "dimwitted fucktard," or "shit-eating retard," whenever the fuck I feel like it, asshole?
Re: If you value the First Amendment, Stop being an idiot
“Do you think anyone really cares whether you can be VULGAR?”
You do bro.
You do.
You.
…
Re: If you value the First Amendment, say what you think valuabl
I think it would be valuable if you’d read the article and comment on it, rather than insulting the writers and commentators for having the audacity to swear.
Re: Once more, with feeling!
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each lawyer he’d paid
Was DMCAed
And said, "Wow, what an ignorant motherfucker!"
Re: If you value the First Amendment, say what you think valuabl
Trololololo
Re: If you value the First Amendment, say what you think valuabl
Uh… you do realize that speech isn’t a finite resource, right?
You do, apparently.
…on their platforms, yes. Outside of that? No. Also, you seem unable to tell the difference between the government censoring people and a corporation censoring people. The latter isn’t an FA issue.
On a side note, try to avoid using all-caps like that. It’s annoying, reduces readability, and you are choosing weird parts to emphasize. Use markdown for bold or italics instead, and emphasize words that you would naturally put emphasis on when saying it out loud.
As much as I hate frivolous, nuisance lawsuits, I really hope Zircon and Nylon are dumb enough to go through with this one as the discovery process would make so much of the inner workings of the right wing media grift machine a matter of public record.
Re: Re:
I only hate them when they’re not as deliciously funny as this one.
Entertaining, but....
It will never see Court.
And if it does, someone will get PAID to bury it, restrict access to it, Make it PRIVATE.. As they ALWAYS DO..
wouldlove a Judge to go threw all this Locked up Court cases, all the Settled out of court Locked up cases, and START dumping them into the public domain. REALLY.
I really thought that Public court was supposed to be PUBLIC. Because the Citizens Should know where we stand.. And so should our lawyers.
Re: Entertaining, but....
going thru the site, there is 1 thing thats going to be fun..
the WORD ‘Brand’…really comes up allot.
anyone got a registered, listing of That ‘Brand"?
I for one am getting tired of these novelty legal letters. Also, in this case (as opposed to Bob vs HBO), it feels like punching down.
Re: Re:
Who’s punching down here — Wonkette, or Diamond and Silk? I’d say both parties are probably about equally prominent. It feels like punching laterally to me.
Re: Re:
Yeah, it was (slightly) funny for a while. But now it’s just becoming cringe-worthy.
If everything is a reason for a sassy response, then sass means nothing anymore.
"ACLU Badass"? Really TechDirt? She wrote one okay-ish amicus brief (with lots of errors like that prior constraints are presumed to be constitutional (p. 9) – when she clearly meant ‘unconstitutional’ – didn’t proofread her own brief at all evidently because the table of authorities was also a complete mess).
But at some point juvenile and condescending insults aren’t going to help your case. They are going to hurt it. For example: on the subject of ‘false statements of fact’ – it may be funny, but it doesn’t help when your response to a C&D letter itself makes a false statement of fact: "Not only would we get to explore exactly how Quartz and Cotton-Poly Blend prop up white nationalism (…)". Diamond and Silk, two black ladies, are ‘propping up’ white nationalism. Riiight.
I’m guessing there’s a reason she’s not working at ACLU anymore and now defending ‘mommybloggers’.
Also, this ‘badass’ is misapplying the standard of actual malice. But don’t tell her clients.
Re: Re: Re:
Citation: "All prior restraints on expression are presumptively constitutional; prior restraints on matters of public concern are even more so." – Jamie Lynn Crofts (https://www.scribd.com/document/355284770/Nutterbutter#from_embed).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty sure you meant unconstitutional.
Re: Re:
When one supports people who are turning White supremacist beliefs into government policies, yes, they are propping up White supremacy. The race of whoever is doing that propping up is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"people who are turning White supremacist beliefs into government policies"
[citation needed]
Getting real tired of people ‘crying wolf’ about racism and white supremacy. Show me the evidence, Bob.
Re: Re: Re:2
Let’s start with the concentration camps that are holding undocumented immigrants en masse without any form of due process and go from there.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Concentration camps, really.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
REALLY AC..
Metal bars and Locks are not the only ways to create a Jail.
Understand what Slavery is, then wonder HOW we got into a situation where all your wages are controlled by 2-3 organizations. And Who is taking all your money. between over priced Food stocks, Medical that can Put you into the poor house for 1 common cold, Corps that have contracts that Over ride your Constitutional rights, and on and on..
