Messages

1906

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Defense Against Claim of Defamation from the term "Extortion"

« on: November 15, 2011, 03:04:29 AM »

It appears we are going to have to reprint portions of Oscar's reply for Peter T. Holt to read.  He is accusing ELI of defamation similar to what Julie Stewart did just a day earlier.  More updates to come...

1907

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Has anyone tried a "domain privacy service"?

« on: November 15, 2011, 12:23:37 AM »

I am with SG here.  Domain privacy is relatively inexpensive.  Anyone in business knows that there is no such thing as absolute safety.  However, putting up obstacles, barriers, or staying under the radar makes it harder for others to come after you.

Any burglar or robber knows that any house can be broken into given enough time and resources.  But which one will they go after?  The ones with bars, deadbolts, and a steel door?  Or the one that has an open window to jump through?

Matthew

1908

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Stock Food America

« on: November 14, 2011, 09:48:51 PM »

If you could fax a copy of that letter to 888-696-3441, that would be helpful to anyone else who might get the letter.  Or you could email it to us.  We would obviously redact it.

Matthew

1909

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Hawaiian Art Network Settlement Demand Letter Collection

« on: November 14, 2011, 09:42:35 PM »

Because there has been a flurry of activity relating to attorneys associated with Hawaiian Art Network LLC, it has been increasingly difficult to track the different email communications and documents being shared throughout the ELI forums. As such, we have created the "Hawaiian Art Network Settlement Demand Letter Collection" on Scribd.

http://www.scribd.com/collections/3340796/Hawaiian-Art-Network-s-Settlement-Demand-Letters

Hawaiian Art Network LLC has risen to our watch list because of specific communications to ELI that began with Julie Stewart of Blackline and now being followed up by Peter T. Holt of Roseville, CA.

In fact, we have just received a couple more submissions that Oscar and I are evaluating to make public. If we do release it, it will be posted into this Scribd Collection.

I am greatly disturbed in particular of one correspondence Peter Holt has sent to a letter recipient. I have read this personally and Oscar will be reading it himself soon.  It appears to be a vindictive communication because a community member dared to share the contents of Peter Holt's letter with ELI which we posted online.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/71069382/Attorney-Peter-T-Holt-Settlement-Demand-Letter

In retaliation, he has rescinded their so-called settlement offer. Peter Holt has also hinted in that correspondence that Hawaiian Art Network is in full support of his threats and actions.

However, we cannot yet verify this. It would be stupid for him to speak out of turn without first consulting Hawaiian Art Network. I don't yet know what to believe. Either way, it makes someone look very bad.

It would be helpful if we knew the corporate structure and decision makers that run Hawaiian Art Network. We would be grateful if our community members helped us discover and better understand the corporate structure and management of Hawaiian Art Network LLC. 

1910

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: New Settlement Demand Letter by Attorney Peter T. Holt of Roseville, CA

« on: November 14, 2011, 09:15:39 PM »

Just so everyone is updated, Attorney Peter T. Holt has contacted ELI apparently objecting to his letter being shared and accusing us of calling him an "extortionist". That is ridiculous as we have not called anyone that. We openly refer to Settlement Demand Letters colloquially as "extortion letters". And that is the extent of it.

It sounds very similar to Blackline Lawyer Julie Stewart's complaints from Sunday, November 13.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.msg3687.html#msg3687


Oscar received his letter.  I have not seen it yet but I did get a failed FAX cover page that states 8 pages were to follow...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72739507/Peter-T-Holt-Failed-Fax-Cover-Page?in_collection=3340796

Matthew

1911

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 14, 2011, 11:56:08 AM »

Wow, very nice find. What a sleuth you are.  Good job.

This is a more accurate representation than the online bio on her site.

Matthew

Here's mS Julie's Resume...so we now have a musician and a film-maker..

"Background as an independent documentary filmmaker. Articulate, persuasive bilingual writer.
Practical experience in legal research and advanced training in navigating legal databases."

  I think the researching abilities could use a little honing..

http://clients.triggersandsparks.com/resumes/julie_stewart.pdf

1912

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 13, 2011, 09:51:03 PM »

If she had a more reasonable argument or request, she would have gotten more respect from us.

But it is clear by our separate responses, that neither Oscar or I like being treated like we are idiots claiming defamation, libel, and slander. It was just plain outrageous and nowhere to being close to qualifying.  I would have had more respect for her if she had asked me to revise her entry from "extortion letter" to "settlement demand letter". I would not have gone to the trouble of writing everything I ultimately did.

When I read her email, I thought to myself "here we go again". I think Oscar thought the same thing and that is why he took the time to really lay out the whole use of "extortion" term and its legitimate use which was priceless. And make no mistake, if you want to accuse ELI of something, you better have your ducks in a row.

