WASHINGTON, D.C.--Receiving threatening letters from corporate lawyers is “par for the course” for LDI President Douglas R. Scott. But these lawyers do not realize that experience and accuracy are stronger than legal rhetoric.

“Several years ago a lawyer from Canada threatened to sue LDI for placing his computer software company on The Boycott List,” Scott recalled. “The lawyer implied that his corporation had not funded Planned Parenthood and he insisted that we reveal the source of our information.” But LDI was not fazed. “We told the lawyer before he began extradition proceedings he may want to contact Planned Parenthood itself, which was the source of the information.” The corporate lawyer responded by sending free software to LDI and agreeing to stop funding Planned Parenthood.

“I also remember when a large paper company tried to bribe us,” Scott said. He recounted the conversation:

Corporate lawyer: “How about if we give to LDI the same amount of money we give to Planned Parenthood?”

Scott: “Sure. That would be great.”

Corporate lawyer: “So we have an understanding? You will drop us from your Boycott List?”

Scott: “No, but you can still send us the money.”

Needless-to-say, the corporate grant never arrived.

The most recent example was that sent by Blimpie International Inc. Poor, poor Blimpie. It seems the sandwich and salad giant has gone a little stale since it was added to The Boycott List. LDI received a scathing letter from Blimpie’s corporate attorney that was clearly an attempt to intimidate.

In the letter, Leonora C. Seid claimed LDI’s statement that Blimpie had funded Planned Parenthood is “patently false, obviously made without research or substantiation, and designed to bring Blimpie International, Inc. disrepute with some of its consuming public.” (Scott had some questions go through his mind: “Giving to Planned Parenthood can cause a company disrepute with the consuming public? Why is that? Is it something to be ashamed of?”)

“Unfortunately, you are grossly mistaken, which trumps ‘patently false’ every time,” Scott said in his letter to Seid. If she had researched LDI’s website more carefully, Seid would have discovered LDI’s Standards and Policies for placing a corporation on The Boycott List. Under the Standards and Policies, Blimpie qualifies as a boycott target.

“It may interest Seid to know that our source of the information was Planned Parenthood itself,” Scott said. “Planned Parenthood’s Portland, Oregon, affiliate had identified “Blimpie Subs and Salads” as a supporting organization. Moreover, there is a link from Planned Parenthood’s website to none other than that of Blimpie International.” It seems it was not LDI that made a “patently false” and “without research or substantiation” statement.

Seid wrote that as franchisor, Blimpie International “has no legal basis, under its Franchise Agreements, to demand or prohibit Blimpie Franchisee’ affiliations with any organizations.” Scott told Seid that Blimpie International may want to consider a revision of such agreements. “If one of your ‘independent’ franchisees decided to fund the Ku Klux Klan, would a ‘it’s a franchise’ defense be acceptable to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? Would anyone care which specific Blimpie franchise owner had made the donation? If one ‘independent’ franchisee decided to fund the National Rifle Association, would the defense be acceptable to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence? Not a chance. Blimpie International would scramble to make the necessary changes.”

The fact that Blimpie International is a franchise system is immaterial. It is Blimpie International that chooses to give franchise owners the power to fund controversial groups, even though it will reflect on the corporation as a whole. Just as “no man is an island,” no Blimpie Subs and Salads franchise is an island. Franchises could not exist without Blimpie International. LDI’s Standards and Policies, which have existed and stood several challenges for more than a decade, state that if any part of a company supports Planned Parenthood, the entire corporation is subject to boycott.

Seid asked LDI to consider the scenario that one of our supporters wished to purchase a Blimpie franchise. Such a supporter would be “coerced to disassociate” from LDI. Not quite. “We can say with great confidence that not even one LDI supporter would enter into such an agreement with Blimpie International. In other words, our supporters would choose to disassociate from Blimpie, not LDI.” Scott noted that LDI has had occasion to work with supporters who already had a franchise from corporations that later became boycott targets. In every case the persons continued to support LDI while lobbying those within the company to end such controversial practices. “Seid underestimates the commitment of people who believe that killing unborn human beings is wrong.” Scott said.

The Blimpie lawyer made several demands:

We will give Life Decisions International the benefit of the doubt that it never intended to publicly ascribe to Blimpie International Inc. or its system of Blimpie franchisees, acts having no basis in truth, and that it will, upon receipt of this notice, promptly, voluntarily and publicly, (1) remove Blimpie International Inc. from The Boycott List; (2) remove Blimpie International Inc. from the LDI Website; (3) issue a clearly stated retraction of the identification of Blimpie International Inc. as a business to be boycotted (i) immediately on the Website; (ii) in the next published hard copy of The Boycott List; and (iii) in all other forms of public communications directed to members or supporters concerning boycott activity. Certainly, with notice of your misstatement, your legal responsibility is clear.

Seid mentioned the consequences to LDI, as though she was the first corporate mouthpiece to threaten us. “Failure to confirm to the understanding in writing that you have taken corrective action within five (5) business days shall compel Blimpie International, Inc. to take legal action to protect its business interests and the business interests of its franchisees,” she wrote. Needless-to-say, LDI will not be meeting any of Blimpie International’s demands. This is particularly true since LDI has not made a “misstatement.” Bottom line: corporate lawyer intimidation attempt fails once again.

“Corporate lawyers may say or do whatever they like,” Scott said. “But the fact is that LDI does not print erroneous material and have never made an accusation we did not stand behind. Our reputation is everything. The sooner the lawyers realize this fact, the sooner we can get down to the business of getting their corporation dropped as a boycott target.”