Has 'Lisa' ever read the majority opinion in Barrett v. Rosenthal?

As you might recall, some woman named Jeanmarie Guenot, who lives behind Slim's, got super aggro and 'allegedly' contributed to getting Slim's Liquor License pulled for 10 days over some bullshit.  Serg suggested that "WE EVICT THIS LADY FROM SF."  500+ nerds 'liked' this idea on Facebook.  Now some anonymous person named "Lisa" with a Yahoo! email address is using thinly veiled threats to get us to censor the story.

We're no strangers to threats and cease & desist letters (in fact, this is the third one we're received this month).  Most are so frivolous that we don't bother to give them the time of day.  However, considering this woman's 'alleged' track record of bullying businesses and forcing them to "[spend] more than $250,000 on legal fees" battling ridiculous charges, we think it's noteworthy to publish any threats from this woman or any proxy working on her behalf:

On Mar 27, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Lisa <lisa.*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello – Your, 3-24-11 blog post, CAN WE EVICT THIS LADY FROM SF? is subject to a defamation legal claim. It is not an exercise of free speech to instigate hatred and harassment through false statements, as well as, allow defamatory comments to proliferate. It’s illegal not to mention irresponsible.

If Serg and Uptown were named defendants in such a case, a plaintiff could easily prove you published false statements and painted a misleading picture that Jeanmarie was responsible for Slim’s liquor license suspension. Pointing to another defamation story makes the one pointing as guilty. In addition, the comments allowed to be posted to blogs fall under libel, harassment, and breach of privacy. Ms. Guenot’s private contact information was broadcasted leaving Serg and Uptown liable in the unfortunate event she suffers any incident due to the state of risk to her personal safety and security that these posting have put her in.

Now that it has been brought to your attention that you have published “with fault”, my request to you is to immediately remove the post.

Thanks in advance, Lisa

http://uptownalmanac.com/2011/03/can-we-evict-lady-sf

On March 27, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Kevin J. Montgomery <*@gmail.com> wrote:
Who are you and what's your relation to Jean?

On Mar 27, 2011, at 5:48 PM, Lisa <lisa.*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin - I'm someone who's nicely alerting you that you can prevent facing any costly or otherwise unpleasant ramifications from a defamation claim.
 
As initially mentioned, I'm notifying you that you have published “with fault”, and requesting immediately removal of the CAN WE EVICT THIS LADY FROM SF? post.  
 
The facts are public record and can be verified in the ABC appeals hearing report where two completely different neighbors are noted as the initiators of the complaint that led to Slim’s suspension.  It also notes that Jeanmarie Guenot just happened to be one of several asked by ABC to testified.  This is contrary to your blog post along with a number of other posts that are quickly coming down from those who don't have deep pockets or a budget to invest in building their audience.
 
Proliferating defamation, hatred and harassment has serious consequences for those targeted, as well as, for those defiantly targeting.  Please remove the post.

Sincerely, Lisa

On March 27, 2011, at 9:57 PM, Kevin J. Montgomery <*@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you her lawyer?

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Lisa <lisa.*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. Please confirm that you will remove the post. Thanks, Lisa

On March 27, 2011, at 4:48 PM, Kevin J. Montgomery <*@gmail.com> wrote:
We will take no action until you identify yourself, your relation to Jeanmarie, and why you are taking up this cause.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Lisa <lisa.*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd then suggest you consult an attorney on your exposure, research what constitutes a defamation claim and understand you're choosing to leave yourself, Serg and Uptown vulnerable to costly damages that you were warned could be prevented.

SF Weekly may or may not remove their posts . . . strategically they budget legal defense costs to in return build their audience which ultimately increases their sales. Not so sure it works the same way for Uptown. Check it out, lots of other blogs have quickly removed their posts over the last few days, and perhaps just perhaps for good self preservation reasons.
Please let me know in the next 24 hours if you decide you will take requested action to remove your post. Thanks in advance, Lisa

On March 27, 2011, at 10:46 PM, Kevin J. Montgomery <*@gmail.com> wrote:
See my previous email asking you to identify yourself.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Lisa <lisa.*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kevin - who I am has nothing to do with the "now documented" fact that you've been asked to remove the defamation posts.

In California, a demand retraction is an important step in the legal process and a refusal sets that party up to be liable for damages caused by the defamation claim. Anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the originator—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation Now it's been explicitly brought to your attention and you know.

Take the next few hours to do your research on defamation law and the risks the CAN WE EVICT THIS LADY FROM SF? post poses on you, Serg and Uptown. Ideally, you'll decide the costs to defend yourself against likely legal proceedings are not worth it. If you remove your post today, this email string will go no further.

Thanks in advance, Lisa

Of course, we still do not know who Lisa is, but I firmly believe that this type of approach exemplifies why our city's nightlife and street festivals have gone to shit.

Previously on Uptown Almanac

• CAN WE EVICT THIS LADY FROM SF??