And the whole thing with contacting Twitter, Facebook, Scribd, and the like? I solved her problem by deleting those posts and put out more interesting content to read than her boiler-plate letter.

Matthew

1913

Getty Images Letter Forum / Defense Against Claim of Defamation from the term "Extortion"

« on: November 13, 2011, 09:15:07 PM »

I found it interesting that Julie Stewart of Blackline Law had no problems accusing alleged infringers of "theft" and being on the "wrong side of the law" when most people know that most infringements are both innocent and unintentional. Let us not also forget that she uses these terms in what is considered a civil matter (and certainly no where remotely close to being a criminal matter).

And yet, she shouts defamation, libel, and slander at us because she thinks we are calling her an "extortionist". As Oscar pointed out, the term "extortion" (whether it is the term "extortion letter" or "legalized extortion" is a metaphorical use, not the literal use. Most reasonable people know this. Additionally, within the U.S., we have the right to free expression of our opinions. Given that, we are protected from claims of defamation, libel, and slander.

I bring this up in this separate post because we want it clear that any more claims of defamation, libel, and slander will be met with "read this post". Of course, as a responsible moderator, I will exercise judgment whether any posts are offensive or borderline offensive.  At all times, we will insist on the validity and accuracy of statement as the barometer and a little bit of common sense.

Fortunately, the ELI community has done a good job in refraining from making overtly outrageous and inflammatory statements. So it rarely is an issue.  Most of us have figured out a way to utilize our language skills in such a way to communicate our distaste, disgust, dismay, etc. without resorting to explicit name-calling or getting overtly personal.

This is the 2nd time that a supposedly knowledgeable lawyer tried to accuse ELI of defamation and the like.  Personally, I think the lawyers knew what they were doing except they were hoping that we were too dumb to actually challenge that claim.  And so, in the future, any more of the defamation nonsense will be met with full disclosure for everyone to read and a stern reminder to read Oscar's reply.

It is not something we want to keep "rewriting" repeatedly against those would accuse us if defamation, libel, and slander activities. Nothing we do comes close to qualifying or measuring up.  

If lawyers don't want to their names and law firms publicly associated with their demand letter activities, then stop and get out of that business.  You can't have it both ways. You can't represent a client and try to be their hero to their cause in secrecy and expect the opposing side to be pleasant and quiet about your role in helping your clients.

Matthew

----- Original Message --------
Subject:    Re: URGENT - defamatory content on your website
Date:    Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:44:42 -0500
From:    Oscar Michelen
To:    * Matthew Chan *
CC:    [email protected], Oscar Michelen

Dear Julie:

Content deleted at Oscar Michelen's request.

1914

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 13, 2011, 08:30:05 PM »

Read Oscar Michelen's reply to Julie Stewart of Blackline Law.  Lots of great points being made.

I have to say that Oscar's reply cuts like a knife on so many levels.  Generally speaking, I feel that I am the more aggressive on when I communicate online. But I think I can safely say this time around, that Oscar put a real hammer to Julie in his own inimitable but direct way.

I will be surprised if Julie Stewart wants to pursue this matter further. It would not be wise for her and would only make her and Hawaiian Art Network look worse than if they had left it alone.

Matthew

====================

Oscar's reply removed at his request.

1915

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:54:11 PM »

Legal ignorance works to THEIR favor which is why so many letter recipients rollover.  The stock photo companies can be heavy-handed but education and open information is a HUGE equalizer.  They like the secrecy and one-on-one fight because they think they are bigger.

ELI helps affect a game-change by letting people know they aren't alone and it is a boiler-plate operation designed for revenue generation. Revealing the players and their tools and tactics is very important.

Matthew

It's of note how some of these lawyers want the details of these letters to remain in the shadows, while also "getting their name out there".

The reason that many of these letters are referred to as "extortion letters" is because they deliberately mislead the recipient.
That's also why some lawyers don't want the general public to see them.

But hey, if the professional copyright trolls want to get their name out there by writing extortion letters to the owners of the forum (threatening libel, etc.), I'm sure that it's cheaper than professional marketing efforts to get business.  It's just not very effective.

S.G.

1916

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: ELI Contacted by Canadian Attorney Julie Stewart of Blackline Law

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:49:21 PM »

Apparently, not public in as it relates to revealing one of her clients and her name and business is associated with the negative aspects of the demand letter operation.

As she has been fully informed, she is fully within her rights to make her arguments for her client. But don't think that everyone will fall into line the way she wants it.

Lawyers are not totally immune from the cases they choose to take on.  They are part of the process and accountable for their part.

We simply assist in making this a more open process and to equalize the defense position.

looks like some feathers got ruffled...

"immediately along with any reference to my name, my business name
and my clients' name."

Isn't all of this public information anyway??

