When Parents Hire “The Beard Lawyer” to Silence Their Autistic Son's Whistleblowing: A Case Study in Failed Intimidation
By Michael Kelman Portney
Two days ago, my parents tried to shut me up. They hired a Scottsdale law firm and sent me a cease and desist letter demanding I remove content from MisinformationSucks.com — my site dedicated to exposing lies with receipts.
The letter called my work “conspiracy theories.” My work isn’t conspiracy; it’s business filings, text messages, recordings, and documents. Irony: they tried to silence a media literacy site by mischaracterizing it in writing.
Most people panic when they get a legal threat. I laughed. Then I sharpened my pen.
The Legacy They Buried
I didn’t get here by accident. My grandfather Zollie Kelman told me my future. He told me to study business because one day, I’d run his business — Freeno/Green Machine. That was the promise. That was the plan.
So I went to business school. I studied accounting, finance, management, business law. I built my education on the expectation I’d take over what Zollie built.
When I graduated in 2010, my mother Abby told me the business was gone. Defunct. Nothing left to inherit. I believed her.
For fourteen years I lived like that inheritance had vanished. I changed my life path. I made career choices around a loss I thought was permanent.
Then in 2024, I looked up the filings. I found out the truth: the company wasn’t dead. Abby’s own employee renewed it in 2012. In 2017, she tried to sell its assets to Century Gaming.
She hadn’t just “forgotten” to mention it. She lied. She stole my inheritance. She tried to profit off it.
That’s why they want MisinformationSucks.com gone. Because it’s not my opinions they’re afraid of — it’s the receipts.
The Cease and Desist Circus
The letter came September 24, 2025, from RM Warner Law in Scottsdale, Arizona. Signed by Raees Mohamed — “The Beard Lawyer” to his 27,000 Instagram followers. To be clear, he does have a fantastic beard.
They sent it right after my parents congratulated me on my new job, which they only knew about because they were reading MisinformationSucks.com. They called it conspiracy while treating it as gospel.
The Beard Lawyer quoted specific posts. He called my documentation of the dissolved-but-not-dissolved businesses “false.” He called my reporting on financial misconduct “defamatory.” He even referenced my piece about their attempt to institutionalize me.
Not once did he say what part was false. Just blanket denial.
Then the kicker: he called the whole site a conspiracy platform. A media literacy site, full of primary source documentation, was labeled conspiracy by a lawyer who hadn’t fact-checked a thing.
That’s not legal argument. That’s influencer branding gone wrong.
My First Response: Flip the Script
I didn’t wait. Within hours I sent my response.
Defamation boomerang: By calling my site conspiracy in a legal document, Mohamed potentially defamed me. The irony practically wrote itself.
Receipts: I listed what I have — texts, banking records, business filings, recordings, professional notes. They know it’s real because they’ve seen it.
Jurisdiction waiver: Most defendants fight jurisdiction. I did the opposite. I waived it. I told them to sue me in Arizona, their backyard.
Discovery dare: I proposed immediate expedited discovery. I’d email them my evidence that day if they’d send me their records. Most people dread discovery. I invited it.
That’s not how a scared defendant talks. That’s how someone who knows the ground game shifts under discovery talks.
The Jurisdiction Gambit
Lawyers love jurisdiction games. They stall. They argue about venue. They bleed time and money.
I shut it down. I waived jurisdiction. Arizona is their home court, their assets are there. I handed them home-field advantage and dared them to play.
That flipped their script. Now their lawyer had to explain to them why, even with jurisdiction locked in their favor, filing would be suicidal.
The Discovery Dare
If you’ve never been through litigation, here’s how it works: discovery is the swamp where truth lives. Subpoenas, depositions, financial records, text messages, recordings — everything comes out.
That’s why most lawyers will do anything to avoid it. It’s messy. It’s expensive. And if your case is built on lies, it’s lethal.
I told them to skip the dance. Hand me your records. I’ll hand you mine. Let’s get to the heart of it.
They can’t. Because they know what’s in their records.
The Second Letter: “New Beard in Town”
My next letter hit harder. I reminded Mohamed of our shared background: we both have business degrees from AACSB-accredited schools. We studied the same foundations.
That includes Liebeck v. McDonald’s — the hot coffee case every student learns first. The case where media spin turned real injuries into a joke. The lesson: don’t trust narratives, trust facts.
