ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: Matthew Chan on January 08, 2012, 05:57:05 PM
-
It is with great frustration that I am forced to post this letter. I have tried to stay quiet hoping Canadian lawyer, Julie Stewart of Blackline, would go away but I have been left with no choice but to once again, go public.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77577448/Attorney-Bruce-Rosen-representing-Julie-Stewart-of-Blackline-Sends-Certified-Letter-to-ELI
Although the ELI Defense Team have been intentionally silent here on the ELI Forums regarding her ongoing dispute and harassment with ELI, she has continued to engage in harassing and legally threatening behavior of people that work with me on the ELI project.
I have heard through the grapevine she has no intentions of giving up her legal threats and attacks against ELI. And so, I have decided to openly and publicly fight back. When you read my letter, you will understand my position and why I have decided come out overriding recommendations that I continue to stay quiet.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77577916/Matthew-Chan-Response-to-Attorney-Bruce-Rosen-Regarding-Julie-Stewart-of-Blackline
One of the things I tell everyone is "don't try to out-lawyer a lawyer" and I am not try to now. Given that, I wrote a very lengthy and detailed response to Bruce Rosen appealing to his good lawyerly experience and sense. But Julie may not listen. He may force Bruce Rosen to move forward, in which case, it is going to get very ugly and messy. Or she will move on to another lawyer. Hopefully, Julie will not compel me to open this up further because I have a lot more to say if forced to.
As I have frequently said, I may not always win a fight but my opponents will know they will have been in one. Here are a few nuggets of how I operate if pushed up against the wall: "Two eyes for one eye" "Scorched earth"
Right now, I am annoyed. I am not pissed..... yet. I really don't want to be pissed but it probably won't take much more to push me over the edge.
-
The entire text of my letter to Bruce Rosen begins here. Unfortunately, the forum software allows a maximum of 20,000 characters and I am forced to break my letter into two parts.
=======
BEGIN PART 1
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 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 counter-notification 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.
• 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” Oscar’s 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 self-perceived 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 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 Pandora’s 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 doesn’t 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 won’t 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 didn’t 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 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 Julie’s 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 cross-examination, 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 everyone’s 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.
END PART 1, Continued in Part 2
-
The last part of my letter to Attorney Bruce Rosen.
===============
BEGIN Part 2
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-for-defamation/
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 firm’s 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 naïve lawyer with little or no PR or “street” experience. Running around threatening people who don’t own or control ELI is cowardly, futile, and trying to take advantage of someone’s 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, naiveté, 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 won’t 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.
Julie’s 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
-
This is so unfortunate Matt, and I'm very sorry that you have to deal with this! It is just one more reason that I feel compelled to continue to try and help here if I can. You obviously have much bigger fish to fry!
-
This is so unfortunate Matt, and I'm very sorry that you have to deal with this! It is just one more reason that I feel compelled to continue to try and help here if I can. You obviously have much bigger fish to fry!
Well I'm sure I can speak for the entire ELI Team, we certainly appreciate your willingness to help, share and educate others.. As for Matt having bigger fish to fry, this has turned into a time sucking nuisance, and Julie Stewart from Blackline Entertainment Law is dipping herself into the fryer. This was well behind us here on the forum, Matt has practically bent over backwards to appease her, only to have it brought up again..
Gotta love the Zvulony links that were referenced..
"In some cases responding to the defamation may actually amplify the defamation. Truth is always a defence to defamation and in a case where the person who made the libellous comments strongly believes that they are true, it may be wise to let the fire die without feeding the conflict by responding."
For whats it worth in my opinion there has been nothing stated that is defamatory, libelous, or slanderous, at most some opinions were posted that may have not been exactly flattering to Julie Stewart, but they are just that opinions.. I'm sure I'll have more to add as I digest all of this and have some time to sift thru all of those links..
-
Thanks for understanding Peeved. I do focus on bigger-picture issues to expand ELI's presence and influence. I don't want to reveal my hand on every issue but despite all the changes and upgrades these last months, there are more developments coming.
