Stephen Yagman: “Boo-Hoo, This Wetter Hurt My Feeeeewings!”
Stephen Yagman, the ethically challenged civil rights attorney who was recently indicted for tax evasion and money laundering, is apparently not only a valiant defender of the downtrodden, but also a thin-skinned crybaby. He is suing an LAPD detective for writing him a letter gloating about the indictment:
A Venice civil rights attorney indicted this month on tax charges claims in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that a retired LAPD detective who expressed “glee” at the news caused him “extreme emotional distress.”
. . . .
[I]n the new lawsuit, he takes issue with a three-paragraph letter sent to him on June 23 by Jerry Le Frois, who identifies himself in the letter as a past member of the LAPD’s Special Investigations Section — a frequent target of Yagman’s civil rights suits.
“I read with unlimited glee and profound satisfaction, the U.S. Department of Justice press release of the nineteen count indictment. … I would like to wish Mr. Yagman lots of luck after he is convicted and sent to a federal prison,” the letter says. “May you rot in hell, you despicable excuse for a human being.”
Well said, Mr. Le Frois.
Guess what, Mr. Yagman? I read the news with unlimited glee and profound satisfaction myself.
Are you going to sue me, too?
(Thanks to reader Rick W.)
P.S. Isn’t this the free-speech hero who once claimed First Amendment protection for defaming a federal judge (for whom I worked) with false statements, including a blatantly untrue and outrageous accusation that the judge was sometimes “drunk on the bench”? And now he’s suing someone merely for expressing the deeply held opinion that Yagman is “despicable”?
What do you lefties think of your First Amendment champion now?
Geez, if Yagman named everybody who reacted with glee at news of the indictment, there would be sort of a defendant’s class action! Couldn’t be fewer than a couple of thousand attorneys, judges, court personnel and policemen in Los Angeles who had similiar reactions. How’s he going to sue and serve them all?
Mike Myers (290636) — 7/1/2006 @ 1:03 pmIf the “extreme emotional distress” law is going to be extended anywhere, it will be in California. No state’s courts could care less about Due Process and Ex Post Facto laws in the area of torts than California’s. Oh shucks, did I just cause extreme emotional distress in California’s judiciary? Well, if so, my e-mail is on my site link. Just e-mail me your complaint and I will e-mail you back the addresses for filing it and serving it. Offer limited to members of California’s judiciary only.
nk (5e5670) — 7/1/2006 @ 1:07 pmI think all the attorneys, judges, court personnel and policemen in Los Angeles with similar reactions to the detective should write Yagman letters filled with unlimited glee and profound satisfaction at his indictment.
Paul (c169e9) — 7/1/2006 @ 1:17 pmPatrick, is telling somebody in a personal letter that you hope they rot in hell better or worse than saying in a book that four women are enjoying the deaths of their husbands?
And do you think the Jersey Girls would have a justifiable lawsuit against Ann Coulter?
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 7/1/2006 @ 2:04 pmOne of the jokes at work is that getting your feelings hurt ought to qualify you for workman’s comp, at the very least, and perhaps as a permanent Disability. The standard response is that you aren’t supposed to bring your feelings to work in the first place.
Dana (1d5902) — 7/1/2006 @ 2:57 pmAnwyn, I’m quite sensitive, and off-topic snideness not only offends me terribly, it makes me physically nauseous.
Where should I send the summons?
Regards,
Ric Locke (3a972b) — 7/1/2006 @ 7:13 pmRic
*laugh* Off-topic it may be, although there’s a case to be made for “related,” but I actually have no intent to be “snide.” I really want to know where Pat thinks “may you rot in hell” (notice: not “Go to hell!” spoken verbally in anger, but “may you rot in hell” in a considered piece of writing) rates on the scale of “things not to be said.”
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 7/1/2006 @ 7:17 pmI wonder if Mr. Yagman has ever heard of California privilege law (Civil Code § 47) or California’s anti-SLAPP law (Civil Code § 425.16). Hopefully Mr. LeFrois’s attorney is expensive and good, because his fees will end up being paid by Yagman.
NickM (9f37aa) — 7/1/2006 @ 8:13 pmPatterico – I’d never heard of Yagman before seeing him mentioned on your blog (i’m a northern californian, not a southern californian). Suing somebody because they sent you a letter you didn’t like is absurd.