A bible that demands we be Placid and domesticated, and Pandora that says we only have HOPE..
ITS ALL F’ing WRONG.. If we sit and wait for OTHERS to fix things, NOTHING will be done.
A snow ball starts with 1 Flake. and becomes an avalanche, as other follow.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It is my understanding that the term concentration camp was coined by The Squad (Ocasio-Cortez et al) and it has drawn considerable criticism for deflating the meaning of the word: https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/06/19/ocasio-cortezs-analogy-reflects-a-deep-misunderstanding-of-the-holocaust/ "There are no similarities between the detention centers and/or the act of detaining individuals who enter the country illegally and the concentration camps (death camps) of Nazi Germany. Ocasio-Cortez’s comments were insensitive, offensive, and reflected a deep and profound misunderstanding of the Holocaust. Republicans and Democrats should stand hand in hand on this matter, and demand that such comments be retracted. Some issues transcend politics. The Holocaust is one of them, and such comments should be rejected by everyone."
Also, your ‘due process’ comment is misplaced because those people in ICE detention centers are awaiting a hearing by an immigration judge. The problem is that those are overworked because supply is lower than demand for them. Which is kind of strange if your assertion that the administration is racist/white supremacist is to be believed. If that is true, why would illegal immigrants flock there massively?
Re: Re: Re:4
The first Nazi concentration camps, which were technically defined as contained areas in which people whom the Nazis considered “undesirables” (e.g., refugees, persecuted minorities, political prisoners) were held and either forced to work or wait to be executed, were established in 1933. (The official beginning of the slaughter we know as the Holocaust, marked by the Wansee Conference, happened in 1942.) Conditions for camp detainees included the separation of families, the removal children from their parents, and inadequate food and shelter for many (if not all) detainees.
I wonder why, then, that the American detention centers for immigrants and refugees where families have been separated and numerous detainees have reported inadequate living conditions have drawn comparisons to the concentration camps used by the Nazis.
The death camps started as concentration camps. They weren’t the beginning of the process — they were the end result.
Which means that they’re being held indefinitely without due process. If the Trump administration refuses to staff the immigration system with lawyers and judges, that is the administration’s issue; the people in those camps shouldn’t suffer for the administration’s refusal to give a shit.
The administration may be…well, is racist, but that doesn’t make the whole country racist. It also doesn’t mean the opportunities people seek in the United States, and the American ideals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, are racist. People come here seeking a better life. If they seek it legally, who are we to deny the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715725/children-border-detention-kids-cages-immigration
First link for “kids in cages”
There’s a few hundred thousand more to go bro.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Getting real tired of people ‘crying wolf’ about racism and white supremacy.”
Have you tried not being racist? Works a treat for not being called a racist, I’m told.
Re: Re: Re:
When I want an accurate assessment of who is or isn’t contributing to white nationalism, I’m definitely interested in hearing from a guy named BTWDeportThemAll.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they intended to be taken serious they did rather blow their foot clean off by creating an account with that name, yes.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would deporting >illegal< immigrants who skip the queue to the detriment of legal immigrants on the waiting list, be related to ‘white nationalism’?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The phrase "Deport Them All" has some unfortunate connotations, which pair nicely with the why you phrased that question.
For all your focus on ‘Illegal Immigration’, you chose deport them all, rather than say deport those violating the law. In the current policial climate, refugees are repeatedly described as illegally crossing the border, and skipping the line, in contrast to the reality that the asylum process of crossing the border and requesting asylum is indeed legal. The president has also suggested deporting people without due process, Despite that even with existing due process we still deport US citizens, let alone legal residents with surprising frequency. And yet, the need to mass deport Canadians, who are reportedly currently the worst as far as illegal immigration goes, is not generally discussed, nor is a wall on the northern border.
This leads such a phrase as "by the way, you should deport them all" to take on the connotations of racism that seem to be threaded throughout the hard-line immigration stance. Because as much as the statement could be innocuous, many people who employ such a term refer almost exclusively to immigrants of latin decent.
You might try to claim that "them" is all illegal immigrants, but that is because you are Schrodinger’s douchebag dogwhistling your Nazi allies. You have chosen an ambiguous term that the reader will, by human nature, apply the current political climate to, so you can than act all high and mighty when we call out the way such a statement would be clearly seen when reflecting on the phrase.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Well, first of all ‘deport those violating the law’ is too long as a username. Secondly, I guess you missed the reference, but the full slogan is ‘Build The Wall, Deport Them All’. This a a chant often heard at Trump rallies.
