Ascend Beyond Publishing

1639 Bradley Park Drive Suite 500, PMB 110 Columbus, Georgia 31904
Matthew S. Chan President / Publisher (706) 762-359-0425 (888)696-3441 FAX

January 6, 2012

Bruce S. Rosen c/o MARC 805 Third Ave, 12th Floor New York, New York 10022 FAX: 917-677-8978

Dear Mr. Rosen: I am writing in reply to the Certified Letter you sent to me and Oscar Michelen on behalf of your client, Julie Stewart, shortly before the Christmas weekend. As per the informal email notification I sent you prior to the New Year weekend, I finally had some time to reflect on what you wrote. First, let me say that I understand your current position in writing to Oscar and me. I view your letter as an introductory letter and one that appears to be carefully worded in a way that is respectful but also seeking a desired result for your client. And because this is an introductory letter, I surmise you may not be aware of the entire history of this dispute. I do not believe you have fully read or researched the extensive list of URLs you submitted to us. It simply looks like a 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 take down 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 with your level of experience, credentials, and reputation to actually believe Oscar and I have made any false or defamatory statements about Julie Stewart. I also have to believe that if you made a cursory effort to look into both our professional reputations and what we do, you might have written a far different letter. While we are certainly fallible and can make mistakes, we do make every effort to report accurate information. This was explained to Julie already via my first email reply to her. Keep in mind that our reporting accurate information does not mean we are not allowed to share our personal or professional opinions. While there may be commentary on our forums that could be interpreted as insulting, ridiculing, condescending, or even sophomoric, that is still a far cry from being defamatory or qualifying as actual defamation. Regarding your usage of the word malice towards my intent or actions, I prefer the word/phrases outspoken, annoyance, commitment to principles, and freedom to express 1

opinions. I have never met or spoken to Julie Stewart so it is very difficult to have malice towards someone I have not met or spoken to. Certainly, I feel a great deal of annoyance regarding all the time and energy she has made me expend in the last two months. But being annoyed 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 to engage 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 turncoat and threatening behavior towards a letter recipient that both settled with her (and she profited from) 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 ELI Forums, 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 and phrase legalized extortion as being descriptive terms. We have always used the word in a descriptive, 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 the descriptive term. All of this is quite self-evident to any literate person that actually reads what has been written IN CONTEXT of ELI and the ELI Forums. Regarding the supposed lowered reputation standing of your client, might I suggest that she herself caused much of this so-called damage all by herself? If there have been damages, most of 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 actions and 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 a counter-notification letter to reinstate the original content. Submitted multiple false DMCA complaints to Scribd causing our online account to be reputationally damaged. Again, I had to file counter-notification letters to reinstate the contested content. Inciting other lawyers to engage in harassing behavior against my hosting provider and our Scribd account by filing false DMCA complaints forcing me to file counternotification letters to reinstate that content. Has engaged in sneaky, harassing behavior towards my business associates so that they would influence or coerce me in removing content about her. Contacted a lawyer to speak with Oscar (who does not own or have administrative powers over ELI or ELI Forums) but not me (who does own and have administrative powers). 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 to speak on her behalf. 2

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 into removing posts about her.

In retracing our history of Julie Stewart, she brought the whole thing to light when on November 13, 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 letter recipient sought our assistance by sharing that letter with us. Instead of letting that one post stay buried, Julie sent us an email making outrageous accusations of defamation, libel, and slander with a veiled threat of taking further action. Nevertheless, we responded quickly and professionally and even took additional steps to alleviate some of her concerns although clearly we did not have to. (I have attached a copy of my original reply to her so I do not have to repeat myself.) Had I realized the pointlessness of the exercise to appease her, I would not have even bothered to make 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-scenes scheming and trying to coerce everyone else except me to rally to her cause. I stayed silent because 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 a moratorium on any new topics discussing her or Blackline, and hiding Oscars original response to her to minimize her embarrassment. This was conveyed to her previous attorney via Oscar Michelen. Somehow, this goodwill offer was misunderstood and twisted into a selfperceived settlement offer that she needed to be approved because she declined the offer. It was not a settlement offer of any kind and it did not need to be approved by her. It was simply something we unilaterally decided to do to try to put the dispute behind us. I did it mostly out of consideration for my business associates who had more sympathy for her than I did and they 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 and advocated for her the most was the original letter recipient who paid and settled with her! He has since 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 new incidents, and simply let the discussion threads fall by the wayside by not adding to the existing commentary. 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 get it, there appears to be no point in remaining silent anymore. Julie has been irrationally and unreasonably single-minded in her pursuit to remove all references to her within ELI and the ELI Forums. There is simply no legal cause for me to do so despite what you or Julie might otherwise claim. Julie has taken our continued effort to stay 3

