if that's true, that the site is owned by they lawyer, that's even more bizarre, because, as a lawyer, shouldn't he, the site owner, be aware of the fact that stealing art from an artist is THEFT and therefore unlawful? Shouldn't he know from, you know, practicing law and stuff, that this kind of shit is a huge gray area at best, and a legal quagmire if he provokes an artist who isn't going to be intimidated by him?

And when he gets spanked by the artist he stole from, who is very prominently unafraid and unintimidated, shouldn't the owner/lawyer, as a practicer of a law, know it's in the best interest of all things legal with regards to his site to just, you know, cut his losses and try to bury that it ever happened, instead of trying to reopen the issue again and again?

I mean, I know egos are rampant everywhere, but... wouldn't a practicing attorney be kind of aware of what kind of legal shit he can get himself into if his target proves to have enough of a spine to not be intimidated by his shit?

IF the lawyer is the owner of the site, I gotta ask if the guy is really a lawyer, as it sounds like a real conflict of interest to me. Is he actively practicing law? Or did he go to law school and then fail to pass the bar, and so possibly the site is one of a number of things he tried to drum up some money to pay his law school debts...? And then things went all pear-shaped and distorted further from there...?

If the lawyer isn't actually part of the site... why on earth would he take such a case?

It's really bizarre, if the site is actually owned by the lawyer, because the site's actions from the out-set border on unlawful, and it seems to me like a lawyer really shouldn't want to get caught up in the wrong side of law practice... wouldn't a huge conflict of interest be grounds for being disbarred?