Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Matthew Chan Response to Attorney Bruce Rosen Regarding Julie Stewart of Blackline

Matthew Chan Response to Attorney Bruce Rosen Regarding Julie Stewart of Blackline

Ratings: (0)|Views: 282|Likes:
Matthew Chan writes a lengthy rebuttal to Attorney Bruce Rosen's Certified Letter regarding dispute with Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart of Blackline. Attached with the letter are additional background documents such as past emails and DMCA counter-notification letters relating to Julie Stewart.
Matthew Chan writes a lengthy rebuttal to Attorney Bruce Rosen's Certified Letter regarding dispute with Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart of Blackline. Attached with the letter are additional background documents such as past emails and DMCA counter-notification letters relating to Julie Stewart.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: ExtortionLetterInfo.com on Jan 08, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/13/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
 Ascend Beyond Publishing
1639 Bradley Park DriveSuite 500, PMB 110Columbus, Georgia 31904
 Matthew S. Chan (706) 762-359-0425 President / Publisher (888)696-3441 FAX 
January 6, 2012
Bruce S. Rosenc/o MARC805 Third Ave, 12
th
FloorNew York, New York 10022FAX: 917-677-8978Dear Mr. Rosen:I am writing in reply to the Certified Letter you sent to me and Oscar Michelen on behalf of yourclient, Julie Stewart, shortly before the Christmas weekend. As per the informal emailnotification I sent you prior to the New Year weekend, I finally had some time to reflect on whatyou wrote.First, let me say that I understand your current position in writing to Oscar and me. I view yourletter as an introductory letter and one that appears to be carefully worded in a way that isrespectful but also seeking a desired result for your client. And because this is an introductoryletter, I surmise you may not be aware of the entire history of this dispute. I do not believe youhave fully read or researched the extensive list of URLs you submitted to us. It simply looks likea wholesale list your client prepared which contained her name or some passing reference to her.Simply based on the fact that her name shows up in a post, is nowhere a good reason to takedown a post much less qualifying as a defamatory post.I make these assumptions about you because I find it very difficult to believe that a lawyer withyour level of experience, credentials, and reputation to actually believe Oscar and I have madeany false or defamatory statements about Julie Stewart. I also have to believe that if you made acursory effort to look into both our professional reputations and what we do, you might havewritten a far different letter.While we are certainly fallible and can make mistakes, we do make every effort to reportaccurate information. This was explained to Julie already via my first email reply to her. Keep inmind that our reporting accurate information does not mean we are not allowed to share ourpersonal or professional opinions. While there may be commentary on our forums that could beinterpreted as insulting, ridiculing, condescending, or even sophomoric, that is still a far cry frombeing defamatory or qualifying as actual defamation.Regarding your usage of the word “malice” towards my intent or actions, I prefer theword/phrases “outspoken”, “annoyance”, “commitment to principles”, and “freedom to express
 
2opinions”. I have never met or spoken to Julie Stewart so it is very difficult to have malicetowards someone I have not met or spoken to. Certainly, I feel a great deal of annoyanceregarding all the time and energy she has made me expend in the last two months. But beingannoyed and feeling malice are two very different feelings and intent.You should know that I have come close to reaching out to her twice before she continued toengage in her irrational, self-destructive behavior regarding the handling of this entire debacle.She has revealed herself to be overly emotional and slightly irrational in my view. Her turncoatand threatening behavior towards a letter recipient that both settled with her (and she profitedfrom) who had sympathy for her and advocated for her has been disturbing to hear about.Regarding our use of the word “extortion” within ExtortionLetterInfo.com (ELI), the ELIForums, and her association with that word, that has been explained many times ad nauseum.From the very creation of ELI in 2008, we have defined our use of the word “extortion” andphrase “legalized extortion” as being descriptive terms. We have always used the word in adescriptive, colloquial manner, not the literal definition which conveys a criminal act. Further,two months ago Oscar and I prepared a video that once again explained our use of those terms.You should know that the word “extortionist” almost never comes up as it personalizes thedescriptive term. All of this is quite self-evident to any literate person that actually reads whathas been written IN CONTEXT of ELI and the ELI Forums.Regarding the supposed lowered reputation standing of your client, might I suggest that sheherself caused much of this so-called damage all by herself? If there have been damages, mostof it has been self-inflicted. Despite her supposedly being a knowledgeable Canadian lawyer,she appears to have little or no insight in how to defend her position or reputation. If anything,she has continued to provoke us and the ELI community with her annoying harassment actionsand ongoing legal threats.Thus far, I have had to endure the following:
 
Email accusations that we engaged in defamation, libel, and slander.
 
