Counter Cease & Desist Letter to Matt Inman
by Charles Carreon
“the oatmeal wants to sue funnyjunk and shut it
down! he thinks we’re nothing more than dirty
content thieves. that fj doesn’t have any real
members, it’s just a bot that steals content.
contact oatmeal anyway you can!” — funnyjunk
“dear funnyjunk users: your mass of comments on
my facebook page has made me realize a few
things: 1. you don’t know the difference between
suing someone and sending them a cease and
desist.” — matthew inman of theoatmeal.com
“funnyjunk is threatening to file a federal
lawsuit against me unless i pay $20,000 in
damages.” — matthew inman of theoatmeal.com
“i got sued, you idiot. my
fundraiser against carreon was an act of self
defense, not some orchestrated stunt to gloat
about a bunch of money that didn’t belong to
me.” — matthew inman of theoatmeal.com
June 2, 2012
Via Personal Service
3638 Palatine Avenue N # B
Seattle, WA 98103
Re: False Advertising Regarding FunnyJunk.com
Dear Mr. Inman:
I represent FunnyJunk, LLC. (“FunnyJunk”), a competitor of
TheOatmeal.com in the field of online humor. I write to
demand immediate removal of false statements about FunnyJunk
from TheOatmeal.com, where you posted the following:
“Here’s how FunnyJunk.com’s business operates:
1. Gather funny pictures from around the internet
2. Host them on FunnyJunk.com
3. Slather them in advertising
4. If someone claims copyright infringement, throw your
hands up in the air and exclaim “It was our users who
uploaded your photos! We had nothing to do with it! We’re
5. Cash six figure advertising checks from other artist’s
This is a false accusation of willful copyright
infringement. FunnyJunk hosts only use-uploaded content
pursuant to a rigorous DMCA policy that includes termination
as a sanction for repeat abusers. FunnyJunk takes immediate
action on any DMCA notice it receives in the proper form. In
addition to the above-quoted false statements, on the same
webpage you say that FunnyJunk has “practically stolen my
entire website and mirrored it on FunnyJunk.” You illustrate
this present-tense statement with a screencap that purports
to current, but in fact was taken long ago, before FunnyJunk
received your takedown demand. (Attachment A.)
Below this barrage of false statements, you have posted a
series of hyperlinks that you say show that “There’s still
hundreds of C&H comics hosted on FunnyJunk.com, as well as
thousands from other artists….” Clicking on those hyperlinks
turns up a null result in every case. (Attachment B.)
However, that string of apparently useless hyperlinks put
the phrase “funnyjunk” into the source code for the page
twenty-eight (28) times (Attachment C), thus causing
TheOatmeal.com to come up whenever “funnyjunk” is punched
into the Google search engine. (Attachment D.) The Alexa
stats for TheOatmeal.com are equally revealing, showing that
the “Query Popularity” of “funnyjunk” is 42, nearly as
popular “oatmeal” itself, at 44. (Attachment E.) Given your
background in SEO, you clearly intended this result.
Because the quoted statements tend to injure FunnyJunk in
its trade, business or profession, and accuse it of the
crime of willful copyright infringement, they lay the basis
for a defamation claim actionable in damages. You declared
your unequivocal malicious intent in the source code
screencaptured on page 2 of Attachment B and reproduced
By engaging in malicious defamatory conduct, you lost any
privilege you might have enjoyed. Albert v. Loksen, 239 F.3d
256, 272 (2nd Cir. 2001). Because your malicious statements
were made with the intent to gain publicity and popularize
TheOatmeal.com in search engine rankings, they are also a
form of false advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of
the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). “[L]iterally false”
advertisements are enjoinable “without reference to the
advertisement’s impact on the buying public. McNeil-PCC,
Inc. v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., 938 F.2d 1544, 1549 (2nd
Accordingly, demand is hereby made upon you to perform the
following remedial acts on or before June 12, 2012:
(1) Remove all mention of FunnyJunk and FunnyJunk.com from
TheOatmeal.com from your website and any other website over
which you have control.
(2) Deliver to me a check in the amount of $20,000 payable
to the order of FunnyJunk, LLC.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Very truly yours,
Original Cease & Desist Letter of Matthew Inman
What should I do about FunnyJunk.com?
Here’s how FunnyJunk.com’s business
- Gather funny pictures from around the internet
- Host them on FunnyJunk.com
- Slather them in advertising
- If someone claims copyright infringement, throw your
hands up in the air and exclaim “It was our users who
uploaded your photos! We had nothing to do with it!