Now, as for your racism allegation: the slogan logically can only be aimed at illegal immigration since legal migrants either apply for a visa in their home country, or apply for asylum at a ‘point of entry’ and do not try to illegally cross the border unnoticed (hence: skipping the line). The wall can therefore only be aimed at illegal (or ‘irregular’) migration.
"many people who employ such a term refer almost exclusively to immigrants of latin decent." – here you have it. This is where your reasoning is obviously fallacious. Just because most illegal immigrants are ‘of Latin decent’, does not make it racist to be against illegal migration. A classic fallacy.
Finally: "the need to mass deport Canadians, who are reportedly currently the worst as far as illegal immigration goes, is not generally discussed, nor is a wall on the northern border." this is misinformation. Candanians make up a large share of visa overstays, but not of illegal border-crossers. Per Wikipedia: In 2012, 52% of unauthorized immigrants were from Mexico, 15% from Central America, 12% from Asia, 6% from South America, 5% from the Caribbean, and another 5% from Europe and Canada. – so 52% from Mexico and 5% from Canada.
Re: Re: Re:4
Says a lot about the people at Trump rallies, then — and Trump, for that matter.
The slogan says “deport them all”. It doesn’t define “all”. It could mean “all undocumented immigrants”, “all immigrants”, or even “all non-White immigrants” depending on who you ask. Broad language such as that can be interpreted in numerous ways. Given the actions of the Trump administration, I’d go with the third interpretation.
And if you think it would only be used to deter illegal immigration, you would be a fool.
Being a supporter of a president who kicked off his electoral campaign by referring to Mexicans as “rapists and thugs” and did everything he could to bar Muslims (possibly including U.S. citizens) from entering the country once he became president, however…
I have news for you, son: A visa overstay is illegal immigration.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s a visa overstay if you’re white. It’s illegal immigrant if you’re brown. I’d bet dollars to maple bacon bars that he doesn’t see racism inherent in his statements.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
but the full slogan is ‘Build The Wall, Deport Them All’. This a a chant often heard at Trump rallies.
Is that before or after "…and Mexico’s gonna pay for it!!!"
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Neither, the plan is to now impoverish the US military so Mexico can laugh all the way to the bank about it.
For some reason this is still framed as a Trump win, fuck knows why.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
FTR, you’re not helping your case by clarifying that the BTW means “Build The Wall” rather than “By The Way”. “Build the Wall” has some unfortunate connotations of racism itself, even moreso than “Deport them all”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
JB..
Let me put it this way for that person..
The USA is one of the LEAST, populated nations in the world..
Lets get rid of all those that have immigrated here.. in the last 50 years..
USA population Down by 1/3. Loosing 100,000,000..would have a great chance of destroying this nation.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
Go have fun with this…BUT DO REMEMBER, we can go back to 1900, and ship them ALL back, 3-6 generations..and the USA population, and a GOOD chance YOU…may not live here anymore.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Umm… you do realize your name isn’t "BTWDeportTheIllegals" right?
Re: Re: Re:
If they didn’t want to be publicly mocked then they shouldn’t have sent a stupid(in just all the ways) threat letter.
Re: Re:
The Bob v HBO letter was also stupid. It made zero arguments that the litigants didn’t make themselves. Maybe good PR to drive ACLU donations, but substantively useless and way overhyped. I’m an ACLU fan, but it was embarrassingly transparent.
Is that letter even real?
I know the grifter team of Calcite & Burlap are incredibly stupid, but that letter is way over the top. It reads like a troll. I actually attended a picnic with the Wonkette folks last Friday. Even they aren’t sure it’s not a troll, but they certainly enjoyed responding to it.
The notice at the bottom not to tell anyone is missing a copyright notice, so they won’t receive full bonus points.
... damn
After a public spanking like that I’m not quite sure which would be funnier, them slinking away or doubling-down and allowing Crofts to really bring the pain.
@TD: Please don't use "Pro Tip" directed at your readership
It’s extremely condescending.
"Just a suggestion".
Re:
@BTWDeportThemAll: Please don’t come into somebody else’s house and tell them what to do!
Re: Re: Re:
"Just a suggestion."
Re: @TD: Please don't use "Pro Tip" directed at your readership
“It’s extremely condescending.”