I hope he loses.
aphrael (e7c761) — 7/1/2006 @ 8:19 pmi can’t see how mr. yagman can possibly win this case.
assistant devil's advocate (f369c6) — 7/1/2006 @ 8:34 pmAnwyn:
I don’t think anyone has a case against anyone in either case. Theoretically, the Jerky Girls may have a defamation case against Ann Coulter for publishing an accusation that they enjoyed their husbands’ deaths, when in reality all the enjoyed was the results of their husbands’ deaths. I wouldn’t want to be the attorney charged with making that fine distinction before a jury, but Patterico might. As to Yagman, there is no possibility of a defamation suit, since the letter didn’t allege anything factually incorrect, and in any event wasn’t sent to anyone other than Yagman himself. You can’t harm someone else’s reputation simply by sending hate mail to him; you gotta send it to at least one other person.
Xrlq (5938d1) — 7/1/2006 @ 8:53 pmXrlq, works for me. I just wanted to hear Pat terico comment on the relative levels of insult. Or read, as the case may be.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 7/1/2006 @ 11:22 pmHypocrisy on the part of the left? Obviously there must be some mistake.
Doug Book (2fab13) — 7/3/2006 @ 7:33 pmSomebody post Yagman’s address. I have a few comments I’d like to send him. (chuckling with unlimited glee. My only disappointment is that his address doesn’t begin with U.S. Bureau of Prisons . . (yet)
CStudent (59bfb8) — 7/5/2006 @ 6:27 pmYagman & Yagman & Reichmann & Bloomfield
FB (9afc99) — 7/5/2006 @ 6:46 pm723 Ocean Front Walk
Venice, CA 90291-3270
Phone Number (310) 452-3200
[…] I am hopeful that in the near future we will have some guest posts from Justin Levine — including, very possibly, an exclusive on the Stephen Yagman civil case against the retired LAPD cop who wrote Yagman a letter expressing glee at Yagman’s indictment. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » New Occasional Guest Blogger Justin Levine (421107) — 8/16/2006 @ 6:52 am[…] Thanks to Patterico for letting me guest blog about a case that he turned me on to after posting about it. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Stephen Yagman’s ‘Emotional Distress’ Lawsuit Against Retired Cop Tossed Out Of Court [The Exclusive Inside Story!] (421107) — 8/16/2006 @ 7:27 amI find Mr. Yagman a dispicable individual who is a great insult to the legal community. I hope that he finds plenty more challenged clients in the big house. I personally believe any individual who can attempt to make a case for a felon at the risk of ruining a decent family’s future to reimburse the family of a felon (who I seriously doubt ever truly cared about his two children) is a worthless individual and a huge scab upon the legal community. Unfortunately he will not rot in hell but I hope he has had to truly watch his back in prison because if anybody deserves to be punked out, it is STEPHEN YAGMAN. I hope he has a good day each day in prison. He is right where he belongs. SHAME ON HIM. By the way, I wish that I was on the LAPD and patrolling his usual route because he would have work three jobs to pay off all of his citations that I would issue to him. Let him try to defend himself now.
margie bernard (5f2256) — 6/14/2007 @ 12:59 pmPersonally I think ‘despicable excuse for a human being” was a deliberate understatement by Detective Le Frois of Mr. Yagman’s level of existence. Given his penchant for making life absolutely miserable of any poor officer caught in his self righteous and self serving high powered moral microscope, to say nothing of his underhanded tactics in dealing out “justice” on behalf of some wronged scion of the criminal element I could think of a lot more colorful and precise ways to disparage his character. “Emotional distress” wouldn’t even begin to cover the abuse to his feelings I am sure would result from our little sidebar chat.
For the record Mr. Yagmam you disgust me. You are a prime example of what is wrong with our legal system, and could be a poster boy for the archetypical “scumbag lawyer”. It is my devout hope that you garner as much grief and humiliation from your deplorable conduct as you have heaped on the officers and others who had the dubious pleasure of being crucified (Yagmaned) by you in the past for little more than what amounted to honest mistakes.
Enjoy your time as a guest of the state. You have certainly earned it.
Dave Prescott (ede67b) — 7/12/2007 @ 7:12 am“Karmas a bitch” and all those who are glotting at someone elses misery will get whats coming to them and trust me, thats a promise!
And the rest of will STILL NOT stoop to your disgusting level and say “yeah, or haha etc…”
LAPD police officers/detectives/devils that kill innocent people because they lack the ability to think rationally–remmeber its not only Stephen Yagman or Lynne Stewart that are left to hunt you bastards down and take you out of the police force because types like you do NOT deserve to have a police badge or a gun for that matter!
NOT ALL COPS SUCK but if all you silly, ridiculous people who seem to think every cop is out to benefit us, think again! Untill a cop takes the life of someone you love DONT FUCKING TALK!
Sara (c17fba) — 5/9/2008 @ 5:10 pm