100%(1)100% нашли этот документ полезным (1 голос)
1K просмотров4 страницы
This is the cease and desist letter my attorney forwarded to Tasha Johnson aka Jukebox Jones after Johnson made false allegations of plagiarism against (me) Robert Lee Mitchell III on social media.
Оригинальное название
Cease and Desist Letter to Tasha Johnson aka Jukebox Jones
This is the cease and desist letter my attorney forwarded to Tasha Johnson aka Jukebox Jones after Johnson made false allegations of plagiarism against (me) Robert Lee Mitchell III on social media.
This is the cease and desist letter my attorney forwarded to Tasha Johnson aka Jukebox Jones after Johnson made false allegations of plagiarism against (me) Robert Lee Mitchell III on social media.
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615 MAILING ADDRESS FORUM I BUILDING 9104 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD 8601 SIX FORKS RD., ST. 400 TEL: (919) 468-3266 SUITE 200 RALEIGH, NC 27615 FACSIMILE: (919) 882-1466 RALEIGH, NC 27615 www.IshmanLaw.com | www.IshmanLegal.com
ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626 MISHMAN@ISHMANLAW.COM June 6, 2014 FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION SUBJECT TO E.R. 408
Sent via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested and Email
Ms. Tasha Johnson c/o Richard Hutchison, Agent 3071 Arden Road Atlanta, GA 30305
Ms. Tasha Johnson Email: tasha@tashatalks.com and tashatalksvo@gmail.com
Re: Social Media Dispute with Mr. Robert Lee Mitchell III
Dear Ms. Johnson:
As you know, we are contacting you on behalf of our client, Mr. Robert Lee Mitchell III (Mitchell) in regards to certain false, misleading and deceptive statements that you have published on the Internet (http://tashabilities.tumblr.com/post/58521556793/robert-lee-mitchell- iii-would-rather-call-me-crazy-than) to others about Mitchell. We have attempted to engage you in an effort to amicably discuss this topic on April 11 th and 28 th . However, you have refused to entertain these offers and continue to publish false, misleading and deceptive statements about Mitchell.
Nevertheless, please note that this correspondence is being sent to you in our last attempt to amicably resolve this ongoing dispute between you and Mitchell, and it is a confidential settlement communication subject to Evidence Rule 408 of the Federal and North Carolina Rules of Evidence.
The purpose of this letter is to specifically address your false, misleading and deceptive statements that you have made about Mitchell. Specifically, it has come to Mitchells attention that you have published statements to others that Mitchell has plagiarized two short phrases that you have allegedly authored, and have called him a liar when he presents actual evidence to you that such short phrases were not yours to author.
The first phrase of this dispute is the Not Me Dance. Please note that this phrase has been in commerce since at least 2011, and was not authored by you. Prior to your false claim of authorship of this phrase, and subsequent meritless plagiarism claim against Mitchell, the following authors were using this phrase: Mitchell vs Johnson June 6, 2014 Page 2
ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626 MISHMAN@ISHMANLAW.COM
(1) Carmen Van Kerckhove, Gwen Stefani: Everyone Else Is Racist, Not Me!, Racialicious the intersection of race and pop culture (November 30, 2006), http://www.racialicious.com/2006/11/30/gwen-stefani-everyone-else-is-racist-not-me/
(2) Bob Hayton, The Legalist Not Me Dance, Fundamentally Reformed (January 8, 2011), http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2011/01/08/the-legalist-not- me-dance/
(3) Bob Hayton, Jerry Bridges on Judgmentalism, Fundamentally Reformed (January 10, 2011), http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2011/01/10/jerry-bridges- on-judgmentalism/.