His cease and desist was the exact corporate spin we were taught to recognize.
So I wrote the line: “When the gavel comes down, Phoenix might discover there’s a new beard in town.”
Imagine being an influencer lawyer, built on 27,000 Instagram followers, staring down the barrel of losing publicly to a pro se defendant. That’s not just losing a case. That’s a brand imploding.
I also asked about his malpractice insurance carrier. Standard due diligence. Not the kind of question lawyers like to see in writing from a defendant they thought would fold.
SLAPP 101
This was textbook SLAPP — Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
SLAPP suits aren’t filed to win. They’re filed to silence. Tie someone up in court, bleed them dry, shut them up.
That’s why states passed anti-SLAPP laws. Arizona has one. Oregon has one. Both are designed to protect speech on matters of public concern.
Family fraud, probate misconduct, stolen inheritances? That’s public concern. My site isn’t gossip. It’s watchdog work.
The kicker? Mohamed himself has taught seminars on anti-SLAPP. He knows exactly what this is. Which means either he forgot his own lectures, or Abby and Mark steamrolled him into sending a letter he knew was indefensible.
Documentation Beats Intimidation
This whole saga comes down to receipts.
Texts where Abby admits to handshake deals and brags about breaking them.
Business filings showing entities active years after she told me they were defunct.
Bank records with suspicious transfers.
Professional records documenting her attempts to manipulate my autism diagnosis.
Recorded calls exposing the lies.
They knew all this was online before sending their letter. They knew I’d documented it. They tried anyway.
And by mischaracterizing it as conspiracy, they exposed themselves instead.
The Kill Box
Military strategists use the term “kill box.” It’s an overlapping field of fire where no matter where you move, you’re in the line of attack.
That’s what I built.
If they sue in Arizona, they hit anti-SLAPP, discovery, and counterclaims.
If they back down, my site stays live, the federal case moves forward, and their threats look like smoke.
If they posture with more letters, I publish them and they become more evidence.
Every route is bad for them. That’s what happens when intimidation meets preparation.
The Deadline Approaches
I gave them until close of business September 26 to respond. That’s today.
As I write this, the clock is ticking. Their silence so far says plenty. But the deadline hasn’t passed yet. Their choice is clear: file and walk into discovery, or fold and prove it was always intimidation.
Either way, I win.
Federal Context
There’s another piece they can’t dodge. I’m preparing a federal civil rights case in Montana about fraudulent restraining order proceedings. My parents are third-party discovery subjects no matter what.
That means subpoenas. That means depositions. That means federal discovery.
And the kicker: the content on MisinformationSucks.com is evidence in that case. If I take anything down, it’s spoliation of evidence — destruction of material relevant to federal litigation.
Their demand that I remove it wasn’t just misguided. It was a potential crime.
Why This Matters Beyond Me
This isn’t just family drama. It’s about the collision of social media lawyering with real documentation.
The Beard Lawyer built his brand online. He turned legal threats into Instagram content. Now he’s trapped — because if he loses to me, it’ll be public. His followers will watch him fold against someone without a J.D., just a stack of receipts.
And that’s the lesson here: follower counts don’t win in court. Documentation does.
Lessons for Anyone Facing Intimidation
Don’t be scared of letterhead. Cease and desists are bluffs unless they file.
Know your rights. Truth is a defense. Anti-SLAPP statutes exist for a reason.
Document everything. Receipts don’t blink.
Flip the script. Waive jurisdiction. Invite discovery. Force them into the swamp they fear.
Use their brand against them. If they market themselves on transparency, remind them the internet remembers losses too.
The Irony of It All
They tried to silence a site called MisinformationSucks by mischaracterizing it. They called documented facts conspiracy.
And now, their threat is the content.
That’s irony. That’s justice. That’s what happens when intimidation hits documentation.
Closing
The clock runs out tonight. Maybe The Beard Lawyer files. Maybe he folds. Maybe my parents finally realize that hiring Instagram attorneys can’t bury a paper trail.
Whatever happens, the mission stays the same: document truth, expose misinformation, and never back down.
And if Phoenix discovers there’s a new beard in town, don’t say I didn’t warn them.
