Upperdate: Unlike Greg Aymond, I don’t need to alter photographs of him in order to make it appear as if he was a member of the repugnant Ku Klux Klan.
Because, oh look, that’s Greg Aymond- as a grown man- dressed in his ridiculous Klan gown, smiling demurely during a speech by his former hero, David Duke.
Greg, you can alter photos of me all you want, but the people of Central Louisiana know the truth about you. Your stint with the KKK wasn’t some youthful indiscretion; you were an adult whenever you wore those shameful robes. And even then, you tried your best to earn media attention; the record is clear. If you want to atone for that in public and if you truly want to set the record straight, you can’t simply alter photographs of people who criticize you on the facts. That doesn’t work.
Obviously, as you’ve made abundantly clear, you consider yourself to be one of the most brilliant human beings you’ve ever known, but in my opinion, you insult the entire legal profession with your hypocritical, rancid, ad hominem attacks. You prove that you’re no more mature or professional today than you were thirty years ago, and in doing so, you make my point for me.
If this is how you publicly respond to people who challenge or criticize your analysis of a pending court case, then you’re not being an advocate; you’re being a… what was the name of that group that burned crosses in front of churches and hurled intimidating, bigoted speech at their opponents? Remember them? The men wore white dresses and gathered in secret mens-only meetings to talk about how much they hated African-Americans. They were also, like, secret fans of Hitler. You know, the kind of people who believe the noose is a symbol of freedom of expression. Oh, and they hated Catholics too. What were they called?
Ah, yes, Klansmen.
Update: The world apparently revolves around Greg Aymond, who courageously takes the blame for the online coverage of Mr. Slayter’s lawsuit by implying the whole thing is actually about him. This is hilariously pathetic: Greg Aymond Presents The Other Side Of The Story.
Seriously, cry me a river. Mr. Slayter isn’t asking anyone to give away attorney/client information; he’s seeking verification of the identity of a blogger who allegedly engaged in defamation. If you have nothing to hide, then that should be a slam-dunk. Sorry but in my personal opinion, there’s absolutely no way you can credibly duck behind the facade of “privileged communication” while you also, allegedly, actively defame and attack your opponents. Just prove the allegations wrong, refresh your IP address, and move on. Otherwise, you will appear stupid and guilty as hell.
And to Greg, you know the reference about Davenport being a LADB Hearing Officer? Do your homework, moron. He mentions it in his own biography on his own website.
In perhaps the most provocative civil petition of the year in Alexandria, Danny Slayter, the webmaster of LaDads.info and an employee of attorney David Hesser, alleges that Alexandria attorney Thomas D. “Tommy” Davenport should be found guilty of cyberstalking and defamation of character for actions in which Davenport allegedly engaged, both via the Internet and facsimile.
According to Mr. Slayter’s petition, Davenport allegedly used the pseudonym “TheClearTruth” to “make slanderous and defamatory remarks about virtually everyone opposed to him in litigation.” On January 6, 2011, “TheClearTruth” apparently registered as a commenter on The Town Talk, and interestingly, the very next day, www.thecleartruth.com was registered by “The Davenport Firm,” according to Whois records. It’s unclear whether or not “The Davenport Firm” listed as the registrant is, in fact, Mr. Davenport’s law firm, but if you read Mr. Slayter’s petition, there seems to be a compelling reason to explore such an incredible coincidence.
Mr. Slayter also claims that, as webmaster of LaDads.info, the person writing under the name “TheClearTruth” shared the same IP address as a user who registered under the name “TheHappies,” the assumption being that both names belonged to the same person.
I don’t want to be in the business of reprinting or recycling online comments that are obviously defamatory. If you’re interested in Mr. Slayter’s specific allegations, then I recommend you review his petition. It is definitely noteworthy, however, that Mr. Davenport has continually attempted to block subpoenas that would trace the offending IP addresses to a specific end-user, because, as Mr. Slayter’s petition notes, this information could definitely exonerate Mr. Davenport. It’s also noteworthy that Mr. Davenport allegedly has used our local court system to assist in his efforts; this petition clearly implicates Judge Metoyer as allegedly colluding with Mr. Davenport.
This is a blockbuster petition. But even if you dismiss all of the online speculation, Mr. Slayter offers other, hard evidence of Mr. Davenport’s harassment.
When Danny Slayter was a small child– only seven years old– he accidentally shot and killed his father in a hunting accident.
Exhibit B, introduced in Mr. Slayter’s petition:
Judge Metoyer should probably recuse himself of any involvement with any case in which Mr. Davenport is involved, and Mr. Davenport, as a Hearing Officer for the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board, should probably hurry up and prove that this is all a massive conspiracy. Because if it’s not– if Mr. Slayter is justified and right– whoa, wow; it’s not just wrong. It’s evil, and it severely undermines the integrity of the legal profession.
PS: To “TheClearTruth,” whoever you are, I never commented on The Town Talk forums as you allege, and I can prove it.