Likewise, your second claim of authorship of Authoritative Blackness is just as meritless. Long before your alleged claim to Authoritative Blackness, many scholars have been using this term in commerce since as early as 1998, such as:
(1) Wahneema Lubianno, The House That Race Built, pg. 138, quoting Rhonda M. Williams from her essay Living at the Crossroads: Explorations in Race, Nationality, Sexuality, and Gender (February 28, 1998), also available at http://books.google.com/books?id=tiFVHZy0vUsC&pg=PA138&dq=%22authoritative+ blackness%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ewp1U8bTEtDpoAT4yYKgBw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwA w#v=onepage&q=%22authoritative%20blackness%22&f=false
(2) The Social Justice Group, Is Academic Feminism Dead? Theory in Practice, pg. 268, quoting Rhonda M. Williams from her essay Being Queer, Being Black: Living Out in Afro-American Studies (October 1, 2000), also available at http://books.google.com/books?id=Y7w7PRzbrAQC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=auth oritative+blackness+Rhonda+Williams&source=bl&ots=7xXZwjtger&sig=BS9ewgTEU Yss_uglnnm1rzfaxCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8gd1U8rOOs_coASWu4HACA&ved=0CCYQ 6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=authoritative%20blackness%20Rhonda%20Williams&f=false
(3) Muriel Dimen & Virginia Goldner, Gender in Psychoanalytic Space: Between Clinic and Culture (Conteporary Theory Series), quoting Kimberlyn Leary from her essay Race in Psychoanalytic Space (November 9, 2010), also available at http://books.google.com/books?id=6wwDgKVS76kC&pg=PT444&dq=%22authoritative +blackness%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ox11U6f_PITvoATrloKYDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA A#v=onepage&q=%22authoritative%20blackness%22&f=false
(4) MaryFrances Knapp, The Unity of Life and Death, SevenPonds (March 2, 2014), http://blog.sevenponds.com/soulful-expressions/the-unity-of-life-and-death-by- otto-freundlich
Mitchell vs Johnson June 6, 2014 Page 3
ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626 MISHMAN@ISHMANLAW.COM
Your statements that you are the author of these two short phrases are absolutely false, and there is no basis for you to make such outrageous and damaging statements about Mitchell.
As you can imagine, as a result of these false, misleading and deceptive statements, Mitchell has suffered substantial damages, including but not limited to, ongoing emotional stress. Although Mitchell is still investigating into this matter, he believes that these false, misleading and deceptive statements about him will affect his ability to perform his professional responsibilities.
Being known as a plagiarist and liar tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or profession, and compromises ones ability to realize opportunities and obtain lawful employment with third parties.
Your deliberate and intentional acts have now subjected you to liability under North Carolina common law for defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil liability for violations of North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1 to 75-35), and other related causes of actions. These acts have collectively interfered with Mitchells personal life and business affairs, and damaged his reputation both personally and professionally. As a result of your conduct as alleged herein, you have impaired both Mitchells personal and professional life.
At this time, our client only desires that you: (i) retract all of your false, misleading and deceptive statements about Mitchell by taking down the entire blog and all your posts at http://tashabilities.tumblr.com/post/58521556793/robert-lee-mitchell-iii-would-rather-call-me- crazy-than; (ii) contact each person that you have communicated to that Mitchell is a plagiarist and/or liar and retract such statements identified herein; and (iii) execute a notarized affidavit that identifies all of your false, misleading and deceptive statements about Mitchell, where you have made these statements, to whom you stated these statement to, and your agreement to cease and desist from making any other false, misleading and deceptive statements about Mitchell.
If you comply with this Retraction Demand, Mitchell will then execute a full release of all of his claims against you that are related to these identified false, misleading and deceptive statements, and this matter will be resolved amicably.
It is important that Mitchells Retraction Demands are met and we receive a reply from you by June 20, 2014 (i.e., 10 business days from the date of this letter) that you intend to meet these demands. However, if Mitchells demands stated herein are not met, then Mitchell will have to consider any and all remedies available to him, including but not limited to, litigation.
This letter is not intended, nor shall it be construed as a full statement of all the facts and circumstances relating to this matter. Nothing contained in this letter, nor any act or omission to act by Mitchell is intended or should be deemed to be a waiver, abridgement, alteration, modification or reduction of any rights, claims, defenses or remedies that Mitchell may have in regard to this matter and all such rights, claims defenses and remedies, whether at law or in Mitchell vs Johnson June 6, 2014 Page 4
ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626 MISHMAN@ISHMANLAW.COM equity, are hereby expressly reserved. We are sending you a copy of this letter by electronic mail in case you refuse to accept the certified mail, return receipt requested version of this letter.