Publishamerica's response to JK Rowling

This is old news as far as PA goes, but it's still funny as hell.     August 17, 2011 Steven Hudson Schillings 41 Bedford Square London WC1B 3Hx Re: Cease and Desist on behalf of J.K. Rowling Dear Mr. Hudson: I am an attorney for Publish America, LLLP ("PA").  I have been asked by my client to respond to your August 16, 2011 demand letter, which was written on behalf of your client J.K.  Rowling.  In that letter, you accuse PA of publicizing a promotion that invades your client's privacy and falsely creates the impression that your client has endorsed PA's "product".  Based upon these claims, you demand that PA cease and desist the promotion.  Your letter also vaguely asks PA to refrain from further tortious conduct without giving any details about how to comply with your demand.  Please be advised that your demand letter lacks justification.  First, PA has done nothing to harass your client or invade her privacy.  The simple fact is that your client's Edinburgh residence is public knowledge; she even publicizes this fact on her own website!!!  Accordingly, PA did nothing wrong by repeating that fact in its promotion.  If she wants to keep her residence private, perhaps she should not publicize that fact.   Second, PA's promotion does not create the impression that your "client has endorsed, recommended or approved the Promotion."  To the contrary, PA's promotion creates the exact opposite impression, implying that the opportunity to deliver books to her is but happenstance. PA created this impression by mentioning that it is already going to be in your client's home town for the Edinburgh Book Festival at the same time it plans to deliver the books.  This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the only information revealed about your client, i.e. her Edinburgh residence, is in the public domain.  By revealing only well known information about your client that is generally available to the public, PA specifically contradicted the impression that it has some direct line of access to your client. Not only is your letter replete with factual errors, but it is built upon a false premise.  In the caption at the beginning of the letter, you indicate that your letter is "NOT FOR PUBLICATION". This creates the impression that you were looking to resolve this matter confidentially.  But no sooner had you sent the letter than your client's spokesperson, Mark Hutchinson, published a false and defamatory statement to the media, indicating that PA had been cited by industry watchdogs for "allegedly deceiving authors."  Of course, there are no legitimate industry watchdogs who have ever said anything of the sort.  The ones who have made such representations have been totally discredited.  David Kuzminski, owner of the Preditors & Editors website was ordered to pay over $50,000 after he defamed one of PA's representatives.  Attorney Charles Petit was suspended from the practice of law regarding his representation of the elderly daughter of famous author, John Steinbeck.  Sinthyia Darkness and Phil Dolan, two longtime PA muckrakers, are currently being sued by another PA representative for defamation.  No reasonable person would ever rely upon anything they said.  By doing so, your client and her representatives have subjected themselves to a defamation suit.  In light of the above, PA requires that your client issue a retraction immediately. "Our client's approach . . . to damages . . . will be determined by the speed and nature of your response to this letter."  In any event, PA reserves all of its rights in the interim. However, it will be more than happy to discuss an amicable resolution of this matter.  Sincerely, Victor Cretella Victor E. Cretella III, Esq.  For Publish America, LLLP     I counted three exclamation points after one of these laughable sentances. Was this really written by a lawyer?     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html   10. The Law of Exclamation First recorded in an article by Lori Robertson at FactCheck.org in 2008, this states: "The more exclamation points used in an email (or other posting), the more likely it is a complete lie. This is also true for excessive capital letters." It is reminiscent of the claim in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels that the more exclamation marks someone uses in writing, the more likely they are to be mentally unbalanced. According to Pratchett, five exclamation marks is an indicator of "someone who wears their underwear on the outside".