Scribd

4035 South El Capitan Way, Las Vegas, Nevada 89147 mjr@randazza.com | 702.420.2001

Marc J. Randazza, JD, MAMC, LLM

Licensed in AZ, CA, FL, MA, NV

19 February 2016 CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

Via Email Only Benjamin D. McCoy, Esq. HOWSER, NEWMAN, & BESLEY 1508 Washington Street Columbia, SC 29201 <bmccoy@hnblaw.com>

Re: Daryush Valizadeh adv. Stephanie J. Gari

Dear Mr. McCoy: Thank you for speaking with me yesterday regarding the Roosh adv. S. Jane Gari issue. I am optimistic about your mediation proposal. I have communicated your desire to mediate to my client. While he was initially reluctant, he agreed. That agreement came about in large part because I communicated to him what a reasonable and courteous counterpart you seem to be. I am sure that your professionalism has served you well countless times in the past; you can chalk up another win to it. Given that my client was somewhat difficult to persuade, I would like to offer some suggestions as to how we might continue the trust-building exercise. I am aware that Ms. Gari has made some amendments to her post since hearing from us. For example, she removed the statement “

I’d like to challenge him on that—a challenge he invited

.” And I also note that she has sprinkled the word “

possible

” and “

according to ‘Susan’

” throughout her post. While I see the positive trend there, I think it might be more trust-building if she removed the article from public view until after the mediation, or if she made it very clear that her source is completely un-vetted and unconfirmed, with a link to my client’s online denial. However, I am in no way

demanding

this as a precondition to mediation. I think that doing so would be counterproductive. I merely suggest it as an act of good faith, which we can build upon going forward. I do not wish for my client to seem ungrateful for the small changes that your client has made so far. Her changes could be interpreted as her attempting to

Valizadeh adv. Gari Page 2 of 3

soften her defamation. An alternate interpretation could be that she is misinformed about libel law, and she is attempting to temper her ongoing defamation to fit that misunderstanding. I also note that she has recently publicly posted the following: “I am not stating these claims as absolute fact. I am sharing someone’s story and encouraging people if they have indeed been wronged by this man to report it to proper authorities so a legal process can decide all of this. In libel litigation the following applies, “The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense; the defendant need not verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established.” I am merely stating what someone communicated to me and that these things may have happened, not that they have. The truth is that now two women have contaced [sic] me. I have encouraged them to report their stories to the proper legal authorities. … Additionally, a plaintiff in a libel case must prove malice. I am not being malicious. I am not inciting people to violence or hatred against Roosh. I stand by my comments that his blog and books in parts spout dangerous ideas about how to treat women. I also stand by my call to those who may have been wronged by someone to seek justice. That’s not libel. That’s trying to help someone else who has been too scared to tell her story because she was afraid of the intimidation and the cross-examination and the bullying that often ensues after such accusations are made.” Again, this could be interpreted one of two ways, and I would like to believe that it is simply Ms. Gari’s misunderstanding of the particular nature of defamation law. As she is a layperson, I wouldn’t expect her to have a perfect grasp of the legal subtleties involved. However, if we are going to mediate, I might respectfully suggest that you ask her whether she believes that “doubling down” is the best way to move us along the road to mediation. Now getting us to some real progress: As I mentioned above, my client has agreed, in theory, to mediate. I communicated your preference to stay out of the cold, and I also said that it would be a sign of good faith on our part if we were willing to make the bigger step in travel. My client is not in the United States at this time, and thus will need to make an international flight to the mediation.