silent as weakness on our part. It has only emboldened her to further action as is self-evident by your letter to me. Given this, your letter on behalf of Julie and my response to you will be made public for all to read. This is not something I want to do but I will not continue to be silent any longer. In the U.S. all citizens have a right to speak out and I will once again be exercising that right to do so. Her hiring you to write your letter has simply opened the Pandoras box further. If I am to be legally harassed and threatened further, I see no point in remaining silent. Your client will not let it go and I stand by my words and I stand by what I do. On a personal note, I have told people over the years I became an independent publisher to have the freedom to publish what I want. My desire for editorial independence is deeply personal. I have a great love and respect for the First Amendment and the Free Press. Only in the U.S., can we enjoy these freedoms. This personal belief extends to my video broadcasting endeavors and forum management style. However, there are two caveats I follow. Tell the truth and report the facts. I am not interested in making up gossip or fake stories. As a businessman, I am not beyond some degree of publicity, sensationalism, and editorializing but I am a big believer in accurate reporting and getting the facts correct. If I go outside reporting the truth and facts, I make it clear what I say or write is opinion, editorial, or satire. And in all forms of communication, I am mindful of CONTEXT. Most lawyers understand this concept also. I state all this not because I want to be on a soapbox. I state this because I am making a very personal stand, believe in my mission, and protecting my rights. And that means I will fight passionately and aggressively defend my rights to write, express freely, and report accurate information even if someone doesnt like it. In regards to my relationship with Oscar Michelen and his involvement with me and ELI, this has been covered many times. Oscar has never had any ownership claim to ELI. He is a voluntary subject matter expert. He has been given full autonomy to participate as much or as little as he wants within ELI and the ELI Forums. He has the freedom to use (or not use) the ELI platform to express his personal and professional opinions. I found it interesting how much time your client has spent in the last two months trying to coerce Oscar into cooperation when he has no legal or administrative rights to ELI or ELI Forums beyond his own user account. Additionally, Julie has gone back to bullying and legally threatening the letter recipient who already paid and settled with her. I can only assume your client is afraid or unable to deal with me. Regarding the ELI Forums, our community members are encouraged to express their feelings, report information, and share comments as long as they do not violate our forum policies to post inaccurate information or to be overly profane, hateful, or malicious. It is certainly very easy for others to request me to take down certain posts they do not like. And although I have the power to do so, I wont do so without a very good reason. Unless there are factual errors or gross violations of forum conduct, I am not going to take down information we have reported and commented on. It takes away from the integrity of what we encourage which is to openly discuss and report on such matters. The ELI Forum community has grown, commands great loyalty and camaraderie because of their trust in the ELI team to be open with them. Even when we were under attack by Julie and her lawyer friends DMCA Complaints and threats of being shutdown, we continued to be open and report on it and the ELI