All claims in this article are supported by documents, filings, or recordings available for discovery. The cease and desist letter is published in full on this site. This article is protected First Amendment speech on matters of public concern. Read more on https://www.misinformationsucks.com
Posted below is a full transcript of The Beard Lawyer’s cease and desist, and my replies
Re: Immediate Action Required – Cease and Desist Defamation of Mark and Abby Portney, Remove Defamatory Content.
Mr. Portney,
This law firm represents your parents, Mark and Abby Portney (collectively “Clients”) with respect to false accusations and defamatory statements you have posted online. Please do not communicate with my Clients regarding this matter and direct your communications to me. If you have legal counsel in this matter, please have them contact my office immediately.
We are writing to demand that you immediately:
(a) cease publishing any and all Defamatory Statements about my Clients, whether verbally, via electronic communication, or any online platform;
(b) confirm in writing that you will cease and desist publishing any and all defamatory statements on any online platform or to others in general about my Clients;
(c) remove any and all posts, comments, or statements that you published on any online platform regarding my Clients.
Please confirm compliance with this demand by or before 5:00pm on Monday, September 29, 2025; otherwise, our firm will sue you and seek damages for the harm you have caused.
Background Information and Your Defamatory Statements
In or around November 2024, you created a website called “misinformationsucks.com” wherein you post conspiracy theories, attacks against individuals, and false, defamatory, and shocking statements, many of these claims involving false statements regarding my Clients, their agents, and extended family members. You originally began posting on the website in a positive way, but you began to make claims regarding estate fraud, trust heists, legal malpractice, bank fraud, loan fraud, and even kidnapping. My Clients attempted to set aside and move past these posts, but they cannot avoid the false statements any longer. Being your parents, they are concerned about your mental state and desperately want to help you. My Clients have tried to address these issues, but you have refused their assistance.
RMWARNERLAW.COM
Demand Letter to Portney 9/24/2025
Page 2 of 5
By way of example, you posted the following Defamatory Statements on your website:
https://www.misinformationsucks.com/blog/how-my-mother-tried-to-frame-me-with-a gun-at-an-airport
I had just caught Abby lying. A lot. The paper trail I unearthed tore the bottom out of fifteen years of her bullshit — about a promise my grandfather Zollie made me, about the business he told me would be mine, and about her own statements regarding her sister Natalee’s will.
She told me Zollie’s Freeno/Green Machine business was gone, dissolved, “defunct.” State filings proved otherwise — alive on paper, renewed by her own employee. She told me Natalee never had a will, completely ignoring that we were both in the room when she signed it; the same hour the business deal was made. She said family assets were handled above-board. The loan trails showed hundreds of thousands of dollars in smoke and mirrors.
So here it is in plain language: my mother tried to frame me with a gun at an airport. -----------------------
https://www.misinformationsucks.com/blog/affidavit-of-michael-kelman-portney-in-the district-court-of-cascade-county-eighth-judicial-district-of-the-state-of-montana-cause nonbspddr-25-50
I, Michael K. Portney, hereby declare under penalty of perjury the following:
12. Evelyn perjured herself again in the “Past Abuse” section when she claimed I had “invented a conspiracy in my mind”. She was aware that I was credibly investigating RICO level activity and preparing to become a whistleblower on Kelman family financial activities.
13. My grandfather, Zollie Kelman (deceased), had a documented history of involvement in organized criminal activity in the Great Falls area. That history—along with the current behavior of Evelyn and her children—forms part of a longer pattern I’ve been actively investigating, and which I believe remains relevant today.
14. The Kelman family response to my whistleblowing is indicative that this criminal organization is still active.
---------------------
https://www.misinformationsucks.com/blog/when-your-mother-would-rather-go-to prison-than-admit-she-hurt-you
This isn’t "family drama." It’s documented misconduct.
They stole from a trust intended for multiple heirs, including a special needs relative.
RMWARNERLAW.COM
Demand Letter to Portney 9/24/2025
Page 3 of 5
They misrepresented the existence of a business (Freeno), then kept it while I rerouted my life around its supposed collapse.
They coordinated PPP loan manipulation during COVID.
They filed a fraudulent restraining order using false evidence and perjury.
And when I began uncovering the paper trail? Abby and Evelyn tried to trap me in a fabricated firearms scenario at an airport.
---------------------
This is just a sample of the many false statements posted on your website. Your website is full of similar posts attacking various other family members, lawyers, and financial professionals, some of whom are pursuing legal remedies.
