# Awesome lawyer letter **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 5, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722 "2010-01-05T04:43:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/61 "2010-01-05T19:41:22Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Since we only know half of the story, it depends. There is also a social evil in using the litigation process for the collateral purpose of generating adverse publicity for your target, by making accusations in an amusing format and leaking the letter. This is also the wrongful use of a legal club. > > Both can be abusive tactics, again depending on the facts. Here, all the facts we have are from the letter itself. If they are substantially true, the dealership indeed sucks and deserves public exposure and scorn. Even if we grant everything that the dealership has alleged (that there was damage to the car, etc), how does that make their letter reasonable? None of the tweets is anything other than opinion (dealership sucks) or obvious hyperbole (worst dealership on the planet). By extremely established law, neither of those are libelous. So what other half of the story could make the dealership’s actions appropriate? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/62 "2010-01-05T19:43:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a reasonable inference from Alascio’s factual claims: > > The initial customer service agent’s evaluation of the car is as being in good repair, which if believed vitiates Route 60’s damage claim. I’m not disputing which side is correct about whether the car was “damaged”. It was however neither stated nor is it reasonably implied that the alleged “damage” was in the _particular form_ of a car that was dirty, which is (unless I’m mistaken) the objection raised by **Munch**. The allegation is rather simple: Alascio claims it wasn’t damaged at all - a claim, it is said, born out by the service evaluation. The dealership claims the car was “damaged” but we have no idea what this alleged “damage” is supposed to have consisted of. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/63 "2010-01-05T19:44:08Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Even if we grant everything that the dealership has alleged (that there was damage to the car, etc), how does that make their letter reasonable? None of the tweets is anything other than opinion (dealership sucks) or obvious hyperbole (worst dealership on the planet). By extremely established law, neither of those are libelous. So what other half of the story could make the dealership’s actions appropriate? Exactly. Malthus, imagine this is a Rule 56 hearing. What issues of material fact could Route 60 raise to dodge summary judgement? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/64 "2010-01-05T19:47:01Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’m not disputing which side is correct about whether the car was “damaged”. It was however neither stated nor is it reasonably implied that the alleged “damage” was in the _particular form_ of a car that was dirty, which is (unless I’m mistaken) the objection raised by **Munch**. > > The allegation is rather simple: Alascio claims it wasn’t damaged at all - a claim, it is said, born out by the service evaluation. The dealership claims the car was “damaged” but we have no idea what this alleged “damage” is supposed to have consisted of. Here’s where we get into the territory of reasonable inference. Alacsio admits that the car’s condition “…was consistent with that of a vehicle that had driven on a long dirt road…” And according to Alascio, the dealership admitted to him that the car was “in good repair” when returned. What, then, other than “the car was extremely dirty” are we left with as an inference? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/65 "2010-01-05T19:47:03Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Even if we grant everything that the dealership has alleged (that there was damage to the car, etc), how does that make their letter reasonable? None of the tweets is anything other than opinion (dealership sucks) or obvious hyperbole (worst dealership on the planet). By extremely established law, neither of those are libelous. So what other half of the story could make the dealership’s actions appropriate? None. Clearly the libel claim is totally bogus. However, what we don’t know is whether the various bad acts alleged in the letter (the things that make it so amusing) are _also_ bogus or not. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/66 "2010-01-05T19:49:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes it was. > [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a reasonable inference from Alascio’s factual claims: Mrs. Alascio contended at the time of receipt that the car they were initially given “would not be appropriate for use on that kind of terrain”. What sort of vehicle WOULD be appropriate for the damage you contend it sustained (i.e. excessive dirt) - does Hyundai make a car that doesn’t get dirty? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/67 "2010-01-05T19:49:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Exactly. Malthus, imagine this is a Rule 56 hearing. What issues of material fact could Route 60 raise to dodge summary judgement? If you read my previous posts, you will see I’m very strongly of the opinion that this the libel claim is wholly bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/68 "2010-01-05T19:49:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > None. Clearly the libel claim is totally bogus. > > However, what we don’t know is whether the various bad acts alleged in the letter (the things that make it so amusing) are _also_ bogus or not. Personally, I’d like to see the police report of the altercation between Alascio and the employee. Obviously that can’t cover what happened before the officer arrived, but it’s an independently verifiable piece of data. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/69 "2010-01-05T19:51:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s where we get into the territory of reasonable inference. Alacsio admits that the car’s condition “…was consistent with that of a vehicle that had driven on a long dirt road…” And according to Alascio, the dealership admitted to him that the car was “in good repair” when returned. What, then, other than “the car was extremely dirty” are we left with as an inference? Obviously, the dealership would contend that, despite the inspection, the car was in fact damaged in some way. How, we do not know. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/70 "2010-01-05T19:52:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s where we get into the territory of reasonable inference. Alacsio admits that the car’s condition “…was consistent with that of a vehicle that had driven on a long dirt road…” And according to Alascio, the dealership admitted to him that the car was “in good repair” when returned. What, then, other than “the car was extremely dirty” are we left with as an inference? Minor paint chips around the grille, not immediately noticed because they were covered with dirt. Plausible, fits the repair bill, and the appropriate vehicle (truck with grille guard, car with bra of some sort, etc) wouldn’t have suffered said damage. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/71 "2010-01-05T19:53:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s where we get into the territory of reasonable inference. Alacsio admits that the car’s condition “…was consistent with that of a vehicle that had driven on a long dirt road…” And according to Alascio, the dealership admitted to him that the car was “in good repair” when returned. What, then, other than “the car was extremely dirty” are we left with as an inference? Honestly, the only thing I can think of would be that they destroyed the shocks - it wouldn’t be all that apparent at check-in. Maybe some sort of damage to the under-carriage. On the other hand, I believe that “extremely dirty” \*would \*be noticeable when you check it in. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/72 "2010-01-05T19:57:01Z")
But also not “damage.” ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/73 "2010-01-05T19:58:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > None. Clearly the libel claim is totally bogus. Which make it a wholly inappropriate use of the legal system, and one whose backfiring in a publicly humiliating way is a positive social good. Which was my point. 🙂 Even if Alascio was a complete asshole about the initial incident, and the dealership had indeed gone above and beyond the requirements of good customer service, and Alascio’s tweets were utterly unjustified, use of the legal system to try to intimidate him into silence _deserves_ to backfire in this way as a lesson to others. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/74 "2010-01-05T20:01:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But also not “damage.” :rolleyes: You haven’t answered my question, Dio. What car would have been appropriate, as Mrs. Alascio contended? What car doesn’t get dirty, if that’s the only “damage” that would have been sustained? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/75 "2010-01-05T20:12:23Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Which make it a wholly inappropriate use of the legal system, and one whose backfiring in a publicly humiliating way is a positive social good. Which was my point. 🙂 > > Even if Alascio was a complete asshole about the initial incident, and the dealership had indeed gone above and beyond the requirements of good customer service, and Alascio’s tweets were utterly unjustified, use of the legal system to try to intimidate him into silence _deserves_ to backfire in this way as a lesson to others. I don’t disagree that issuing a bogus claim in the hope of intimidating the legally unsophisticated is bad practice, which ought to be discouraged. However, assuming your scenario - that the dealership was actually a paragon of service and Mr. Alascio the asshole here - a lawyer writing a letter full of self-serving lies in the hopes that this will be well-publicised and ruin the dealership’s reputation … is _also_ bad practice. I can see a definite downside in encouraging that sort of thing. Though once again, of course in this case it could be wholly justified: if I was betting, I’d bet that the letter sticks reasonably to the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/76 "2010-01-05T20:15:58Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > :rolleyes: > > You haven’t answered my question, Dio. What car would have been appropriate, as Mrs. Alascio contended? How should I know? You’d have to ask him that. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/77 "2010-01-05T20:19:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > For an accurate, factual record. I think we now see why you aren’t an attorney. Poorly paraphrasing a letter representing one side of the debate, while at the same time totally dismissing anything presented by the other side, is not the same as presenting an accurate, factual record. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/78 "2010-01-05T20:23:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How should I know? You’d have to ask him that. That’s the point - you don’t know. One of the reasons you don’t know is because there is an extremely high chance that “dirt” is not the damage that the dealership is referring to (because it would have been immediately noticed on check-in), nor was “dirt” the issue that Mrs. Alascio was concerned about when receiving the loaner car (because there aren’t other cars that are “more appropriate” to get dirty). However, there ARE cars more appropriate for rough, rural dirt roads. Cars that are less susceptible to damages typical with dirt roads. Damages that are, in fact, NOT “getting dirty”. Like body damage, shock damage, etc. It is not hard to see this. You coming to the conclusion that “dirt” was the likely culprit the dealership got up in arms about (to the extent of filing an insurance claim) is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/79 "2010-01-05T20:28:59Z")
For reference, here’s the Alascio residence in Vero Beach, per White Pages: https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=6350%2B8th%2BSt,%2BVero%2BBeach,%2BIndian%2BRiver,%2BFlorida%2B32966&sll=27.902204,-80.36499&sspn=2.621304,4.224243&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FdlxpQEd5000-w&split=0&hq=&hnear=6350%2B8th%2BSt,%2BVero%2BBeach,%2BIndian%2BRiver,%2BFlorida%2B32966&ll=27.619539,-80.458581&spn=0.001343,0.002063&t=h&z=19 Is that an off-road track to the SW of the house? “Drive it like a rental” indeed… ---
**Author:** ![ducati](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/cc9497/32.png) [@ducati](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ducati)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722/80 "2010-01-05T20:43:48Z")
Now, now. You kids are getting far too serious. Anyway, [this](http://www.txpd.org/TPJ/18/law_disorder.htm)is the best lawyer-letter ever. I still have the original faxes of them that someone sent me in 1999 or so. Becky still practices law in Wyoming to this day. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/awesome-lawyer-letter/523722.md?page=5)