community stood by us and what we did. They showed support by reaching out to us, adding commentary, increased readership, and additional Paypal donations. Until ELI and the ELI Forums were created in 2008 and when Oscar and I jointly decided to put our faces, names, and reputations to the mission, the shenanigans of the stock photo extortion letter scheme has largely been secretive, underground, unorganized, uninformed, and unreported beyond anonymous complaints. Over the last 3.5 years, Oscar and I have become the most visible advocates and defenders of people receiving such heavy-handed extortion letters. While it may seem that we are targeting Julie, it is simply untrue. If you were to study ELI and the ELI Forums, you will find that Julie is simply one of many lawyers we have discussed in the past and her settlement demand letter is one of many we have openly shared and reported on. And although some lawyers have contacted us to express discontent and disagreement with what we do, once we clarify our position and our intent, all of them have quietly gone away without incident. And because they have quietly gone away, any prior threads of discussion about them have also been buried over time. It is my hopes with this lengthy and detailed letter that you too will see the wisdom in letting this matter finally die. Unfortunately, Julie has gotten far more attention from ELI and its community than any other lawyer (except Oscar, of course) because she continued to attack and harass us with veiled threats and nuisance actions. Until Julie realizes we are committed to our mission, I will continue to fight for our right to openly report, discuss, and comment on the stock photo extortion letter scheme and those who partake in it. Quite frankly, I consider ELI and the ELI Forums part of the free press with the rights to report and editorialize as any other newspaper website can. Let us not forget that Julie at any time could have taken the time to engage our community and posted her side of the story. Instead, we had to hear her story through others and hearsay. By your own writing, in the 3rd paragraph of your letter, she could have stated that herself. It didnt have to be in your letter. As an experienced lawyer, you are expected to do certain things for your client such as warn me, as a potential defendant, of potential legal consequences. You, however, should in turn remind Julie that do I live in the U.S. and the test of defamation, libel, slander, malice, and any other supposed violations will be held to U.S. court standards, not Canadian standards. She should be informed there are specific protections in the U.S. for free press, free speech, open commentary, etc. She should also realize that if she decides to actively pursue and file a lawsuit, there are several non-profit organizations that exist to ensure that my rights to freedom of speech, freedom of reporting, and freedom of information are protected. ELI is part of the reporting, press, and blogging community. Its interests and content are protected by law. The DMCA provides some protections from what other people may independently post. Having said that, I have no tolerance for someone stepping over the line and violate forum policies. I do not need the DMCA to protect me in certain cases because I would intervene beforehand. You should remind Julie that she repeatedly filed false DMCA complaints against my accounts. She clearly did not believe in her position because every DMCA counter-notification letter went unchallenged and the original content was reinstated. While there was no direct financial cost to 5

me, there was a considerable amount of time and energy I had to spend to deal with the aggravating and annoying incidents. (Again, in the interest of not being repetitive, I provided a copy of my counter-notification letters and the negative consequences for knowingly file an illegitimate DMCA complaint.) Julie needs to know that there is a limit to my patience and it has nearly come to an end. I have tried to be sympathetic to her when possible but she has persisted in behaving in a way that is both unreasonable and irrational. I cannot stop her if she does not want to. But I am not going to sit around and continue to be in reactive mode. I could be compelled to take harsher, preemptive measures if she continues to engage in harassing and nuisance behavior. Mr. Rosen, you state the she reserves the right to pursue any legal remedies in a court and jurisdiction of her choosing. You also state that she reserves the right to all causes of action that may have accrued to the point at which she files an action. I believe this works in both directions. Since you made a posturing statement on Julies behalf, it is only fair I make one of my own. As you know, any potential lawsuit opens the potential for a counter-suit. Any request for discovery can also result in the potential for counter-discovery, any direct examination is subject to crossexamination, and so forth. Further, any lawsuit filed against me or ELI would be of public interest. I wonder how the media and public would like for a legally-educated Canadian lawyer trying to silence a legally-uneducated American blogger in the United States, the land of free speech, open reporting, and the First Amendment. We can spar back and forth for the next few weeks and months wasting everyones valuable time or Julie can grow up, get smart, and learn to deal with it. If she continues to harass me, I could be compelled to file a formal written complaint with the Canadian Bar within her jurisdiction. That same complaint I would openly share with the public and online. It is safe to say my complaint would be amplified and not paint her in a flattering light. The very content she asked us to remove would be provided in print and submitted as part of the complaint to explain the CONTEXT of my complaint. And if I were compelled into making a written complaint, there would be more dialog and exposure about Julie and her antics, not less. Might I suggest that Julie read some good articles written by the Canadian law firm, Zvulony & Co. about defamation? I mention them because they are also Hawaiian Art Network lawyers that deal with defamation issues. He provides good insights that Julie might want to consider and reflect upon. http://zvulony.ca/2011/articles/defamation-articles/defamation-in-online-forums/ http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/defamation-articles/if-you-dont-feed-it-it-will-die/ http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/defamation-articles/aurora-mayor-sues-local-bloggers-fordefamation/ As an experienced lawyer, you know that truth is an absolute defense against defamation even if it is damaging. And no one has pointed to anything we have posted that is untrue. The wholesale URL list Julie provided does not qualify. She is seeking an entire sweep-out which is