ELI has grown into a team effort with many different moving pieces. It is nice that Oscar and I have don't have to monitor the forums as closely as we used to. It is also nice that people don't have to rely on us to answer posts as in the past.
The one thing that motivates me a lot is how so many of you have stepped up to be involved in these forums without even being asked. We have new names such as yourself that appear trying to contribute where you can. I also notice Lucia contributing more where she can. I am trying to keep a pulse on what is going on.
I think it is awesome that so many people continue to contribute your time to learn, get educated, and give back.
Thanks.
This is so unfortunate Matt, and I'm very sorry that you have to deal with this! It is just one more reason that I feel compelled to continue to try and help here if I can. You obviously have much bigger fish to fry!
-
I'd like to offer an expression of support to the team.
The letter from Ms Stewart's attorney follows the same mold of emotional warfare that the extortion/demand letters do.
Often, the claims don't have much basis in legal terms, but are carefully crafted to intimidate the reader.
It's "you do as we say, then you'll feel better and can sleep at night". That's why the term "extortion letter" was coined.
I know that this approach is what blindsides many letter recipients; in most cases not much damage has actually been done, but the pressure put on the recipient is tremendous.
Matt has written a great response, and I can't think of much to add.
I must say that the attention the ELI is receiving must be in some ways flattering. ELI is working, that's for sure.
We should all be concerned when attempts are made to sweep legal matters under the rug, so to speak.
It's quite clear that some wish to operate in secrecy, and this is quite telling.
One thing is for sure, the more experienced and seasoned the legal team, the less they comment publicly or try to suppress their actions from public view.
I would imagine that most law practices have a policy of public relations that doesn't vilify the reporting media.
In fact, the smart firms know how to work with the media in order to foster a better understanding of their issues.
I didn't realize that Ms Stewart was so upset about all this.
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/9508/reactionupset.jpg
S.G.
-
Two pertinent points...
First, you touched on this, but there are pretty serious consequences for issuing a false DMCA copyright notice. And I know you cannot claim copyright over a letter someone else wrote. I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that is a big boo-boo.
Second, the more Ms Stewart continues on this course, the more it damages her reputation online. Google "Julie Stewart Blackline Entertainment Law." Her site is fifth with this whole ELI thing above it. If I were to offer a bit of advice, I'd suggest that her best move would be to offer Matt an apology and optimize her own web presence.
-
yes a little optimizing would go a long way..
http://youtu.be/H-VKGwwvsSo
-
Matt--
INAL. But I think malice is a term of art in law. Rosen used it because I suspect he knows that many judges would interpret discussion of what those writing the letters wish to be called 'settlement demand' and those receiving them view as extortion to be a matter of public concern. (The judge in the advernet case said as much.) This means at least in the US Julie Stewart's threshold for winning a defamation suit is higher than might otherwise be so. Specifically:
. Public Officials/Public Figures: Actual Malice must be proven.
The First Amendment requires that a defamation plaintiff prove actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth when the plaintiff is a public official or public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a much higher burden of proof for a public figure plaintiff. Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This allows the defendant to prove its good faith intent and efforts as a defense.
I haven't looked through all the links-- and anyway I'm not an attorney. But it seems to me that the courts do interpret language as it is spoken. It would be difficult to imagine that any judge would interpret the term "legalized extortion" as describing any sort of crime.
-
I have looked thru every link, Matt speaks the truth when he states Julie Stewart is attempting to completely clear her name or reference to her off the forums...for example this::
The following post was published on the ELI Forum as:
“Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart has Never Tried an IP Case that I can
find...” on November 14, 2011, 01:21:28 AM
The post, which currently remains on the ELI Forum, can be accessed by way
of the following links:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2352.0.html
There are only 2 people involved in this discussion and neither one of them are Matthew or Oscar, just a couple of off the cuff comments, results of some research, and an invite for Julie Stewart to freely post correct information if what was found (or not found) is indeed incorrect.