- Cash six figure advertising checks from other
artist’s stolen material
I first contacted them about a year ago after I found a
handful of my comics uploaded on their site with no credit
or link back to me. They took down the offending images, but
since then they’ve practically
stolen my entire website and
mirrored it on FunnyJunk:
Most of the comics they’ve stolen look like this — no credit
or link back to me. Even withproper
attribution, no one clicks through and FunnyJunk still earns
a huge pile of cash from all the ad revenue.
Should I send them a cease and desist? One of my readers
wrote in and mentioned that Cyanide
and Happiness did
that very thing, but from what I can tell it hasn’t had much
effect. There’s still hundreds of C&H comics hosted on
FunnyJunk.com, as well as thousands from other artists:
Here’s their only attempt at original humor:
are they copyrighting, exactly? a green and purple color
scheme that makes my eyeballs want to vomit into the
back of my skull?
And it’s not just FunnyJunk.com, there’s a small army of
sites out there like this whose business model runs this
way. Another one is DamnLOL.com, who managed to rack up 670,000
likes on Facebook by
hosting stolen content and covering their website with “like
this on Facebook” buttons. It seems like this
business model is booming right now. It’s basically the new
I realize that trying to police copyright infringement on
the internet is like strolling into the Vietnamese jungle
circa 1964 and politely asking everyone to use squirt guns.
I know that if FunnyJunk disappeared fifty other clones
would pop up to take its place overnight, but I felt I had
to say something about
what they’re doing. Perhaps you should too.
An Update on the FunnyJunk situation
As you can imagine, my inbox and Facebook page were slammed
with thousands of messages from FunnyJunk users who believed
that I was trying to get their community shut down. I think
they set the land speed record for the highest number of
“OMG ur a gayfagness!!!11″ Facebook comments in a single
I politely responded with this letter:
dear funnyjunk users,
your mass of comments on my
facebook page has made me realize a few things:
1. you don’t know the
difference between suing someone and sending them a
cease and desist
2. you think that calling
someone a faggot is the same as arguing.
kraenzlein: faggot don’t sue funnyjunk!
sam kean: yo fag.
we are more than you think. we are many. we are strong.
we are witty, funny, and awesome. we are fj and we will
not take your shit.
aric travieso: why
dont you take up your female highschool drama shit with
faggit (previously reddit_ tumblr and etc before you
give the good sites like funnyjunk flak.
3. you honestly believe that
the guy who owns funnyjunk (a website which gets
millions of unique visitors every month) is broke and
“barely making it”
4. when puberty started last
year it was a really tough, confusing time for you.
2. He removed all the stolen material.
This includes all the content from David Thorne, Perry Bible
Fellowship, Hyperbole and a Half, and so on. Unfortunately,
he only deleted posts which have “The Oatmeal” in the title.
This means that all the content which was properly
attributed got wiped out and all the comics that have no mention of me are
still there, which is basically my entire website.
To the admin of FunnyJunk: I
put together a list of all my comics which you can download
here and use to remove the remainder of the stolen material.
To the users of FunnyJunk: I
never had plans to sue FunnyJunk and get it shut down; I
just wanted my stolen comics removed — your admin is a moron
who chooses his words about as carefully as a mule chooses
where to take a shit.
Hugs and kisses,
FunnyJunk is threatening to file a
federal lawsuit against me unless I pay $20,000 in
Remember FunnyJunk? Almost exactly a year ago I
published a blog post about my comics being stolen,
re-hosted, and monetized on FunnyJunk’s website. The
owner of the site responded and some of the comics were
taken down, He still had a ton of my comics hosted
without credit, but the energy it would take to get him
to take them down wasn’t worth it. I thought the issue
was done and over with so I let him be.
A few days ago I was served papers informing me that
the owner of FunnyJunk is going to file a federal
lawsuit against me unless I pay him $20,000 in damages. You
can read the full letter here.
The owner of FunnyJunk hired Charles Carreon, a
lawyer who became famous in the 90s after successfully
Charles does a bit of modeling too,
I don’t want to get tied up in courtroom nonsense. I
don’t want to pay more money to my lawyer. Don’t you
miss the days when I posted 2 comics a week, instead of
writing rebuttals to Forbes and dealing with bullshit
So do I.
