The Last Salvo Between MMA Journalist and Shady Promoter's Attorney?

After some back and forth via email, with Shady Promoter's Attorney wanting Full Contact Fighter magazine's mailing address but also expressing a desire to talk on the phone, MMA Journalist received this: "I have provided you information via email and by letter. The letter has been mailed to Full Contact Fighter. Your unethical, egregious, and despicable behavior indicate that a phone conversation would be inappropriate and contrary to my client's and my best interests. I consider this matter concluded."

In turn, I responded with: "No problem. I'm glad to have helped educate you on the law."

According to an automated response, the Shady Promoter's Attorney now blocks my emails. Did a newbie lawyer get in trouble for sending out frivolous cease & desist letters from his daddy's law firm? MMA Journalist can only wonder...

More From Shady Promoter's Attorney

"I have placed a call to my client regarding your interview. He will not be speaking to you directly. However, I will make a few comments on his behalf if he authorizes me to do so. I feel that it is very important to clarify a few points.

1. Shady Kansas City Promotion Trying to Screw One of Fred Ettish's Fighters. (FALSE)
2. "A shady Kansas City-based promotion called CQC, which held an event in the KC area on March 21st, is trying to screw one of Fred Ettish's fighters." (FALSE)

These are both false statements and I have duly notified you, through my cease and desist letter, that these statements are false. I'm glad you cited New York v. Sullivan in your email dated April 6, 2009. That case stated: public officials cannot recover in a defamation suit unless he/she can show the statement was made with "'actual malice' - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." I am telling you for the second time that Rick Huddleston is not trying to screw any fighter. If you continue to publish articles stating that he is, you will be making statements in "reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Furthermore, New York v. Sullivan is only relevant in regard to "government and public officials." Rick Huddleston is not a public official or public figure. He is a private individual.

Ultimately, I would like to speak to you, on behalf of Mr. Huddleston, to clear the air. While I am not at liberty to discuss much of the factual information relating to this case, I have some information that I would like to provide for you. This information should be quite helpful to you in your search for the "truth" in this present matter. I don't know if you have spoken to Mr. Francis or Mr. Kuny (Francis' attorney), but I do not believe it would be ethical for me to reveal all facts relating to the present breach of contract dispute.

In closing, I would like some information from you, in return for the information I will be providing you. You are the editor for Full Contact Fighter Magazine. I would like some information about this publication. Corporate office? Address? Number? In case I ever need to contact you directly.

Sincerely,

Shady Promoter's attorney"