On one occasion you removed the website, only to resurrect it with more inappropriate articles. The false claims you have made are not supported by fact or law and are defamatory.
Your False Statements About My Clients Are Defamatory
The damages arising from the Defamatory Statements are substantial. Specifically, your posts contain provably false statements about my Clients. You knew that making false statements of this nature would be severely damaging to my Clients. You also knew that these statements would cut to my Clients’ hearts and cause extensive emotional damage. These actions must stop immediately to prevent further damages to my Clients.
Defamation Elements
“The conduct necessary for a defamation claim is: 1) the making of a defamatory statement; 2) the ‘publication’ of the defamatory material; and 3) a resulting special harm (unless the defamatory statement gives rise to presumptive special harm).” L & D of Oregon, Inc. v. Am. States Ins. Co., 171 Or. App. 17, 22, 14 P.3d 617, 620 (2000). “Words actionable per se are usually divided into four classes, as follows: (1) Words which impute a charge which, if true, will subject the party charged to an indictment for a crime involving moral turpitude, or subject him to an infamous punishment; (2) words falsely spoken of a person which impute that the party is infected with some contagious disease, where, if the charge is true, it would exclude the party from society; (3) defamatory words, falsely spoken of a person, which impute to the party unfitness to perform the duties of an office or employment of profit, or the want of integrity in the discharge of the duties of such an office or employment; and (4) defamatory words, falsely spoken of a party which prejudice such party in his or her profession or trade.” Id. at 24, 14 P.3d at 621.
As noted above, the first type, Class (a), is applicable here and is called ‘defamation per se’ because it needs no allegation or existence of extraneous surrounding circumstances to make it such. Hearst Corp. v. Hughes, 297 Md. 112, 118, 466 A.2d 486, 489 (1983); see also Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So.3d 710, 722 (2010) ($5 million punitive damages award upheld where “comments constituted slander per se, comments were intended to destroy surgeon’s
RMWARNERLAW.COM
Demand Letter to Portney 9/24/2025
Page 4 of 5
career and professional reputation in community, comments would likely have significant professional consequences, and award was legally equal and proportionate to actual harm inflicted”). A statement is defamatory per se when the defamatory character of the statement is apparent on its face - that is, when the words used are of such a nature that the court can presume as a matter of law that the communication will tend to degrade or disgrace the party defamed.
Your Defamatory statements contain several statements that would fit under the penumbra of Class (a). Your statements are defamation per se because the character of the statement is apparent on its face, and the words used are of such a nature that the court can presume as a matter of law that the communication will tend to degrade or disgrace my Clients. As a direct and proximate result of the Defamatory Statements, my Client has sustained, and continues to sustain, immediate and irreparable harm and injury including, but not limited to, damage to their reputation and loss of goodwill. Furthermore, the Defamatory Statements are, and would be, highly offensive to a reasonable person and have been published with the intent to publish the Defamatory Statements to the public to harm the reputation of my Client. This was no accident.
Demand for Immediate Corrective Action
Based on the above, we respectfully request that you do the following immediately, and confirm your compliance by or before 5:00pm on Monday, September 29, 2025:
(a) cease publishing any and all Defamatory Statements about my Clients, whether verbally, via electronic communication, or any online platform;
(b) confirm in writing that you will cease and desist publishing any and all defamatory statements on any online platform or to others in general about my Clients;
(c) remove any and all posts, comments, or statements that you published on any online platform regarding my Clients.
You are hereby notified that this is your only and final warning to remedy the issues mentioned above. Please also note that should you attempt to publish or share this letter with anyone other than legal counsel, we will use your publication as evidence of malicious intent in any future litigation against you.
This letter is not intended as a full recitation of the facts or a complete review of applicable law. Nothing contained in or omitted from this letter is or shall be deemed to be an admission, limitation, restriction, or waiver, of any of my Clients’ rights or remedies, either at law or in equity, in connection with any of the matters raised herein, all of which are expressly reserved.
Be reminded that you are also on notice to preserve any and all electronic evidence, including texts, emails, or other information/evidence in your possession relating to this matter in anticipation of litigation.