I’ve annotated the letter below as well as outlned
how I’m going to deal with this.
oh really now? what an
adorable little fiction. here’s a list of hundreds
of my comics that are still hosted on funnyjunk.com:
(and have been for years)
Update: FunnyJunk removed all these links since I
posted this list.
you realize that’s how the editorial process works,
right? bloggers and journalists write down words and
ideas. when the world changes, writers aren’t required
to go back and edit all those words and ideas. don’t you
think it’d be a bit odd if we edited newspapers from
1763 to read: [abraham
lincoln] president obama signs the emancipation
internet is an archive, idiot.
do you actually believe that if i repeat a word a
bunch of times on a web page it’ll show up first in
google’s search results?
so if i put “porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn
porn” in my website i would rank number one for “porn”
at google? shit yes! i’m switching careers. coming
rankings in google are determined by the amount of
activity and links a page receives on the internet. i
rank highly for “funnyjunk” because a bunch of news
sources wrote about my blog post after i published it.
this is not a factor i can control. maybe you should go
file lawsuits against everyone on reddit who upvoted the
post, or everyone on facebook who clicked “like this.”
seriously?! you’re suggesting that a picture of a
dinosaur which is inside every page of the oatmeal and
has been since 2009 is proof that i’m attacking
funnyjunk? was the pterodactyl comic which i published
two years before i wrote about you part of the attack as
well? and the music video? nice evidence, jackass. your
lawyer = a+
this is a joke, right? you want me to pay you $20,000
for hosting my unlicensed comics on your shitty website
for the past three years?
no, i’ve got a better idea.
1. i’m going to try and raise $20,000 in donations.
2. i’m going to take a photo of the raised money
3. i’m going to mail you that photo, along with this
drawing of your mom seducing a kodiak bear.
4. i’m going to take the money and donate one half to
the national wildlife federation and the other half to
the american cancer society.
i don’t want to write retorts like this anymore. i
don’t want to spend the next year tied up in legal
bullshit with you. i just want to make comics.
consider this my philanthropic, kind-spirited way of
saying: fuck off.
operation bearlove good. cancer bad. now commencing!
click on this giant donate button
think of the sexy bears!
think of the shitty cancer!
Other Counter Cease & Desist
Letters and Original Cease and Desist Letters
PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
1600 20TH STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-1001
BY TELECOPIER: (804) 346-0800
October 5, 2007
Donald Morris, Esquire
Dozier Internet Law
West Shore III, Suite 300
30 I Concourse Boulevard
Glen Allen, Virginia 23059
Re: How not to write a cease and desist letter — an open
letter in response to your September 21 threat
Dear Mr. Morris:
Here at Public Citizen, we frequently receive requests for
assistance from prospective clients who have received cease
and desist letters from lawyers whose clients have asked
them to try to quash criticism by threatening litigation
over some form of defamation, trademark, or copyright
infringement. And we can understand why a client that has
been criticized online might want to find some way to avoid
the criticism, rather than having to speak publicly to
respond to critics. But sometimes we receive demand letters
that go over the top, making foolish legal assertions and
seeing violations where a more detached, objective response
might be to tell the client that this is a criticism that
will have to be met – or ignored. Indeed, sometimes we
wonder whether the lawyer sending the letter has thought to
tell his client that the result of sending a demand letter
might bring attention to criticisms that otherwise might
have received less attention.
On September 21,2007, you sent a letter to Justin Leonard,
complaining about criticisms of DirectBuy on the web sites
www.infomercialblog.com, www.infomercialratings.com, and
www.infomercialseams.com. These web sites give users of
infomercial products the ability to post either criticisms
of infomercial products or sales practices that they
consider to be “scams,” or defenses of such products or
processes. The letter begins by claiming that the words
“scam” and “nightmare” on the web sites, in addition to the
word “defense,” defame DirectBuy by endorsing the posters’
opinions. Of course, words like “scam” and “nightmare” are
statements of rhetorical opinion that do not support a claim
for defamation. McCabe
v. Rattiner, 814
F.2d 839, 842 (1st Cir.1987). Moreover, the words fairly
characterize the bulk of the opinions of former customers
who have sent their accounts of their experiences with
DirectBuy to Leonard’s web sites. Even worse is the claim
that Leonard defames DirectBuy by pointing out that there
had been a sudden influx of similarly worded favorable
ratings from DirectBuy on his web site, all posted from the
“same location” – and wondering whether DirectBuy might be
“behind this.” This is a plain example of opinion based on
disclosed facts – unless you have some information
suggesting that the stated facts are false.
