J.M. Raffauf, a lawyer for embattled Rep. Cynthia McKinney, is denying a report that she is suing the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for libel.

"We did not file a lawsuit," Raffauf told me in an interview. "Somebody said it on the internet. It's not true."

As noted below, Editor and Publisher reported that McKinney sued the paper for libel, alleging that Jule 30 editorial got its facts wrong about McKinney's recent tangle with a Capitol Hill cop and about her alleged suggestion that President Bush had known in advance about Sept. 11.

But this morning, AJC deputy editorial page editor Jay Bookman told me that no lawsuit had been filed, and added that they hadn't even received a request for a retraction yet, which is apparently required under Georgia law before a libel suit can be filled.

McKinney attorney Raffauf says that he sent two retraction letters to the paper on Monday, and added that a lawsuit was still possible. "We're going to wait and see if they respond and what they're response is," Raffauf told me.

Read the full text of one of the retraction letters McKinney's lawyer sent to the AJC below:

July 31, 2006 Cynthia Tucker, Editor, Editorial Page Atlanta Journal-Constitution 72 Marietta St. Atlanta GA 30303 John Mellott, Publisher Atlanta Journal-Constitution 72 Marietta St. Atlanta GA 30303 Dear Ms. Tucker and Mr. Mellott: This will inform you that I represent Congresswoman Cynthia A. McKinney. This will inform you that the Sunday, July 30, 2006 column by Cynthia Tucker, Editorial Page Editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, contained the following material that was untrue, defamatory and libelous: 1. Tucker wrote that "she (the Congresswoman) slugged him (the officer) with her cellphone.” This false allegation is not supported by any witness or any other evidence. Additionally, Tucker is maliciously attempting to spin this into a felony by falsely alleging that she assaulted the officer with a deadly weapon. 2. Instead of admitting the fact that the officer used force by grabbing the Congresswoman, Tucker states only that the officer “stopped her." 3. Tucker falsely attempts to attribute words from her father to her by stating that "her father, a spokesman for her campaign." Her father was not a spokesman for the campaign. 4. Tucker wrote of Congresswoman McKinney: "She suggested that President Bush had known in advance about the Sept. 11 attacks but did nothing to stop them so his friends could profit from the ensuing war." The award winning documentary film “American Blackout” definitively exposed this statement by Tucker as false, as the Congresswoman never made this statement even though Tucker continues to assert that she did. 5. Tucker falsely wrote: "She doesn't have the power or prestige to pass a resolution in support of sweetened ice tea." On the contrary, a study has been done that shows that Congresswoman McKinney is more effective than John Lewis, the Congressman that Tucker claims is effective. The Power Rankings by Congress.org show that Congresswoman McKinney ranked number 277 of 435 Congresspersons in legislative effectiveness. She was the highest ranking Georgia democrat followed by Congressman Barrow (337); Congressman Marshall (347); Congressman Scott (367); Congressman Lewis (433); and Congressman Bishop (434). If Congresswoman McKinney was not effective why would the Republicans, the special interests and the Cox media empire be expending so much money and effort to stop her? This letter constitutes a demand under OCGA 51-5-11 for immediate retraction in writing these false and libelous statements. In accordance with OCGA 51-5-11(b)(1)(C) Congresswoman McKinney demands that your retraction and correction be accompanied by an editorial in which you specifically repudiate your libelous statements. Tucker and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution have made these statements maliciously and with intent to injure the Congresswoman in her office and profession. Please govern yourself accordingly. Sincerely, J.M. Raffauf