Sincerely,
RMWARNERLAW.COM
Demand Letter to Portney 9/24/2025
Page 5 of 5
Raees Mohamed, Esq.
portneymk <portneymk@gmail.com>
Wed, Sep 24, 2:11 PM (2 days ago)
to RM, Raees
Dear Mr. Mohamed,
Your September 24, 2025 letter contains a materially false and defamatory statement about my website, MisinformationSucks.com. You characterized it as a site "wherein you post conspiracy theories." This is demonstrably false.
MisinformationSucks.com is a media literacy website dedicated to exposing actual misinformation and documenting truth. Your clients know this, which is why they're terrified of it.
By falsely characterizing my media literacy platform as a "conspiracy theory" website in a legal document, you and your clients have defamed me and my publication. I demand an immediate retraction and apology. The irony of spreading misinformation about a website called "MisinformationSucks" while threatening a defamation suit is not lost on me.
Now, to your clients' complaints:
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. I have:
- Text messages from Steve Potts discussing family financial matters
- State business filings proving entities your clients claimed were "defunct" are active
- Banking records showing suspicious transactions
- Recorded phone calls documenting lies
- A paper trail that would make a RICO prosecutor salivate, including recent professional documentation showing my mom trying to manipulate my therapist into unseeing my autism diagnosis.
Your clients aren't upset about "false" statements. They're upset about true ones.
Regarding your clients' touching concern for my "mental state" - nothing says "we care" quite like hiring an out-of-state lawyer to threaten your autistic son for documenting the truth. Very parental. Much love.
Your threat about sharing this letter demonstrating "malicious intent" is legally illiterate. Posting legal threats about matters of public concern is protected speech. Also, attempting to silence a media website through intimidation might interest the Oregon State Bar and the ACLU.
Since you've demanded evidence preservation, please ensure your clients preserve ALL documents related to:
- Zollie Kelman's estate
- Natalee Kelman's will (the one they claim doesn't exist)
- Steve Potts' financial dealings with my mother
- all businesses which formerly belonged to Zollie Kelman and now belong to Abby kelman Portney
- Communications with Montana attorneys and judges
- That interesting restraining order situation
If your clients proceed with litigation, I will:
1. File anti-SLAPP counterclaims
2. Seek sanctions for frivolous litigation
3. Pursue defamation claims for your false characterization of my website
4. Make this entire matter extremely public
5. Have an absolute Field Day in Discovery
Your clients have a choice: They can stop threatening their son and start addressing the documented misconduct, or they can face discovery in open court where every document, every lie, and every transaction becomes public record.
I run a media literacy website. You just gave me content for the next six months.
Your move, counselor. Choose wisely.
Michael K. Portney
Publisher, MisinformationSucks.com
Documenting Truth, One Receipt at a Time
P.S. - I'm sharing this letter on my website immediately. Your threat about demonstrating "malicious intent" by publishing your threats is exactly the kind of misinformation my website exists to expose. Thank you for the perfect example.
My parents have never taken a law class in their lives. MI suggest you educate them on the strength of the First Amendment.
portneymk <portneymk@gmail.com>
Sep 25, 2025, 4:41 AM (22 hours ago)
to RM, Raees
Mr. Mohamed,
Following up on my previous response, I want to ensure we're completely clear on the path forward.
I. Our Shared Educational Foundation
I notice from your background that we both hold business degrees from AACSB-accredited programs—you from ASU's W.P. Carey School, myself from Stephen F. Austin's Nelson Rusche College of Business.
I propose an exercise for your clients' benefit: Please explain to them, as you might have in your law school application, what your business degree taught you. I want you to really sell it. Tell them about the constitutional law covered in Business Law, including First Amendment protections. The jurisdiction principles and International Shoe's minimum contacts doctrine. How truth is an absolute defense to defamation. The ethics courses on fiduciary duties. The finance courses on asset valuation and detecting irregularities.
Then tell them this: I have the same education. Same accreditation standards. Same core curriculum. Same foundational knowledge.
We both remember Liebeck v. McDonald's—our first real case study in Business Law. Day One, when we learned that “frivolous lawsuit” narratives often hide corporate misconduct. Third-degree burns, 700+ prior complaints, and media spin to avoid accountability. That lesson about checking primary sources and not believing corporate narratives remains relevant today.
When you explain this situation to your clients, please ensure they understand: you're not dealing with someone ignorant of legal fundamentals. Your cease and desist reads like a weak hand played aggressively that any sophomore in our programs is taught to identify immediately. It's a scare tactic, counselor.