unreasonable. Embarrassing content does not qualify as defamatory. Having her name associated with our website might be damaging to her reputation but is not defamatory. Towards the end of your letter, you advise us to not delete any computer files due to spoilation of evidence? Without trying to be disrespectful, I find it peculiar how the majority of your letter focuses on making demands on us to remove all the offending posts and links and yet at the very end you advise us to NOT delete any evidence? The truth of the matter is, I never wanted to alter or hide anything on the ELI Forums or Scribd where Julie or Blackline was concerned. I was more than happy to let it all remain open and stay public. It is Julie who keeps trying to have us delete and remove content about her. Any minor alterations we have made were done in favor of her public image, not ours. In fact, you can tell Julie since has the screenshots of the original unedited and unaltered content, I will be happy to post it for her. Quite simply, I want to report and reveal more, not less. I welcome restoring the original unedited and unaltered content. You stated your client has retained the original screenshots. I would advise YOUR client to NOT destroy those screenshots because I would insist they be displayed as Exhibits so that I could prove my original points. If Julie claims to have those screenshots but then refused to show them, then SHE could be accused of spoilation of evidence, not me. Mr. Rosen, you ask us to be advised accordingly that she can take legal action without further warning. Well, the sentiment goes the other way also. I have been extremely patient and quiet while she has continued on with her nuisance campaigns. I could have reported on all the things she did these last two months instead of letting the public and the ELI community think that Julie Stewart disappeared and was long gone. If anything, I am guilty of not telling the ELI community what was truly going on. Quite frankly, I am tired of all the cloak-and-dagger activities. I much prefer to have ELI-related activities out in the open. I know you are doing your job with representing Julie but you should ask yourself if you and your law firms image is well served trying to represent a Canadian lawyer in trying to remove content that she herself created and instigated which could have been entirely avoided without all the bogus DMCA complaints, attacks, inciting lawyers, cloak-and-dagger coercion. Julie is not painting herself in a positive light. And despite your attempts to word your letter carefully, there is no question in my mind that ELI is in a solid position. Julie comes across as a nave lawyer with little or no PR or street experience. Running around threatening people who dont own or control ELI is cowardly, futile, and trying to take advantage of someones legal ignorance. Running around being emotional makes her reputation as a lawyer seem inexperienced, unprofessional and certainly unbecoming. I also respectfully ask that you look more closely at the wholesale set of URLs you submitted before you escalate this matter unnecessarily. What it comes down to is an amateur Canadian lawyer who got blind-sided with the negative publicity and the intense scrutiny of her credentials as a result of her being associated with Hawaiian Art Network. Further, it was her sensitivity, naivet, and lack of PR experience that has gotten her into this PR mess. As hard as you tried otherwise, your letter has simply made it worse for her because I have no intentions of keeping