Next, you assert that, by creating a category of report
called “scam,” and allowing members of the public to
complete reports within that category if the posting person
believes that the company being criticized has misbehaved in
the marketplace, Leonard becomes responsible for whatever
falsity may exist in the posted reports. In fact, there is a
long line of decisions in state and federal courts that
recognize that providers of interactive computer services
like Leonard’s are immune from liability, and even from
suit, under the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230. E.g.,
Batzel v. Smith, 333
F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). You point to the Ninth Circuit’s
recent decision in Fair
Housing Council v. Roommates.com, 489
F.3d 921 (2007), which allowed a claim to go forward under
the Fair Housing Act on the theory that the creation of
questionnaire categories for gender preference, sexual
preference, and family status is itself inherently unlawful
under the federal Fair Housing Act. But of course there is
nothing inherently unlawful about allowing consumers to
characterize infomercial offers as “scams.”
You make the point that DirectBuy has operations in Canada,
where it allegedly suffers injury. You told my colleague
Greg Beck that you might bring suit in Canada, and you made
a point of referring to operations in Canada when I called
you. 1gather that you hope to take advantage of the fact
that there is no CDA and no First Amendment in Canada.
Before you spend your client’s money on suing in Canada, you
might consider whether Leonard has any assets there, and
whether an injunction obtained in Canada would be worth the
paper it is written on. Moreover, Canada does provide some
protections for fair comment. Instead of suing in Canada,
why not bring suit in Tashkent? At least you’d get an exotic
trip out of it, and litigation in a totalitarian state would
be more consistent with the view that the Internet makes it
too easy for consumer criticisms to be heard. But Leonard
won’t bother to defend a lawsuit in either location.
But the worst thing about your letter is the end: “Please be
aware that this letter is copyrighted by our law firm, and
you are not authorized to republish this in any manner. Use
of this letter in a posting, in full or in part, will
subject you to further legal causes of action.” Such a
posting would be fair use. Moreover, inquiry by my colleague
Greg Beck produced the interesting information that the
copyright in the letter has not been registered. Sadly,
according to what you told him, you have been successful in
this intimidation because none of your cease and desist
letters has ever been posted.
There is always a first time. We are posting the letter on
the Public Citizen web site (the letter can be found at
http://www.citizen.org/documents/directbuycd.pdf) so the
public can assess our differences by comparing your
contentions with our responses. By this letter, we are
inviting you to test the validity of your theory that the
writer of a cease and desist letter can avoid public
scrutiny by threatening to file a copyright law suit if his
letter is disclosed publicly on the Internet.
Paul Alan Levy
Cease & Desist Letter of Donald E. Morris, Dozier Internet
Dozier Internet Law, P.C.
301 Concourse Blvd.
West Shore Ill, Suite 300
Glen Allen, VA 23059
Phone: (804) 346-9770
Fax: (804) 346-0800
Dozier Internet Law, P.C.
September 21, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
FOR NEGOTIATION AND
SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Mr. Justin E. Leonard
4400 N. Scottsdale Rd.
Scottsdale. AZ 85251
Re: Notice to Cease and Desist Internet Defamation
Dear Mr. Leonard:
Please be advised that our firm has been retained by
DirectBuy, Inc. to investigate and take legal action against
you for the series of unwarranted and defamatory attacks
against it made by you and your visitors on your various
websites. Specifically, these websites are
www.infomercialblog.com, www.infomercialratings.com, and www.infomercialscams.com.
DirectBuy, Inc. has been in business for over 35 years and
has provided consumers with the opportunity to save on
products for their homes through its members only program.
Our client provides its members with access to thousands of
products and provides a high level of customer service.
DirectBuy has established a well founded reputation for the
quality of its services and customer satisfaction and your
unwarranted actions and baseless accusations have damaged
that reputation and adversely affected our client’s
You have personally posted many willfully false and
misleading comments about our client.
Examples of your defamatory statements include:
“Direct Buy Nightmare” – www.infomercialscams.com;
“all scams are posted uncensored!”
“You are reporting the following SCAM” –
“Recently, we noticed a sudden influx of 4 and 5
star ratings for the Direct Buy program ….
We don’t know if Direct Buy is behind this or not.
But we do have our suspicions given the
fact that the reviews came from the SAME LOCATION,
say the same thing, and highlight
points that most customers wouldn’t be concerned
with.” – www.infomercialblog.com
The above statements made in reference to DirectBuy, Inc.
are utterly false and without merit and they are defamation per
se in that
they depict our client as engaging in fraudulent activity
that violates civil and criminal law.
