Another article making inaccurate statements (Updated)

An unexpected consequence of the severe ineptitude from some judges in the Michigan Court Of Appeals is that law firms add inaccurate statements of their own when they "discuss" an opinion released by the court. Hereby I reproduce ('as is') the request and clarifications I submitted by email ( and to the attorneys who authored .

Attention attorneys Andrea Johnson and Nickolas Guttman:

This is a request for retraction and removal of your incorrect statements at on October 27, 2017, regarding my lawsuit against Al-Azhar Pacha. Your post contains important inaccuracies and it mischaracterizes other facts.

First and foremost, I didn't send defendant Al-Azhar Pacha "threatening emails". If you read the COA's opinion carefully, on its page 2 it states that "Pacha INTERPRETED the e-mails as direct threats" (uppercase added). Then on page 4 it states that "two emails from Viggers that [Al Pacha] PERCEIVED as a threat" (uppercase added). A defendant's ALLEGATION IN COURT that he "perceived" or "interpreted" something as a threat doesn't mean that the plaintiff sent any threats. Your post, however, falsely asserts the latter. You as attorneys are expected to be more careful with this type of details.

Your post mischaracterizes issues by stating that I "did not tell Pacha or ALPAC about the job offer for months". That statement unduly portrays me as acting in a shady way toward the defendant. This is disproved by the fact that, before I applied for the University's position, defendant Al Pacha allowed me to apply for that position after the [client] University of Michigan persuaded him. See page 1 of the COA's opinion. For relevance and brevity, I won't even elaborate on Al Pacha's history of not getting back (sometimes "for months") to his employee(s) in a timely manner when it relates to the employee's concerns.

The advice given by Al Pacha's attorney (regarding sponsorship for green card) is wrong and outdated. I directed Al Pacha's attention to a recent ruling by the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office that debunks his attorney's advice, but Al Pacha deliberately ignored the information I provided to him. Instead, Al Pacha used (and distorted!) his attorney's wrong advice as context for his false and defamatory accusations. Thus, defendant Al Pacha incurred purposeful avoidance of the truth (and juxtaposition of facts), which courts recognize as proof(s) of actual malice. I addressed this in my briefs, although the COA was too negligent to consider this important aspect of the legal context in this matter.

To avoid duplication of content, I encourage you to read at my other recent posts regarding Al Pacha's actual malice, in response to articles elsewhere discussing the COA's opinion. In my brief to the Michigan Supreme Court (available at ) I address several other matters of fact and of law which the COA fraudulently ignored and distorted. I'm aware that you are not liable for the COA's inaccuracies in its so-called "appellate review", but you ought to refrain from "contributing" additional errors when you write about appellate opinions.

Please be aware that I am also posting the instant request [for retraction and removal] at . Your potential clients and the public deserve to know whether or not you conduct yourselves with honesty after false statement of your own have been disproved.

Kind regards,

Ignacio Viggers

UPDATE on 10/31/2017, 1:29 PM (EST)

Credit where credit is due, attorneys Andrea Johnson and Nickolas Guttman are the first ones to reconsider and make the right decision regarding my denouncement and request. Thank you attorneys Andrea Johnson and Nickolas Guttman.

The virtue of reconsideration is one item clients need to factor when choosing which law firm to retain. Al-Azhar Pacha should have retained lawyers who have the wisdom (like these two attorneys from Zac Firm) that could discourage him from getting in trouble, instead of Al Pacha cornering himself upon his attorneys' advice to essentially keep doubling down.

All other publishers (employers or otherwise) need to understand that false and defamatory statements regarding one's profession are defamatory per se, meaning that no damages need to be proved at all in order to obtain recovery in court. The Michigan Supreme Court recently made to the Court Of Appeals a reminder of that principle: Lakin v. Rund 318 Mich.App. 127; 896 N.W.2d 76, 80 (2016) (citing Mains v. Whiting, 87 Mich. 172, 180; 49 N.W. 559 (1891)). However, the Michigan Court Of Appeals quickly ignored this again, as is reflected in the opinion it released regarding my case.

Michigan is not the only jurisdiction with this principle. My brief in the Michigan Supreme Court (pages 14-16 of my Application for Leave to Appeal) cites legal (and current) precedent from other states/jurisdictions in this regard:
- Torosyan v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 234 Conn. 1, 35 (1995).
- Smith v. Francesco, A170404, Court Of Appeals of Georgia (published June 19,  2017).

Do not be fooled by the appellate panel's severely flawed "review" of my case against Al-Azhar Pacha.

No comments:

Post a Comment