silent about this. If I am to defend myself, I have every intention of openly recruiting and asking for help wherever it may come. I have no intentions of going it alone. I have no wish for us to be adversaries but just realize that I am not a lawyer. I am not bound by the same rules of conduct lawyers are. I am certainly not smart enough to out-lawyer you or any other lawyer especially one with your credentials and experience. But that does not mean I wont aggressively defend myself and, if necessary, go on the attack. Further, I implicitly believe in justice and that U.S. judges are smart and fair-minded enough to see the truth through the smoke and mirrors Julie is trying to paint. Julies futile and annoying attempts to suppress her information on the ELI Forums have gone on long enough. It must end immediately. I will no longer be silent. If she, you, or anyone else escalates this any further, it will quickly become very unpleasant for everyone concerned. I trust that you can see by my very lengthy letter that I am firm and committed to my position. Further, this letter has gone beyond the call of duty to explain my position, the context, and why we have done what we did. Thank you for your careful attention and reading of my letter. As far as I am concerned, this matter is now closed and resolved. ELI and its team will continue on as we have been. Respectfully,

Matthew Chan Publisher & Editor of ExtortionLetterInfo.com

Attachments: Julie Stewart email complaint to ELI Matthew Chan reply to Julie Stewart DMCA Counter-notification letter to Eapps DMCA Counter-notification letter to Scribd

URGENT - defamatory content on your website

Subject: URGENT - defamatory content on your website From: julie@blacklinelaw.ca Date: 11/13/2011 11:28 AM To: oscarmichelen@gmail.com CC: ma 30060@gmail.com
Mr. Michelen and Mr. Chan, I am a Canadian lawyer who recently represented a professional fine-art photographer and his agent in a copyright infringement claim. The infringing party was a for-profit corporation that used my clients' images without purchasing a license. The cease and desist/ settlement demand letter has been posted in various places associated with your website with the suggestion that it is an 'extortion letter' and publicizes my name as well as my clients name. I have reported it as prohibited content to facebook and Scribd, both in respect of slander, defamation and libel AND copyright infringement. Please confirm that this letter and all references to it will be removed from your website and any associated sites (facebook, Scribd, Twitter, etc.) immediately along with any reference to my name, my business name and my clients name. My clients images are high-quality professional-grade photographs created for professional use. Companies looking for professional-grade images purchase licenses from my client. Professional-grade images come with a price tag because they often cost the photographer money to produce. I work with many photographers, and they can spend hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars, to create their work (i.e., purchasing equipment, paying models, etc.) While I completely understand that it can be upsetting to receive a cease and desist/ settlement demand letter, please also understand that it is equally upsetting to the photographers to find that for-profit companies are using their images without paying for them. It is theft, plain and simple. Yes, it is upsetting to be on the wrong side of the law. Under Canadian law, even if an infringers use of an image was innocent, the infringement subjects them to liability for damages plus the costs of proceeding against them. To prove innocent infringement, you would have to show that you had no reasonable grounds for believing you had infringed a defence rarely accepted by the courts, and difficult to establish for commercial websites. Nevertheless, my clients settlement demands are calculated to assume that infringement is innocent and only include the likely award for damages (the catalogue license price for the size, length and type of use in question) plus the costs of pursuing the claim, including legal fees. In fact, the settlement demand is often significantly lower than the minimum that a court would award as damages for innocent infringement. There is nothing 'extortionist' about requiring the owner of a for-profit commercial website to pay a license fee to a photographer who earns his

1 of 2

11/14/2011 8:35 PM

URGENT - defamatory content on your website

living from his work. It is entirely in line with Canadian copyright infringement law, as it ought to be. My clients are committed to amicable, fair settlement and simply want to get paid for their work as anyone else does. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. I hope that we can resolve this quickly and without me and my clients having to pursue further action. Julie

Julie Stewart Lawyer, Blackline Art + Entertainment Law T: 1-(416)-628-8364 F: 1-(416)-628-8364 www.blacklinelaw.ca This e-mail message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized review, copying, transmittal, use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this message in error. Please immediately notify us by reply or collect telephone call to 1-(416)-628-8364 and destroy this message and any attachments.