We literally studied from the same curriculum.
I'm confident enough in my education and the strength of my First Amendment protections to represent myself pro se. The strength of my education is precisely what makes Abby's decision to exclude me from the promised role in the family business particularly egregious. I graduated from college far more qualified to operate the assets and maximize profits than Abby ever was. Her recent $75,000 discrimination fine is proof that she was not capable of proper business practices, and I believe that's precisely why my grandfather wanted me educated in this discipline, and invested in the assets.
II. Jurisdiction – I'll Make This Easy
Since you're not licensed in Oregon and jurisdiction appears to be a concern:
I hereby waive any challenge to personal jurisdiction in Arizona courts for all claims arising from this matter.
I consent to Arizona jurisdiction. No motion to dismiss. No jurisdictional challenges. Your clients' home court, where their assets are conveniently located for collecting on my counterclaims.
This should resolve any jurisdictional concerns.
III. Expedited Discovery Proposal – Respecting the Court’s Time
I would hate to waste an Arizona judge's time with paperwork and procedural delays when we could resolve this efficiently. I'm making a good faith effort to expedite this process and minimize the burden on the court.
If your clients truly believe they have a case, I propose we skip procedural delays and utilize a rocket docket approach. We could stipulate to immediate discovery:
No preliminary hearings needed
File complaint and answer simultaneously
Begin document exchange THE SAME DAY
Complete discovery in 60 days
Trial within 120 days
Better yet—let's exchange documents informally right now. Before filing anything. I'll email you my evidence today if your clients reciprocate with the records I'm requesting. This would save the court’s valuable time and resources.
Arizona judges have full dockets. Let’s not burden them with unnecessary motions when we could resolve this efficiently through good faith cooperation.
IV. Federal Context You Should Consider
I'm preparing a federal civil rights action in the District of Montana against Cascade County and officials regarding the fraudulent restraining order proceedings. Your clients will be third-party discovery subjects in that matter regardless of our dispute’s outcome.
Additionally, the website content you want removed is evidence in anticipated federal proceedings. Removing it would constitute spoliation. I trust you’re not advising me to commit spoliation of federal evidence.
V. Scope of Your Representation
A procedural question: When I file counterclaims for fraud, IIED, and conversion, will you be defending? Or does your practice focus primarily on cease and desist matters? I'm simply trying to understand who I'll be working with through litigation.
Also, could you confirm your malpractice carrier and policy limits? Standard due diligence.
VI. Settlement Possibilities
If your clients prefer Federal Rule of Evidence 408 protected discussions before incurring litigation costs, I am open to participating. However, please understand the parameters:
Like any business asset, MisinformationSucks.com has value and could theoretically be purchased. The intellectual property rights to my life story are also valuable—I’m planning to monetize them through books, film rights, and other media. Your clients are welcome to bid on those rights like any other interested party.
What your clients cannot purchase is exclusivity that prevents me from telling my own story. They cannot buy my silence. They can't purchase a gag order. At best, they could license non-exclusive rights to a story they'd rather didn’t exist.
Any resolution would need to address 15 years of stolen inheritance value, not removal of truthful content. And it wouldn’t affect the federal proceedings where your clients will be deposed regardless.
This matter has implications for my future professional endeavors that extend far beyond our current dispute.
VII. For Your 27,000 Followers
As “The Beard Lawyer” with a large social media following, you’ve built a reputation on transparency. This matter could serve as valuable content for your audience: how civil discovery works, what happens when truth is at issue, and how litigation unfolds when one side is documenting every step.
When the gavel comes down, Phoenix might discover there’s a new beard in town.
VIII. Your Immediate Decision
You now have four options, and as a prerequisite for all four of them I'm demanding a retraction of your previous defamatory statements.
Accept immediate discovery—we exchange documents this week and respect the court’s time
File in Arizona where I’ve waived jurisdiction—face counterclaims
Conclude this matter—my website remains, federal case proceeds
Enter Rule 408 protected settlement discussions.
I am prepared for any path. I trust your clients are equally prepared for the discovery process. My preference is to minimize judicial resources through expedited resolution. Please let me know your decision by end of business on Friday September 26th.
I await your response, and I reserve the right to publish this communication and your reply on www.misinformationsucks.com
Respectfully,
Michael K. Portney
B.B.A., Stephen F. Austin State University