-
Look at what Facebook sent me tonight. Was my letter "hateful?" This is getting ridiculous. Obviously, I can only have happy thoughts on Facebook. So, fine, I will stick to happy posts only. God forbid I should openly explain my frustration and aggravation.
==============================
Subject: Facebook Warning
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:36:50 -0800
From: Facebook <notification+kvku7vi@facebookmail.com>
Reply-To: Facebook <notification+kvku7vi@facebookmail.com>
To: matt
Hello,
You posted an item that violated our Terms of Use and this item has been removed. Among other things, content that is hateful, threatening or obscene is not allowed, nor is content that attacks an individual or group. Continued misuse of Facebook's features could result in your account being disabled. <br><br>If you have any questions or concerns, please visit our Help Centre.
The Facebook Team
==================
We removed content you posted
We removed the following content you posted or were the admin of because it violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:
Matthew Chan writes a lengthy, detailed rebuttal to Attorney Bruce Rosen's Letter Regarding Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart of Blackline.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77577916/Matthew-Chan-Response-to-Attorney-Bruce-Rosen-Regarding-Julie-Stewart-of-Blackline
-
So, Facebook advises me to read through these community standards so I don't violate them again. Anybody want to speculate how my letter to Bruce Rosen violated this?
http://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/
It couldn't be bullying, could it? It can't be harassment because I didn't start this nonsense. If anything, i am being harassed. Or is it because I said I might report her to the Canadian Bar for harassing the ELI site with bogus complaints?
-
What you have to understand is that Julie Stewart of Blackline Entertainment Law based out of of Toronto is really attempting to clean up the bad online reputation that has resulted mainly because of her own actions. Unfortunatley a few generic and dare I say it "cheesy" articles that are fed to 100's of sites, and complaining to the likes of facebook, scribd and who knows who else, is really not helping the cause. She would be better served to focus on her law practice...
-
Facebook is known for being quite draconian when it comes to user complaints/ their user agreement.
I doubt that any human actually reads/views content that's the subject of a complaint; it's simply removed automatically.
If the other party makes a counter-argument, then a person might look at it. Yes, I said "might".
These days, many of the people who use "social media" consider themselves "skilled marketers" simply because they can set up a profile, and use the basic features of a the system.
But, nothing could be further from the truth. Skilled marketing/public relations takes many years to master.
Additionally, it's much easier to carefully foster a good reputation, than to attempt "damage control" later on.
I suspect that even lawyers are having a hard time finding work these days.
That's understandable given these times, but taking on legal cases that appear to be an obvious fraud is going to attract unwanted attention.
In addition, she's made false claims through the US DMCA. This is illegal. So, I really question her moral compass.
I think that Julie Stewart is making huge mistakes in her public relations by meeting any criticism, or even mention of her name with claims of "slander", "libel", and "anything that I write is copyright".
I personally don't think that she's in the correct profession for her.
At the very least, she should try practicing family law (wills, real estate, etc.). She doesn't have the stomach for what she is doing now.
Most people don't believe that lawyers have some sort of "powers" to abuse the system, and bully people.
Anybody, and I mean anybody can hire a lawyer, send letters, make bogus claims and intimidate.
Ms Stewart isn't "special", and has no "special powers" or privilege.
S.G.
-
I have a suggestion.
Remember that scene at the end of the movie "War Games"? The computer looks at all the available scenarios for a global nuclear war and says, "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play." I think that is applicable here.
Rather than try and figure out what FB's rationale was, rather than get too caught up in her efforts to fix the damage she herself has caused, let it go. Focus on your primary objective, chalk this up as a "win" and move on to the bigger issue of defeating the copyright trolls.
-
I'm quite enjoying the most exquisite "butthurt" that I detect, though.
It goes well "with some fava beans and a nice Chianti."
I'm savoring it like a fine apéritif.
S.G.
-
SG,
I think you are trying to bait me. But I just couldn't let your comments go unanswered. ;)
Let me be clear. I have run into some really, stupid lawyers over the years that had the spine of a jellyfish and the street smarts of an adolescent but Julie takes the prize.