2 of 2

11/14/2011 8:35 PM

-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: URGENT - defamatory content on your website Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:54:57 -0500 From: * Matthew Chan * To: julie@blacklinelaw.ca CC: Oscar Michelen Hello Julie, I am surprised that our small posts have caught your attention and that you have taken the time to send us an email on a Sunday morning. Here in the U.S., it is a 3-day holiday weekend. You appear to be very diligent working for yourself or your client, Hawaiian Art, during the weekend. In any case, I will respond to your concerns of your email. As you know by now, ExtortionLetterInfo.com was created to report and serve as a communication outlet and educational resource for those people who wish to discuss and share their experiences and be informed about Stock Photo Industry Settlement Demand Letters. We colloquially call those letters, "extortion letters". While you may disagree with it, you will find we equally apply this term to everyone issuing settlement demand letters. You and Hawaiian Art are not being singled out. In fact, thus far, we consider you and your client relatively minor players thus far as Getty Images is, by far, the "biggest elephant" in the business. The reason settlement demand letters are colloquially called "extortion letters" is because it because it illustrates an ongoing campaign by the stock photo industry to take advantage of end-user ignorance of copyright law and legal process to "compel", "motivate", "incentivize" letter recipients into making payments. As much as we find these letters distasteful, we do recognize it as being legal. We regard the whole letter campaign as "legalized extortion" because it is very much an uneven playing field. Just as your client (Hawaiian Art) has a legal right (through your assistance) to pursue alleged infringers with settlement demand letters, those alleged infringers have a right to be assisted and openly communicate with any entities that would assist them. Settlement Demand Letter recipients are free to share their information with us either privately or in an open forum. We, in turn, can accurately share

information with or without permission. As a general rule, we work with our community members and have their full support and consent to share information we do have. As much as you and Hawaiian Art may prefer to communicate quietly behind the scenes, we have a right to report the information as long as it is accurate. As you requested, I have gone back to re-evaluate specific posts regarding you and Hawaiian Art: 1. Regarding Scribd, there is/was no reference to the copy of your letter as "extortion letter". It is being called the "Blackline Settlement Demand Letter" in which Hawaiian Art is being referred to within the letter. It is a legal document which feel is totally appropriate to the sharing forum Scribd provides. You, of course, have a right to contest this with Scribd. 2. The Twitter post in question cannot be edited. As such, I deleted it altogether because you objected to the phrase "extortion letter" as it relates to your name. While we feel it is EVERYONE's right to openly use that term, we will in the future endeavor to refer to such letters as "settlement demand letters" simply out of professional courtesy. However, you should know through the DMCA, we cannot be held responsible for language used by our community members who may still refer to Settlement Demand Letters as "Extortion Letters". 3. The Facebook post in question could not be edited and was deleted for the same reasons as Point #2. 4. Last, but not least, the original forum post announcing your letter has been amended to "Settlement Demand Letter" replacing the previous term "extortion letter". Again, this was done as a professional courtesy but the thread of discussion will remain. Regarding your accusations of slander, defamation, libel, and copyright infringement, I question whether you truly are a knowledgeable lawyer in the areas you are accusing or if this is just a heavy-handed tactic in attempt to test our legal sensibilities. Quite frankly, I believe the latter is the case. I cannot honestly believe you know so little about slander, defamation, and libel. I cannot speak for Oscar but here are my replies:

A. Regarding defamation, you have to prove what is being said is false. It is quite questionable whether the minimum level of qualification for defamation even exists. In the context of the entire existence and premise of ExtortionLetterInfo.com, which we colloquially use the term "extortion letter" in exchange and in lieu of "settlement demand letter", you may find that term distasteful but it is not false. There was no attack on you or your personal character. In fact, we know very little about you aside from the bio on your website and your letter. Even our community members have not had much to say about you or your practice as you are still a relatively unknown entity. B. Regarding slander, that generally refers to oral / spoken statements. Quite frankly, there have been ZERO oral/spoken statements about you of any kind. So the accusation of slander is outright ridiculous. Until this email, you barely registered in our consciousness much less being spoken about in ANY capacity much less in a way that is damaging to your or your character. C. Regard libel, that refers to written form. Again, does the minimum level of qualification for libel even exist? Does 3 small posts (consisting of at most two sentences) referring to your settlement demand letter even remotely qualify or meet the minimum threshold of falsehood and damaging? It's a blip. Refer to Point #A in whether the term "extortion letter" even qualifies as false. I do not think it is any worse than the statement you made in your email "It is theft, plain and simple. Yes, it is upsetting to be on the wrong side of the law." If you ask me, that is pretty inflammatory for a person in your profession. I wonder how letter recipients would react to you calling them "thieves" and being "on the wrong side of the law". I suppose it might be similar to the way you seem to be offended as being thought of as an "extortionist". (Incidentally, that word almost never is used on a personal level to anyone.) Let us also remember this is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I don't think you are a judge qualified to say who is on "wrong side"? There are simply opposing sides of the argument. D. Regarding copyright infringement, what are you referring to? They copy of your demand letter? Your letter is being used as a method of

direct communication to an alleged infringer. Are you going to sue everyone who made a photocopy of the letter for the purpose of information sharing or defending the case? If you wanted copyright protection for that letter, maybe you should print it in some publication and not actually use it as an instrument of legal communication. Before I close this letter, you may want to advise future clients that trying to squash Internet communications is a futile effort and only makes them look bad. If they are too embarrassed or dislike the negative attention associated with the demand letters, maybe they should revisit how they approach the matter. People are going to talk and fight back, not willingly roll over and succumb to outrageous settlement amounts. In closing, I have acknowledged your concerns and made minor corrective changes as mentioned above as a matter of professional courtesy. We have made no factual errors that we can find. As far as I am concerned this matter is now resolved and closed. Respectfully, Matthew Chan

Intrepid Network Concepts Inc.

1639 Bradley Park Drive Suite 500, PMB 110 Columbus, Georgia 31904
Matthew S. Chan President (706) 341-2575 (888)696-3441 FAX

November 16, 2011 LegalDepartment eAppsHosting 7742SpaldingDrive,Suite363 Norcross,Georgia,USA30092 FAX: (404)6017454

Dear Eapps Legal Dept: This letter is written in response to your notification to me of a DMCA complaint [LEGAL #CGE-424-69119] received about a web page(s) on my website. The page in question is: http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.0.html My response to this complaint is as follows: Allegations of Copyright Violation / Digital Millennium Copyright Act The claims of copyright violation should be rejected because: > The original complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported.

Because of the nature of the material being reported, I have strong belief that the original complainant (who is a copyright lawyer herself) did not simply make an honest error but has knowingly and willfully filed a false DMCA complaint. She has now exposed herself to potential liability as described in 17 USC 512(f). Let me be very clear. It was an email sent directly to me and my lawyer associate, Oscar Michelen. Every email user in the world much less a copyright lawyer knows that business communications for the intended recipient ARE NOT PROTECTED! If you send email to someone, you take the risk of the receiver openly sharing it! Almost every email user in the world knows this! Quite frankly, I find it outrageous that I have to even write this letter given the material being complained about!

This communication to you is a DMCA counter-notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3): I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law. Further, according to 17 USC 512(f), any person who knowingly misrepresents that material is infringing shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys fees incurred by me and other related parties as a result of removing or disabling access to hosting services or other materials claimed to be infringing or in replacing the removed material. My name, address, and telephone number are as follows: Matthew Chan 1639 Bradley Park Dr. Suite 500, PMB 110 Columbus, GA 31904 (762) 359-0425 I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which I reside. I agree to accept service of process from the original complainant. Having received this counter notification, you are now obligated under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to advise the original complainant of this notice, and to allow us to restore the material in dispute (and not take the material down). Please notify me in writing when you receive this counter-notification letter. Please dont hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely,

Matthew Chan President

IntrepidNetworkConceptsInc.
1639BradleyParkDrive Suite500,PMB110 Columbus,Georgia31904
MatthewS.Chan President (706)3412575 (888)6963441FAX