Additionally, you actively encourage and solicit defamatory
statements from customers on your www.infomercialratings.com
and www.infomercialscams.com websites. According to a recent
decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit [Fair
Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates, com,
LLC ,489 F.3d
921 (9th Cir. 2007)] you likely have serious financial
exposure to DirectBuy for each and every one of the
defamatory statements made by your visitors. Furthermore,
your actions have also resulted in damages to our client and
its franchisees in Canada, subjecting you to claims in that
country as well.
Your attempts to spread libelous and defamatory material
about our client have caused serious and irreparable injury
to it, its reputation, and its business. Our client will not
stand by and allow this misconduct to continue.
We hereby demand that you:
1. Immediately remove from all of your websites all
defamatory and disparaging remarks regarding our client made
by you and your visitors, and
2. Immediately cease and desist in publishing defamatory
statements about our client. whether the statements are made
by you or third parties, and
3. Compensate our client for its attorney fees and costs.
Please note that this law firm does not attempt to restrict
legitimate free speech, and we believe that the Internet is
an important medium for dissemination of accurate
and truthfulinformation and for fair comment on issues
of interest. Your activities, however, unlawfully encroach
upon our client’s rights.
This letter puts you on notice that should you refuse to
comply with our demands by September 28, 2007, we will have
no choice but to recommend that our client pursue all legal
causes of action, including the filing of a lawsuit, to
protect its interests. We will pursue both damages and
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by our client as a result
of your actions.
This is a very serious matter that requires your immediate
attention. We therefore strongly
recommend that you contact us immediately to address and
resolve this situation. This letter is your one and only
chance to resolve this matter amicably.
Please be aware that this letter is copyrighted by our law
firm, and you are not authorized to republish this in any
manner. Use of this letter in a posting, in full or in part,
will subject you to further legal causes of action.
Donald E. Morris, Esq.
cc: DirectBuy, Inc.
& Desist Letter of Kenneth Paul White, Brown White &
Brown White & Newhouse LLP
333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Thomas M. Brown
Kenneth P. White
George B. Newhouse, Jr. (Admitted in CA and NY)
Alfredo X. Jarrin
Nannina L. Angioni (Admitted in CA and NV)
Hon. George P. Schiavelli (Ret.)
Michael P. McGory
Jack B. Osborn
E. Joan Nelms (Certified Specialist Estate Planning, Trust &
Probate Law, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
April 25, 2012
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Howard Ray Schechter
Schechter Attorney at Law
PO Box 1121
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Your Legal Threats Regarding Ecologica Furniture
Dear Mr. Schechter:
This firm represents [deleted] [April Winchell, Regretsy] and
its principal. I write in response to your email of April
23, 2012. Please stop all direct contact with our client
Your email threatens to report our clients to the “Los
Angeles Police Department and the District Attorney’s
Office” based on the proposition that internet comments
questioning the bona fides of Ecologica Furniture are a
crime. In my seventeen years practicing criminal law, I have
only seen such preposterous accusations of crime from pro se
litigants and the intractably mentally ill. In addition to
being ridiculous on its face, your threat is a direct
violation of California Rule of Professional Conduct
5-100(A), which provides that a member of the California bar
“shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or
disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil
dispute.” Cease your unethical and unprofessional threats
The rest of your letter relies on vague and bumptious legal
threats buried among misspellings, bizarre malapropisms,
misstatements of law, and gibberish. I note that your letter
does not specify even a
single false statement of fact you
accuse our clients of making. In my experience, vague legal
threats are a hallmark of empty thuggery. If you believe
that you can demonstrate that any specific
statement of fact our
clients made was false, I challenge you to identify that
particular statement, point to where it was made, and
explain your basis for saying that it is false.
Your letter threatens suit for slander (despite the fact
that no verbal statements are at issue), liable [sic],
unfair competition, assault, and “intentional infliction of
emotional injury.” If your client files suit on those
theories, your client will be paying our attorney fees. We
will respond to any lawsuit with an anti-SLAPP motion under
California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
We will have no difficulty carrying our initial burden of
demonstrating that your lawsuit is directed at protected
speech. (Code Civ. Proc., Section 425.16, subd. (d).)
California courts have repeatedly extended the anti-SLAPP
statute to protect comments by consumers and about goods and
services, including comments on the internet. (Wilbanks
v. Wolk (2004)
121 Cal.App.4th 883 [web comments accusing broker of being
unethical fell under anti-SLAPP statute as issue of public
v. Bonds (2005)
135 Cal.App.4th 328 [comments denigrating podiatrist were
matter of public concern under anti-SLAPP statute]; Gilbert
v. Sykes (2007)
147 Cal.App.4th 13 [internet comments about plastic surgeon
were matter of public concern protected by anti-SLAPP
v. Tai Jing (2010)
189 Cal.App.4th 1354 [internet comments about dentist were
matter of public concern protected by anti-SLAPP statute]).
