Response to Shady Promoter's Attorney

"Thank you for your timely response. Please convey to your client Rick Huddleston that for the sake of fairness and truth I am eager to get his side of the story. The other interviews I've conducted, as well as the public records concerning his legal history, certainly don't paint him in a favorable light and I would like the mixed martial arts community to have as accurate a story as possible.

As for your assertion that claims made by myself on my blog are false, your simple declaration that they are false does not make it so - especially when the statements of the injured parties connected to the March 21st Kansas City-area Close Quarter Combat event are considered. Mr. Huddleston did not pay the fighters and the check he wrote to the venue bounced. That sounds like a prima facie "screwing" to me, and clearly not a violation of the "actual malice" standard put forth in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Please explain how it is not a "screwing" and I will be happy to post a retraction.

Concerning your assumption that Sullivan does not apply to Mr. Huddleston as he "is not a public official or public figure", I could point to Associated Press v. Walker, Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, Time, Inc. v Hill, Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell, Rosenbloom v. Metromedia and Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps, which expanded Sullivan's standard to include prominent business leaders and sports figures, affirmed that matters of public interest are a form of protected speech, and placed the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders in proving the alleged falseness of any claims I may make. I could go on but will instead refrain, suffice to say that I still relish the chance to engage Mr. Huddleston and your firm in a battle over First Amendment rights and issues of "freedom of the press".

I look forward to speaking to you - to "clear the air" as you've suggested. Information on Full Contact Fighter is widely available on the Internet.


Sincerely,
MMA Journalist"