She is a blooming idiot that has no credibility or reputation-building or engagement skills. She knows how to send threatening letters but her actions show how truly ignorant she is in these matters. Her bogus DMCA complaints against us could not be unchallenged, nor could I be silent about it.
She wants to be in Entertainment Law but has embarrassingly little experience on Internet or Social Media. Her resume smells of a liberal environmentalist not fit for actual "street fighting". A college kid would have more savvy than she has.
So, she got rid of that one little innocuous Facebook post about my rebuttal letter to Bruce Rosen. Fine, I will endeavor to share more happy news on Facebook. Boo-hoo, she keeps trying to hide what has happened when all she has done is add to the story. In fact, I am going to write a short outline and chronology because I am losing track of the various attacks and harassment.
And if I am ever compelled to deal with this in front of a judge, I will have the entire drama laid out neatly for him.
I am getting very tired of bullying lawyers that make threats they cannot legally support. It seems they want to test if Oscar and I will take our "stupid pills". I may take a "stupid pill" one day but not this month. One of my projects is to one day write an article or booklet about how ordinary citizens can fight back against bullying lawyers.
Lawyers do have some extra "powers" but there are plenty forms of "kryptonite" to use if need be to combat them and put a world of "butthurt" on them.
Every single threatening letter she sent us has been met with an equally strong rebuttal. Attempting to squash the truth will only force it out more.
I really don't want to get pissed off. If people think I am prolific with my words now that I am irritated and annoyed, they will have no idea how much content that can spill out of me if when I can truly pissed and go into angry, fighting mode.
As David Bruce Banner often said, "Please don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry". Cue soundtrack music.
Facebook is known for being quite draconian when it comes to user complaints/ their user agreement.
I doubt that any human actually reads/views content that's the subject of a complaint; it's simply removed automatically.
If the other party makes a counter-argument, then a person might look at it. Yes, I said "might".
These days, many of the people who use "social media" consider themselves "skilled marketers" simply because they can set up a profile, and use the basic features of a the system.
But, nothing could be further from the truth. Skilled marketing/public relations takes many years to master.
Additionally, it's much easier to carefully foster a good reputation, than to attempt "damage control" later on.
I suspect that even lawyers are having a hard time finding work these days.
That's understandable given these times, but taking on legal cases that appear to be an obvious fraud is going to attract unwanted attention.
In addition, she's made false claims through the US DMCA. This is illegal. So, I really question her moral compass.
I think that Julie Stewart is making huge mistakes in her public relations by meeting any criticism, or even mention of her name with claims of "slander", "libel", and "anything that I write is copyright".
I personally don't think that she's in the correct profession for her.
At the very least, she should try practicing family law (wills, real estate, etc.). She doesn't have the stomach for what she is doing now.
Most people don't believe that lawyers have some sort of "powers" to abuse the system, and bully people.
Anybody, and I mean anybody can hire a lawyer, send letters, make bogus claims and intimidate.
Ms Stewart isn't "special", and has no "special powers" or privilege.
S.G.
-
I created a new public service video with some sanitized search phrases about a very "unique" lawyer from Toronto. It is about time people keep up with the ongoing saga of Julie Stewart/Blackline vs. ELI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZMUhEnyiZQ
-
I stupidly thought that Julie might come to her senses and would give up in trying to have us remove content about her. I stayed quiet for a long time hoping she would go away. But she has proven me wrong so I caved in and spent the time to create a Chronology of Events.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/toronto-lawyer-julie-stewart-vs-eli-chronology-of-events/
Even after Bruce Rosen's letter, she had to get petty and file a complaint about our Facebook Page and ding yet another social media account. That means it won't be long before she starts digging into all the other ELI accounts and filing reports against our accounts. So, every time she scores a winning hit, I will document her "successes" and "wins" against ELI. We will keep score, blow by blow, play by play. Everyone else can enjoy the show.
The good news for Julie is that she will eventually force us to sanitize every reference and entry on her EXCEPT the ELI Home Bases: The ELI Site & the ELI Forums.