Submitted a false DMCA complaint to my hosting provider which I challenged with acounter-notification letter to reinstate the original content.
 
Submitted multiple false DMCA complaints to Scribd causing our online account to bereputationally damaged. Again, I had to file counter-notification letters to reinstate thecontested content.
 
Inciting other lawyers to engage in harassing behavior against my hosting provider andour Scribd account by filing false DMCA complaints forcing me to file counter-notification letters to reinstate that content.
 
Has engaged in sneaky, harassing behavior towards my business associates so that theywould influence or coerce me in removing content about her.
 
Contacted a lawyer to “speak” with Oscar (who does not own or have administrativepowers over ELI or ELI Forums) but not me (who does own and have administrativepowers).
 
Making the false assumption that our prior attempts to appease your client were signs of our weakness which seems to have emboldened her to push even further by hiring you tospeak on her behalf.
 
3
 
Remaining silent trying to do the “right thing” as she schemed, called different people,bouncing from person-to-person trying to find someone that could coerce me intoremoving posts about her.In retracing our history of Julie Stewart, she brought the whole thing to light when on November13, 2011, she objected to the one small buried post about her and her settlement demand letter(originally posted on October 28, 2011) where we shared a copy of the business letter she herself sent to a letter recipient accusing him and his company of copyright infringement. The letterrecipient sought our assistance by sharing that letter with us.Instead of letting that one post stay buried, Julie sent us an email making outrageous accusationsof defamation, libel, and slander with a veiled threat of taking “further action”. Nevertheless, weresponded quickly and professionally and even took additional steps to alleviate some of herconcerns although clearly we did not have to. (I have attached a copy of my original reply to herso I do not have to repeat myself.)Had I realized the pointlessness of the exercise to appease her, I would not have even bothered tomake those changes because they were not defamatory to begin with.Until I received your letter two weeks ago, your client has been busy behind-the-scenesscheming and trying to coerce everyone else except me to rally to her cause. I stayed silentbecause she did not address me and hoping that she would grow tired of all her shenanigans.Further, I addressed those issues that were requested of me. And despite my personal objections,I went out of my way to find actions in the spirit of accommodation.I suggested and implemented the lockdown of earlier discussions about Julie and Blackline, put amoratorium on any new topics discussing her or Blackline, and “hiding” Oscar’s originalresponse to her to minimize her embarrassment. This was conveyed to her previous attorney viaOscar Michelen. Somehow, this “goodwill” offer was misunderstood and twisted into a self-perceived settlement offer that she needed to be approved because she “declined” the offer.
Itwas not a settlement offer of any kind and it did not need to be approved by her.
It wassimply something we unilaterally decided to do to try to put the dispute behind us. I did it mostlyout of consideration for my business associates who had more sympathy for her than I did andthey grew tired of her harassment and the nuisance factor.You might be interested to know that the one person who had the MOST sympathy for andadvocated for her the most was the original letter recipient who paid and settled with her! He hassince been “rewarded” by yet more legal threats against him from her.Mr. Rosen, believe me when I tell you I have endeavored to stay quiet, not instigate newincidents, and simply let the discussion threads fall by the wayside by not adding to the existingcommentary. As of this writing, those threads of discussion continue to be locked down.However, since your client cannot seem to leave this well enough alone and appears to not “getit”, there appears to be no point in remaining silent anymore.Julie has been irrationally and unreasonably single-minded in her pursuit to remove allreferences to her within ELI and the ELI Forums. There is simply no legal cause for me to do sodespite what you or Julie might otherwise claim. Julie has taken our continued effort to stay

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->