November 16, 2011 Scribd, Inc. Attn: Jason Bentley, Copyright Agent 539 Bryant St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94107 FAX: 415.896.9896 (Attn: Scribd DMCA copyright infringement notification) Dear Mr. Bentley: We regret that a DMCA complaint was made to our account and that you and Scribd have to take time to deal with this matter. While we are not perfect, I can assure you we strive to be good and compliant online citizens with Scribd and every online service we utilize. Because I have not yet been provided a copy of the original complaint, I have assumed the identity of the original complainant is Julie Stewart of Canada. I respectfully request a copy of the original DMCA complaint for my records. You can email it to: matt30060@gmail.com or FAX it to: 888-696-3441. This letter is a formal response to a claim of copyright infringement against one of the documents ((id: 70625769) that Ive uploaded and published on Scribd.com. I believe the claims of copyright infringement are inaccurate and should be rejected because: The complainant has provided no copyright registration information or other tangible evidence that the material in question is in fact copyrighted, and I have a good faith belief that it is not. The allegation of copyright violation is therefore in dispute, and at present unsupported. Becauseofthenatureofthematerialbeingreportedandpriorargumentsweregiveninan earlieremailletterbybothmyselfandNewYorkAttorneyOscarMichelentotheoriginal complainant,Ihavestrongbeliefthattheoriginalcomplainant(whoisacopyrightlawyer herself)didnotsimplymakeanhonesterrorbuthasknowinglyandwillfullyfiledafalse DMCAcomplaint.Unfortunatelyforher,shehasnowpotentiallyexposedherselftoliabilityas describedin17USC512(f). Astheoriginalcomplainantknows,thedisputeddocumentwesharedonScribdwas sent/deliveredbyherselfasalegitimateandlegalbusinesscommunicationtotheoriginal, intendedrecipient.Thatrecipientwaswithinherfullrightsastheintendedrecipientto providehercopytousoranyoneelseforthepurposeofsharingorpublishingofthecontents andmessageswithinthatletter. IthadalreadybeenmadeclearbymyselfandMr.Michelenthatcopyrightprotectionsdonot extendtoactualbusinesscommunications.Certainly,toourknowledgeshehasnotregistered thatbusinesscommunicationletterwithanylegitimatecopyrightregistrationservice.Asa

copyrightlawyerherself,sheshouldrealizeshecouldbeheldtoahigherstandardof knowledgeandconduct. Itisforthereasonoftheegregiouscontentsandmessageswithinthisletterthatthe documentisbeingsuppressedatScribdthroughtheabuseoftheDMCAcomplaintprocess.I findherconductofabusingtheDMCAcomplaintsystembothoutrageousandunbecomingof alawyerofanystateorcountryincludingCanada. Further,Iwillbesharingthiscounternotificationlettertoinformherandothersthatwewill nottoleratepersistentandabusiveandillegitimateDMCAcomplaintsagainstouronline accounts(andconsequentlyouronlinereputation)withScribdoranyotheronlineservice. This communication to you is a DMCA counter notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3): I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law. I also understand that you will provide a copy of counter-notification letter to the original complainant. Further,accordingto17USC512(f),anypersonwhoknowinglymisrepresentsthatmaterialis infringingshallbeliableforanydamages,includingcostsandattorneysfeesincurredbymeand otherrelatedpartiesasaresultofremovingordisablingaccesstohostingservicesorothermaterials claimedtobeinfringingorinreplacingtheremovedmaterial. I ask that Scribd, upon receipt of this counter-notification, restore the material in dispute, unless the complainant files suit against me within ten (10) days, pursuant to 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B). My name, address, and telephone number are: Matthew Chan 1639 Bradley Park Dr. Suite 500, PMB 110 Columbus, GA 31904 Phone: (762) 359-0425 I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which I reside. I agree to accept service of process from the complainant. Having received this counter notification, you are now obligated under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to advise the original complainant of this notice, and restore the material in dispute (and not take the material down again). Sincerely,

Matthew Chan