InventorEd, Inc. Presents:

Invention Promoter 
Caution List

Click here to break out of Frame

PLEASE Support InventorEd

Your Donation Helps

Edward B. Friedman Responds to Posting Notice

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald J Riley" <rjriley@InventorEd.org>
To: "Lisa Reckner Miller" <Lisa@friedman-law.com>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: ISC & the Caution Pages

Mr. Edward Friedman,

I used email because it is the easiest way of communicating considering my
schedule.

While I understood that your first choice was to remove all mention of the RICO
action
I also told you that I could not do so.  I have detailed notes which I
will recap in a response by Monday.  You supplied the Neustel letter and agreed
during our 9-28-2000 telephone call that posting it was an acceptable solution
(in your view 2nd best to complete removal) as long as it was in conjunction
with the quote from your Sept. 20th letter.  I have done this.

In my previous letter, the one dated 9-25, I said "I do thank you for supplying
the letter which Mr. Neustel signed, for I had not seen it. Mr. Neustel was
adamant that he could no longer discuss the case or even ISC. I have to say that
I am familiar with Mr. Neustel's writing style and this letter does not appear
to have been drafted by him. Considering what he had told me about the case
before the gag agreement went into effect I have no choice except to think that
he was coerced into signing this document."

You responded to this at length during our telephone conversation, telling me
that my conclusions were wrong and that if I knew more about the case that I
would not hold the same opinion.Virtually every word you said, and the tone,
implied that Mr. Neustel had done something wrong.  Yet no specifics were
forthcoming.

I am at a loss as to the basis of your demand that I not reference a court
document in any manner.  The RICO action is public information.  It is
information which is of interest to the inventor community.  It bears directly
on the merits of the recently passed patent reform bill, S.1948 and discussions
related to strengthening the inventor promoter provisions of contained in that
bill.

Since I am not qualified to be able to judge the merits of your position in
regards to these matters you asked to talk with an another attorney.  The point
being that they could explain and verify your position about the law for my
benefit.  Clearly I am not a lawyer but I really want to do the right thing.
Mr. Levy has agreed to join a conference call between you (Mr. Friedman) and I.

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html

I suggest that we set up a call for Monday.  Please advise what times are
acceptable and I will try to coordinate the call.  Also, please give me some
alternate times for Tuesday, just in case we are unable to find a jointly
acceptable time for Monday.

Other commitments make it difficult for me deal with these issues at this time.
I have made a serious good faith effort to address your concerns while
maintaining journalistic integrity.  I delayed the first segment of my trip in
part to address your concerns.  I have bent over backwards to accommodate your
requests and doing so has been very time consuming.  In fact, I have been
putting out fires all week as a direct result of the amount of time I have
devoted to this issue.  I can not continue making an endless number of changes
to the web site.

The sequence of events are:
1) I received your letter dated Sept 20th on Friday Sept 22 and:
  a) Immediately offered an explanation for my comments and a public apology on
the web as requested and:
  b) Sent you a reply letter on Monday Sept 25 detailing my actions and asking
for clarification on other issues.

2) You called me in response to my Sept 25th letter on Sept 26, asking that I
remove all mention of you and your firm even though such was based on public
records.
  a) I did as you requested and on Tuesday Sept 27th you called again, now
asking that I remove all references to the RICO action.  You specifically stated
that the quote which I used from the RICO action was defamatory as the basis for
your request.

3) I responded by removing the specific quote but declining to remove all
references to the RICO action.
  a) I offered to post your comments about the issue which you have still not
accepted.
  b) I offered to post the Neustel statement.
    1) You accepted this compromise with the condition that I reference the
quote in your letter dated Sept 20th.

4) I posted the letter with a link to the quote and the Neustel statement per
our discussion and sent you an email informing you of same promptly on
completion.
  a) You responded with the email which I am now responding to saying that you
did not request this and renewing the demand that I remove all mention of the
RICO action yet again.

Now I am really confused as to what it is you want.  The web site clearly states
that all letters received are subject to publication.  You sent me a letter and
a copy of the Neustel statement.  You knew or should have known that I would
publish both.  We specifically discussed that you preferred removal of the RICO
references
but that publication of the other material which you had supplied to
put those references in context was an acceptable alternative.

What I am saying is that you are asking me to suppress news of interest to the
independent inventor community and that for me to do so there  must be a
reasonable basis in law.  I am really concerned that I have been talked into
compromising basic journalist principles in an effort to honor your requests (a
request made more urgent by a threat of litigation).  Please understand my
position and try not to over reach in an effort to stop the publication of news
which is less than flattering to you or your client.

To resolve this once and for all please review the web material as it exists
today, for I have already made many changes you have asked for.  Mark up each
page where you would like to see a change.  Cite exactly the basis in law for
each and every change you are requesting and why the change should be made and
fax that material to (810) 655-8832.  The material will be forwarded to me and I
will do my best to address the points you raise.

And since you keep raising the issue of your client, Invention Submission
Corporation
, I also ask that if you have any issues with the material on the web
site in regards to ISC that you do the same for those web pages.  I am always
ready to correct error of FACT.  If there are any errors please point them out
and cite the authority for your opinions.  If there are no problems then please
stop mentioning ISC since doing so, in light of the number of people who have
received letters from Mr. Burger demanding that they not discuss his business,
is in itself threatening.

It has crossed my mind that all this discussion about material that mentions you
may well be an attempt to soften me up to get concessions for your client.  I
sincerely hope that is not the case for I thought that your suggestion of a
meeting to discuss how ISC could improve it's relationship with the inventor
community has merit.

Ronald J. Riley  www.InventorEd.org/

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald J Riley" <rjriley@InventorEd.org>
To: "Lisa Reckner Miller" <Lisa@friedman-law.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: ISC & the Caution Pages

It is now Sunday and I have not received a response from you as to suitable
times to set up the conference call with Mr. Levy.  Since it appears that you
may not respond until Monday please advise suitable times for the call for
Tuesday and Wednesday.

As a courtesy I am also giving you advance notice that I just wrote a news piece
concerning the fact that the Pennsylvania Office Of Attorney General has just
opened an investigation into the invention promotion business.

We need to discuss how threats made by ISC against critics cause them to
redirect their efforts.  Frankly your client is much better off to have critics
speaking out publicly where you know who they are and what their concerns are.
As it is you are driving those critics underground.  I have reason to believe
that the Attorney General action is a direct result of such threats.

I have to run now, since my wife thinks Sunday should be all hers and she is not
happy I am taking time to write you.

Ronald J. Riley  www.InventorEd.org/

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

Have you been Scammed? Find out what to do here.
Please Notify Us Of Any Errors Of Fact - Click ErrorOfFact

Blue bar graphic divides sectins of the page

Site Index - Contact Us - InventorEd, Inc., Page last revised 2-6-2005

Smiley face which turns to a frown

Unhappy Customer

  Wallet with money flying away

$10,000 to $20,000 Wasted money

Source Jodie Bernstein