There have been too many things that have happened between ELI and Julie since October and I cannot track all of the dates, people, threats made, actions taken, rebuttals, gossip, and dramatic events (large and small).
As promised, I wrote a Chronology of Events based on my email records, communication trail, ELI Forum posts, and my memory recollection. I started with the easier items and major events and started "filling in holes". There are still holes in the Chronology but I will fill them in as my memory is jogged. Of course, I am happy for the ELI community to scrutinize it in detail to make sure I get all the dates and sequence correct.
I left out much of the commentary and editorializing that I normally do simply to keep it tight and to the point.
Last thing.... Julie hates ELI using her name on the forum so I am kicking around the idea of using an alternative name. An interesting anagram for a FEmale CAnadian Lawyer is F.E.C.A.L? So if we discuss issues regarding Juile, we can refer to them as "FECAL Matters".
-
Please include monies for a new keyboard in my salary, as mine is now soaked with hot steaming coffee! :o ;D 8)
-
The good news for Julie is that she will eventually force us to sanitize every reference and entry on her EXCEPT the ELI Home Bases: The ELI Site & the ELI Forums.
She'll be hard pressed to sanitize every reference of her, I just stumbled upon this.
(http://palmbeachdns.com/julie_stewart1.jpg)
Looks like these little clips are making the rounds..
-
While we do sometimes have some "fun" here, all that's really being done is the reporting of factual, publicly available information.
We all would like to be seen as "pillars of the community", and "artistic types" want to be seen as "edgy and deep".
However, the entire "copyright trolling" issue is quite controversial to begin with, and lawyer Julie Stewart's involvement with H.A.N., including her reactions to factual reporting are noteworthy.
I really believe in the concept of "Occam's Razor", that is, the simplest explanation is the usually the best one.
It's pretty obvious that H.A.N./Tylor seed their images online to induce copyright infringements.
In the face of weak claims and non-existent legal standing in almost every case, it seems that some wish to suppress the reporting of the issues.
This isn't North Korea. People can't tell us what we can and can't talk about. Things could be much worse.
If I got an extortion letter from lawyer Julie Stewart over those deliberately seeded H.A.N. photos, I'd have my PR machine up and running in seven days.
That would include a website called "canadianlawyerjuliestewart.tv" hosted "offshore", with domain privacy in place.
This site would include all publicly available information about lawyer Julie Stewart that can be shown to be factual.
I would also institute pay-per-click ads "Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart" that direct traffic to my site.
I would place sufficiently high bids so that the pay per-click ads would stay "on top".
Even if I was outbid somehow, my ads would be at least second.
Everything would be "legal" so as to ensure that any legal efforts to suppress information about Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart would be met with a prompt and successful legal response.
Further efforts would be to involve national media if things escalate. Blogs would link to my site, and the traffic would keep it on top in the search listings.
Again, things could be much worse for those who intend to prevent people from discussing the issues and people involved.
I'm going to make my own "Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart" video, but "Adagio for Strings" (from Platoon) is copyrighted, and I have to find some other tragic-fail sounding music for my clip about her.
S.G.
-
We must be careful if we adopt this anagram, we must continue to report the facts, and not just talk $h!t...
-
We must be careful if we adopt this anagram, we must continue to report the facts, and not just talk $h!t...
Couldn't agree more with regard to the "facts" and as long as we are talking "facts", I don't see why we need an "anagram".
btw..it looks like that screen shot is no longer as I could not pull up the link.
-
no it's there, but the URL was cut off in the screen capture.
http://www.firstpost.com/topic/place/toronto-toronto-lawyer-julie-stewart-of-blackline-entertainment-law-video-CZMUhEnyiZQ-73-1.html
-
Absolutely correct on all counts quoted.
I would be the first to admit we have a slight bias because we are taking a position. Nevertheless, amongst our speculations, we do endeavor to stick to the facts. And with very few exceptions, Oscar and I have never had to take down any information because it was wrong or inaccurate.