Good
Re: @TD: Please don't use "Pro Tip" directed at your readership
Yeah, I’ll take it into consideration that a bigoted commenter who doesn’t understand immigration is mad at my language choices… and I’ll file it appropriately.
Re: Re:
Hey, @btwdeportthemall, pro tip:
You might want to try NOT being condescending to most of the human race before accusing others of being condescending to people who quite obviously don’t understand what they are talking about.
Just a suggestion.
Re: @TD: Please don't use "Pro Tip" directed at your readership
Just a suggestion, but when posting on a site that is highly critical of perceived over-enforcement and abuse of immigration law and that is highly critical of and likes to make fun of Donald Trump, his proposed and actual polices, and his administration, don’t use the user name “BTWDeportThemAll” if you want to be taken seriously. Whatever your opinion on illegal immigration, what should be done about it, and the wall, most commenters here think it’s, at best, a complete waste of resources that won’t reduce illegal immigration significantly.
If only there was a federal anti-slapp law.
Knowing that sending questionable legal threats could lead to them taking you to court & having to pay their bills might make a difference.
I doubt it because the butt hurt are going to be butt hurt, there always is a lawyer looking to get paid (Win Lose Draw they get paid), so hitting the butt hurt in the pocketbook might discourage this sort of thing… but y’all is stupid.
Re: Re:
Nobody’s filed a lawsuit yet.
The Right Way Is Do What Vic Mignogna Did
When outright lies were spread about Vic by the nutball brigaded from twitter, he decided to sue the everloving crap out of them. Apparently, he’s winning. So remember folks, the only way to stop real slander and real lies is to frame it as a financial loss, and present evidence. They won’t have any because they are just morons calling you names that went too far. What they needed to do was prove a financial loss, or potentially tortuous interference. Courts love it when you can show actions lost you money. Good to see Vic winning.
Re: The Right Way Is Do What Vic Mignogna Did
Apparently you’re only listening to Nick’s nightly screams…I mean streams. The lawsuit is going badly and over 80 attorneys have weighed and found it wanting. Because actual malice can’t be proven as defendants believe the information spread about Vic, and he’s a public figure. Now there are many, many more people who’ve heard all the accusations who didn’t know a single thing. Vic has torched his own career. Look up "Streisand Effect."
Re: The Right Way Is Do What Vic Mignogna Did
Source: Wikipedia
How is that winning?
Re: Re: The Right Way Is Do What Vic Mignogna Did
It worked for Prenda Law!
Re:
I would love to know the alchemy you used to come up with that conclusion.
Re: The Right Way Is Do What Vic Mignogna Did and self immolate
I eagerly await your apology for being wrong when Vic loses his suit. In fact let’s put a bet on it. If vic loses you leave forever like you promised. If he wins I’ll buy you the anime body pillow of your choice.
Re: Re:
You have a weird definition of winning.
Re: The Right Way Is Do What Vic Mignogna Did
7 out of the 12 cases have been dismissed with costs awarded, with another hearing scheduled on the others’ respective anti-SLAPP motions. How is Vic winning again?
Vic isn’t winning. Stop listening to YouTube grifter Nick Rekieta.
Vic is going to end up owing the defendants more money than the GoFundMe has raised from gullible pedostans such as yourself, and his lawyer is going to need to lean on his State Senator partner to try to avoid disbarment for filing false notarizations.
According to the WV Supreme Court website, her West Virginia law license was annulled on a 5-0 vote on 9 September. There does not seem to be any documentation of the precisely the reason for the annulment, but the fact that there was not a written opinion suggests that she did not object.
Thanks for the interesting post. I want to share with you https://rushmoremotels.com/what-is-doubling-down-in-blackjack/, which describes how to play hold’em. You can also learn a lot of interesting things on this subject.
All of u r fuckin idiots. Shut the fuck up.
Jamie Lynn Crofts didn't move on from ACLU
Jamie Lynn Crofts didn’t move on from ACLU. Her law license was suspended and then annulled by order of the WV Supreme Court after she ripped off an ACLU client, refusing to give the client her rightful settlement earnings. She was also ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation and pay restitution to the initial client.
https://wvrecord.com/stories/513748362-supreme-court-annuls-former-aclu-wv-director-s-law-license
Jamie Lynn Crofts was disbarred by the state of west virginia for ripping off a client that had just gotten out of prison, and for being mentally unstable.