Thank God for early warning systems.
    I’ve just been informed that a major smear bomb is apparently heading my way. The hate bloggers are reportedly drooling over the prospect of blind-siding me with it. I suppose this sort of thing was inevitable, giving everything that has happened in Wareham over the past few months. The recent attempts to once again pin Swifts Beach on Bruce Sauvageau proved just how dirty things will get leading up to April’s election. But I never imagined a smear bomb with my name on it could come from the direction it has been reportedly launched.
    A trusted source has told me Observer Media is about to be hit with another ridiculous lawsuit. I haven’t been served with it, but I’ve been assured it’s on the way any day. No, it’s not anybody directly associated with the library scandal. It’s reportedly coming from the landlord of our former office in Wareham.
    I’m sure my attorney will read me the riot act for writing this column, but there is no way in hell I’m going to sit back and allow this company to be blind-sided like this. Margaret Ishihara, the former attorney for A.D. Makepeace who collected signatures in the failed recall attempt of the selectmen in 2008, is representing my former landlord. This is the same Margaret Ishihara who once personally threatened me with a lawsuit, in writing no less, after I gave her a jeer over what I saw as her conflict of interest in representing A.D. Makepeace during negotiations with the town while she served as deputy town moderator. Lucky for me I still have the letter she sent me. Apparently one good conflict of interest deserves another. A woman who once threatened to sue me in writing is now representing somebody about to sue me. The Massachusetts Bar Association will no doubt be interested to learn that.
    I hate to burst the hate bloggers’ bubble, but I’m going to beat them to the punch this time and tell the absolute truth about this reported lawsuit. According to a source the Observer’s former landlord is claiming we owe him eight months of back rent, from December of 2008 through July of 2009, for a total of $5,600, and that we refuse to pay it. That is a gross distortion of the truth. I’m going to set the record straight on this right now.
    As most of our readers know, the Observer was hit with a ridiculous defamation lawsuit by then-Wareham Police Chief Tommy Joyce in the fall of 2008. After consulting with my attorney, I was told the cost to fight the lawsuit could reach as much as $20,000, depending on how long Joyce tried to stretch things out. I immediately contacted my landlord and told him the situation. I declined to sign a new lease because I was uncertain if the Observer would be able to pay those kinds of legal fees as well as maintain an office. My landlord told me that he was a big supporter of the paper and that he would let things slide for a few months. I thanked him and accepted his very generous offer. I never did sign a lease and my landlord never brought it up again.
    Joyce did, in fact, stretch out the proceedings. In February of last year I told my landlord that I was no longer able to make the rent he was asking and I would be seeking a smaller office. I explained to him that we had filed an Anti-SLAPP claim in the lawsuit, which would require Joyce to pay all court costs and attorney fees if we ultimately prevailed in court. I told him if and when that day came I would pay him for the past three months.
    My landlord said he wanted to help and invited me to stay, providing I paid him back if I won the case. Again I accepted his generous offer.
    In April of last year a Plymouth Superior Court Judge ruled in the Observer’s favor, stating that everything the Observer wrote about Joyce had a reasonable basis in fact. I thought I was finally free of this litigation, but Joyce appealed the amount the judge had awarded me. In June around $3,000 was sliced off the total by the judge. Still I was expecting to receive more than $20,000, $8,000 of which had come from my own pocket and $6,000 of which was still owned to the attorney. That left enough to pay off my landlord and make a big dent in the printing bill.
    But still things dragged on. Additional legal fees had accrued during Joyce’s appeal of the judgment. Then near the end of July Joyce filed an appeal of the verdict. I informed my landlord of this immediately and vacated the premises on Aug. 1.
    At that point it didn’t look like I would see a penny from Joyce for a very long time. My home was in jeopardy. For the previous eight months every dime the company made went toward fighting the lawsuit. In fact, my wife and I had to use our tax return and her yearly bonus to pay the attorney enough to continue representing the Observer. Even after that he was still owed $6,000.
    I had to make a very difficult decision. Under pressure from my wife and my attorney I agreed to accept $12,500 from Joyce instead of $20,000. After paying the attorney his remaining $6,000 (I had no choice; it was in the engagement agreement), that left only $6,500. I felt my wife and I deserved to get that money back. Joyce didn’t just sue the Observer; he sued me as an individual. My wife and I had to spend $8,000 of our own money to fight this frivolous lawsuit. We were still taking a $1,500 hit. If we didn’t recoup at least some of our money I would have had to close the Observer. I was not going to lose my home and there was no way in hell I was going to let Tommy Joyce’s frivolous lawsuit put this paper out of business. I truly believe that was his intention all along. And if he had succeeded the Observer would not have been able to pay its debt in full to the printer or our landlord. I don’t burn people like that. I take my obligations seriously.
    I finally received a check in mid-August. The first order of business was to work out a deal with the printer. We had fallen behind because of the lawsuit so I stuck a deal in which the Observer would pay the entire cost of each weekly edition plus a little bit more to bring down the debt. That has worked out well so far. I hope to be completely clear with them by April.
    After speaking to the printer, I immediately paid a visit to our former landlord. I sat down in his living room and explained the entire situation. I told him of the deal I had reached with the printer, explaining that it was the only way to keep the Observer afloat, which was necessary to pay him what I owed him. I told him I would pay him the extra money I had been paying the printer starting in April, as soon as my printing debt was clear. He told me he was disappointed but said he understood.
    Then I asked him if he was OK. He seemed a little flushed. He then explained to me his mother had passed away that morning.
    Of course I felt terrible. I had no idea. I offered my condolences. He thanked me and asked that I put my offer in writing. I did so and placed the letter in his mailbox the following week. I even wrote a cheer for him, thanking him for being so understanding during such a difficult time.
    I heard nothing from him for several months. A week after the library scandal broke in November I received a certified letter from Ishihara stating that she had been hired to collect $5,600 from me. My jaw nearly hit the floor. I made several attempts to contact my former landlord. I called, stopped by his home several times, and sent him a letter. I received no response.
    I decided not to contact Ishihara because I felt she was engaging in a blatant conflict-of-interest. I thought sooner or later I would reach my former landlord and discover what this was all about. We always seemed to have a pretty good relationship.
    Then on Wednesday I was told he would be filing a lawsuit against the Observer.
    I remain absolutely baffled by this. It just doesn’t make any sense. My former landlord has made no attempt to contact me by phone, mail or e-mail since we spoke in his living room last August. He has not responded to my attempts to reach him. We had a deal. I put it in writing.
    It’s hard not to be cynical. I have always intended to honor our agreement. I am a man of my word. I do know this man attended Bob Brady’s "community meeting" last summer at Wareham Middle School. The fact that the hate bloggers are apparently lying in wait, ready to pounce the second I am served with this lawsuit, does nothing to ease my suspicions. Neither does that fact that Margaret Ishihara is involved when she clearly shouldn’t be.
    I hope I’m wrong. I hope this is just one big misunderstanding. What can I say? Tommy Joyce screwed both of us over. But I've always intended to uphold my part of the deal. If I had the money now I would give it to him. But there's a recession going on. It's tough on everybody. I'm still not making any money doing this.
    The early warning system has been very accurate in the past. If this is indeed the shameless smear bomb it appears to be, it needed to be diffused with the truth immediately.