It's sort of interesting how ELI is evolving into a mini version of a niche news reporting site. It used to be just "helping" people with their letters by pointing people into the right direction and providing some education. And while that still happens, it seems that that the ELI community has gone "proactive" by seeking out information and developments of interest. And many ELI Forum contributors bring in interesting nuggets to the overall conversation.
Of course, no one could ever have guessed that ELI would become part of the news it reports and comments on. I guess we have the various opposing lawyers to thank for that as they come one-by-one complaining and making bogus allegations. ELI has to self-report the news because we are too small and nichey for anyone else to care. LOL.
But even then, most of those incidents were simply small blippy events that came and gone fairly quickly. But since our favorite F.E.C.A.L (FEmale CAnadian Lawyer) came along, she is an ongoing news story all to herself full of drama that we could not have possibly created by ourselves. And yes, it is quite news-worthy.
And yes, it could be FAR, FAR worse but FECAL just doesn't get it. Your very impressive online combat strategy that you so kindly shared is one such scenario. Right now, I am sticking to very light "2 for 1 eyeball specials". Every time ELI gets poked in the eye, there will be 2 pokes back.
Last thing, I cannot wait to see the video you come up with.
While we do sometimes have some "fun" here, all that's really being done is the reporting of factual, publicly available information.
However, the entire "copyright trolling" issue is quite controversial to begin with, and lawyer Julie Stewart's involvement with H.A.N., including her reactions to factual reporting are noteworthy.
In the face of weak claims and non-existent legal standing in almost every case, it seems that some wish to suppress the reporting of the issues.
This isn't North Korea. People can't tell us what we can and can't talk about. Things could be much worse.
If I got an extortion letter from lawyer Julie Stewart over those deliberately seeded H.A.N. photos, I'd have my PR machine up and running in seven days.
That would include a website called "canadianlawyerjuliestewart.tv" hosted "offshore", with domain privacy in place.
This site would include all publicly available information about lawyer Julie Stewart that can be shown to be factual.
I would also institute pay-per-click ads "Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart" that direct traffic to my site.
I would place sufficiently high bids so that the pay per-click ads would stay "on top".
Even if I was outbid somehow, my ads would be at least second.
Everything would be "legal" so as to ensure that any legal efforts to suppress information about Canadian lawyer Julie Stewart would be met with a prompt and successful legal response.
Further efforts would be to involve national media if things escalate. Blogs would link to my site, and the traffic would keep it on top in the search listings.
Again, things could be much worse for those who intend to prevent people from discussing the issues and people involved.
I'm going to make my own "Canadian Lawyer Julie Stewart" video, but "Adagio for Strings" (from Platoon) is copyrighted, and I have to find some other tragic-fail sounding music for my clip about her.
-
another blast from the past! Sometimes I don't think Matthew see's or understands, just how well he writes.. ::)
-
wow ... has it really been a year? seems like yesterday.
-
Julie Stewart had a very short career in copyright trolling...
We should have a Youtube vid of "Trolls that We Said Good-Bye to this Past Year".
A video montage much like they have for actors that have passed on, as shown on the Oscars award show.
Cue the poignant music, applause and black and white photo vignettes.
Heart-warming!
S.G.
-
I like that idea SG!
Julie Stewart had a very short career in copyright trolling...
We should have a Youtube vid of "Trolls that We Said Good-Bye to this Past Year".
A video montage much like they have for actors that have passed on, as shown on the Oscars award show.
Cue the poignant music, applause and black and white photo vignettes.
Heart-warming!
S.G.
-
We can do it when Robert hosts his "Asshat of the Year Show"
-
Awesome letter Matthew! From the time I started my business career, I have always despised attorneys who attempt to wrap a cloak of secrecy around something that actually happened.
The letters speak for themselves. The facts speak for themselves. I sometimes wonder why everything isn't admissible in a court of law. Bias?? The world is full of bias. Ignoring something that happened biases the proceedings as much as shining a light on it.
Some lawyers use their degrees to push people around. It's wrong. And, I'm behind anyone willing to stand up to that.
Well done, Matt!