My Response to Attorney Youmans' Cease and Desist Letter
 |
| Rana Abbas's head, Imad Hamad's hat |
Below is my response to the “Cease and
Desist” Letter of Mr. Youmans. I have added subheadings that were not in the
original letter for ease of reading.
I am writing in response to your Cease
and Desist letter sent by email to my work email. Please have all future
communication sent to [Personal address and email removed]
And since I have a PhD please address
me as Dr. Alkhatib.
On Rana Abbas- Nothing Personal
As you are probably aware, I have
nothing personal against your client Rana Abbas. I have known Rana since 2001
and we considered ourselves good friends until this unfortunate ADC crisis. Our
relationship took a nosedive due to the Imad Hamad and ADC matter that she was
involved with. I admit that in questioning her story, challenging her
credibility, her timing and her motivations I have written entries that are
unflattering to her that may reasonably cause her to be upset- a result that I
sincerely regret and have not intended. It is not my intention to upset anyone
generally let alone her. The key issue here though is that her being upset by
analysis and commentary on a matter largely of her own creation does not make a
claim of defamation.
Blogging ADC
and Imad Hamad
Apart from my full-time job as
political science professor at Murray State University, I have a blog where I
provide commentary, analysis and opinion on Arab Americans, Muslim Americans,
Law and Islam. I have become involved with the ADC matter as soon as it broke
out as an observer and a commentator due to a number of factors among which are
my relationship with Imad Hamad, ADC and my interest in Arab American issues.
Even though it is not material to a defamation claim, it is worth noting that
at no point in time was I motivated by animus toward your client who,
incidentally, was my wife’s best friend and a frequent visitor to our home in Michigan
until this matter unfortunately ended their close friendship.
Rana Abbas: A
limited Public Figure
Your client is a limited public
figure. This is a matter of public concern. I categorically and unequivocally
deny that I defamed your client in any of my blog entries. You refer to my writings
but I am not clear which entry and section you are referencing. I have written
numerous entries on this matter, sometimes more than one on the same day. Some
entries were posted, removed and then reposted at other times. Therefore, dates
are not a good way of pointing out in which entry and how I allegedly defamed
your client. I have also raised the same issues and used the same terms, not
necessarily the ones you single out, in more than one entry. Providing me with
a printout of the specific entries with the alleged defamatory material
highlighted would help me provide you a response that addresses your concerns
fully and accurately.
Defamation
versus Conclusions and Inferences
However, let me hazard a response
based on the limited information you provide. You enumerated three specific
areas of contention. You cite my usage of the words “lies” and “untruths” in my
commentary in my blog entries on the matter. Again it would help if you can
provide a printout. But, generally speaking, whenever I used these terms it was
in the course of commentary/conclusions based on inference and argument based
on the public information available at the time. These were conclusions based
on the available information and my reading, understanding and assessment of
the information. I have made that clear in my blog entries.
My Inference
and Conclusion that Rana Abbas Ghostwrote the Editorial
As to my statement that Rana ghost
wrote the editorial in the Arab American News/Sada Al Watan that was an
inference and a conclusion I drew given my knowledge of who writes for that
paper, my familiarity with Rana’s writing style and given her position as a
Contributing Editor. There is no actual malice here. I did not know nor did I
have reason to know that she, in fact, did not write it. I did not blind myself
to the "truth." I still think and believe she did. No one on the
planet, let alone from the paper, contacted me at any time to challenge my
inference and conclusion and deem my inference/conclusion defamatory of Rana.
The “Daunting
Task” of Meeting the Actual Malice Standard
In writing the blog entries I am
exercising my first amendment rights to comment about issues of public
importance and this is one of them. This is a matter that has received local,
national and international attention due in large measure to the publicity, the
interviews and the public appearances of Rana herself. Rana, as a result of the
ADC/Imad Hamad issue, is a limited public figure and the actual malice standard
applies to her as to the writing on this controversial and admittedly divisive
matter. In order for your client to prevail in a claim of defamation she has to
show by clear and convincing evidence that I made statements with “actual
malice.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964). There is not
a shred of evidence of actual malice on my part let alone clear and convincing
evidence.
Unflattering?
Yes, Defamatory? No
As you know, defamation law cannot be
used to prevent me as a commentator on issues of public interest from drawing
any inferences or from making any arguments or drawing any conclusions based on
available information especially when I make it clear that it is opinion and
commentary. Defamation law and the threat of a defamation lawsuit cannot be
solely premised on the commentary being unflattering to your client.
Again, I would be more fully able to
address your concerns if you provide me with copies of the material I wrote
highlighting the alleged defamatory parts.
Until then I remain
Yours truly,
Ihsan Alkhatib, Esq., PhD
Comments