1917

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Re: Creditor Moves to Dismantle Copyright Troll Righthaven

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:43:27 PM »

The thread has been moved to where it needs to be.

1918

Riddick/Imageline Letter Forum / MOVED: Creditor Moves to Dismantle Copyright Troll Righthaven

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:42:50 PM »

This topic has been moved to Righthaven Lawsuits Forum.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php?topic=2312.0

1919

Getty Images Letter Forum / ELI Financial Issues

« on: November 13, 2011, 06:40:07 PM »

For those of you who did not read it, my response letter to Lawyer Julie Stewart took two hours to craft and yet everyone can freely read it to learn from. This hasn't been the first time I have been asked to respond and it won't be the last.

http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2346.msg3688.html#msg3688

I had to go digging back and do some online research. I also had to cross-reference and verify some information.  All of this took lots of time but I thought it was worthwhile to provide a solid and substantial response vs. a weak and short response.

I am bringing this up not so that I can get a pat on the back.  I did it because I truly believe in the cause and giving it my very best effort.  Unfortunately, it takes a lot of my personal time to "do it right".

Having said all that, I rarely bring up the financial issue of Paypal contributions for this website. However, ELI (through my not so small piece of my personal and professional time) needs a a substantial increase in financial support.  Many people have contributed over time but many more have not.  I am not reprimanding anyone. I am simply stating what has been occurring.  I am also not trying to guilt anyone to contribute to ELI.  It is entirely your judgment call the value you receive and the degree you believe ELI needs to continue to exist. I am simply appealing to your sense of fairness and equity. I am also asking for your help. If you know my personality, you know I don't ask it easily or casually.

One thing I want to remind everyone is that you received one extortion letter from a copyright troll, you can receive another in the future by another copyright troll.  Especially those of us who have been on the web and involved with websites for many years.  IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN TO ANY OF US!  The question is:  do you want ELI and its resources to still be around if and when it happens AGAIN? Or do you prefer to fend for yourself outside this safe community of known and well-established people?

The fact of the matter is that the stock photo industry wants this site to die and go away. They are watching ELI closely.  I know this by my website traffic logs.  Copyright trolling is NOT going away.  It is increasing!  Although our efforts are a blip in the big scheme of their collection efforts, I believe it is enough of an annoyance to them.  We turn up in their search engine searches. We are a black eye to their PR efforts. As a community, we have a large mind-sharing base to draw from.

In 2012, I will be making announcements of some planned major changes.  Part of that will have to acknowledge the financial component of my time to keep the ELI community together.  Quite frankly, I am currently the primary person that coordinates with all the moving pieces both in personnel and technology. Yes, I use technology to help but my time is still very much in the mix.

I am committed to keeping ELI (as you currently know it) open until the end of 2011.  That is all I know for certain for now.  I have announcements but it is contingent on a few things.  All I know is that ELI will be needing more financial support in 2012. And if ELI does not receive sufficient support, ELI will dramatically and quickly downgraded and everyone will be hurt.

If you would like to make a Paypal Contribution now, that would be great. If you would like to pledge support in January, that is ok. Send me a private message or post here.  It is based on the honor system.  If you want to hear more about what is being planned in 2012 before contributing that is ok too.

I have taken ELI as far as I can with the relatively few Paypal contributions and non-financial resources I was able to scrape together and assemble.  Unfortunately, I cannot pay bills with only non-financial resources and non-financial contributions.

I hate to bring this up but I spent a LOT of time today on ELI on various issues when I should have been working on something else. I had planned on bringing this up sometime in December but I figured now would also be appropriate.

Do you want me to keep ELI running in 2012? Does it matter to you?  Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks.

Matthew

1920

Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum / Hawaiian Art Network LLC's list of Lawyers Used Thus Far

« on: November 13, 2011, 05:35:25 PM »

I did not connect the dots earlier regarding Hawaiian Art Network LLC.  But we can thank Julie Stewart for drawing attention back to Hawaiian Art Network.

I just realized that for a relatively small stock photo company, they certainly use a wide variety of lawyers thus far. In fact, the list of ELI reported lawyers we know thus far include:

Brandon Sand
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2043.0.html

Peter T. Holt
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2313.msg3534.html#msg3534

Julie Stewart
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2303.0.html

Gil Zvulony
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/index.php/topic,2420.msg4135.html#msg4135

Oscar and I believe that young and inexperienced Brandon Sand decided to get out of the business. So we don't believe we will hear from him again. But I have to believe there are more lawyers working for Hawaiian Art Network LLC that we don't yet know of.

It certainly is very interesting how much of a difference each of these lawyers appear to be in both style and substance.

The one thing they all have in common is that they have a very minimal web presence and nearly a non-existent reputation.  They all seem to be relatively inexperienced. If they are, they have certainly kept a very low profile of any work they may have done.