It does not matter how you style your causes of action — the
anti-SLAPP statute will apply. (Martinez v. Metabolife
Intern, Inc. (2003)
113 Cal.App.4th 181, 187 ["Our Supreme Court has recognized
that the anti-SLAPP statute should be broadly construed
[citation] and a plaintiff cannot avoid operation of the
anti-SLAPP statute by attempting, through artifices of
pleading, to characterize an action as a ‘garden variety
breach of contract [or] fraud claim’ when in fact the
liability claim is based on protected speech or conduct”].)
Once we demonstrate that your suit is premised on our
clients’ protected speech, the burden will shift to you to
show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Contrary to
your incorrect statement of law in your email, you will bear
the burden of proving that the statements are false. (Brown
v. Kelly Broadcasting Co. (1989)
48 Cal.3d 711, 747 [when "speech involves a matter of public
concern, a private-figure plaintiff has the burden of
proving the falsity of the defamation."].) Moreover, you
will bear the burden of proving that they are false
statements of fact, as opposed to statements of opinion. Milkovitch
v. Lorain Journal (1990)
497 U.S. 1. It is clear from the facts — and from your
client’s own admissions in its press release — that you will
not be able to carry this burden. Therefore, we will be
entitled to attorney fees from your client. (Code Civ.
Proc., Section 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) In addition, we
reserve the right to seek sanctions against you personally
under California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.
Persisting in your meritless threats, or acting upon them,
can only lead to disaster for your client. As anyone
familiar with the Streisand Effect could have predicted,
your freakishly unprofessional email has already drawn much
more attention to your client’s conduct. Further threats, or
any legal action, will increase that attention by orders of
I urge you to reconsider your course of action.
Kenneth P. White
for BROWN WHITE & NEWHOUSE LLP
Cease & Desist Letter of Howard Roy Schechter
[Ms. Schechter informed Above the Law that she wrote the
letter on her iPhone as her lawyer husband dictated it to
From the Office of:
Howard Roy Schechter Attorneys
State Bar of California #58828
10866 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90024
Ref.: Ecologica Furniture Mariana C. Schechter
We have discovered that you are source of the negative
comments posted on etsy.com and on your personal
Facebook account. You understand that you may think
reflect a true state of facts. We further understand
that you may think that some sort of privilege may exist
to comments made on the internet that you are somehow
protected against slander liable and unfair competition
as well as other torts. Be advised that the allegations
that you and other have made are completely false. All
Ecologica’s products are handmade and all other
miscellaneous charges are equally false.
It goes without saying that is obvious from your
comments that your intention is harm us in a trade or
business. There’s no privilege to utter falsehoods on
Were one of the statements to be true, truth would be
absolute defense. Many of the people making these
comments are wreck less fools but the burden of proof is
on the person making the comment each of which may be
sued individually requiring separate counsel or at our
election in such group as we decide. Obviously
jurisdiction will lie in California with venue in Los
Angeles. There is a requirement under California law
that a retraction filled immediately upon request may
mitigate damages. So you are hereby notified, and I
failure to retract under certain circumstances allows
for allegations of punitive damage which will certainly
be our intention.
Those of you who have business or business contact with
etsy.com are also committing the TORT OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION. Some of the egregious comments may also be
considered ASSAULT or INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL INJURY which always carry punitive damage some
of the direct treats are also crimes under California
law, and if they are repeated we shall immediately
contact the Los Angeles Police Department and the
District Attorney’s Office.
If you are currently represented by an attorney, request
hereby made for his name address and telephone number.
If you fail to provide this information we will be
forced to conclude that you are unrepresented by an
attorney and serve you personally should any litigation
If any of you communicate and assist each other this may
well constitute the crime of conspiracy under CA and
If you hold any state license in any state you reside or
do business these comments may be grounds from
discipline, be further advised that the law is most
state is that “a tale bearer has the same responsibility
as the a tale maker”, so there’s no defense that you are
only repeating something you heard elsewhere.
I am hopeful that your comments were an inadvertent
error and will be retracted as this might be better for
Govern yourself accordingly.
Howard Roy Schechter
State Bar of California #58828
Attorney for Ecologica Furniture