Dear Barrett Owens:

I regret to inform you that our budget simply
does not authorize us to do your homework for you.
We have done our diligent duty to provide violators
with proper and lawful notice of the violations.
This has already been enormously expensive for us,
thus adding to our actual and consequential damages.

We do regard these communications as strictly
confidential, and are carefully controlling 
which candidate law firms are allowed to see
certain evidence of the many violations we have
now documented.  Our task of screening law firms
involves private communications that are
protected by "attorney/client privileges."


We have updated the following paragraphs with
additional information:

Please review the electronic NOTICE AND DEMAND
which we transmitted to you and/or your company
several days ago.  Please also see the InterNIC
WHOIS entry for the violating domain at URL:

   http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/whois

for names of contacts responsible, in part,
for that domain.

Please also be informed of the following:

If A is pointing to stolen property on B's computer,
and B decides to move the stolen property without
telling A, then A is still pointing to stolen property,
even if the link is rendered invalid by such a move.

Moreover, the link to what was once a valid URL
provides valuable clues to locating the principal
infringer, who continues to violate the author's
exclusive copyrights with AOL's file servers,
and other file server(s) which remain active.

Similar links can be found in the index databases
of search engines commonly available on the Internet.
We regard such links as further evidence of direct
and indirect copyright infringements.  You may 
wish to instruct your technical staff to search
these index databases with those search engines.

If an Internet Service Provider fails to act,
after being informed of a copyright violation
using their computers, that ISP is liable for
contributory copyright infringement, and 
possibly also direct copyright infringement.

Contributory copyright infringement is explained in the
industry standards now documented at the website of
Software Publishers Association (http://www.spa.org).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  If criminal
violators feel "threatened" by imminent copyright
enforcement, that is a problem of their own making.

A lawful NOTICE AND DEMAND, to produce certified 
evidence of the author's prior permission to
post all or part of "The Federal Zone" on the
Internet, is in no ways a "threat" [sic],
particularly when that permission was not given.

We intend to exhibit all offensive email to the
jury to be convened in this copyright matter.

If necessary, we will repeat this message.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Author of "The Federal Zone: Cracking the
Code of Internal Revenue" (all editions),
under a pen name

website:  http://supremelaw.com/library






_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com