Legal Letter via-a-vis HWA trustee John Pelan's Infamous Lie

First up, let me point out that I am only posting this because John
Pelan is now trying to rewrite recent history, by claiming that I
forged emails from his former ISP in which they confirmed Pelan had
lied about owning shares in their company. I certainly did not do this,
and invite any interested party to contact Barry Maulding at
www.isomedia.com to verify this.

Pelan then refused to withdraw the new allegations in his typically
abusive manner. I pleaded with him to do so since to prove my point I
would have to publish a letter from his attorney. I didn't want to do
this and only do so with much reluctance. However, John Pelan appears
to be as incapable of owning up to a lie as he is of thinking
compassionately about his friends and colleagues.

This, then, is the letter that John Pelan's attorney sent me. I have
xxx'ed out the phone number for obvious reasons.



Monday, July18, 2005 1:40 PM

H. Schwaeble, Esq. 2812258434

HANK SCHWAEBLE
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

12320 Barker Cypress Rd
Suite 600-107
Cypress, Texas 77429
Phone: (281) 225-XXXX
Fax: (281) 596-XXXX

July 18, 2005

Chris Barker
Haunted River Press via electronic transmission
United Kingdom

Ongoing Dispute with John Peian

Dear Mr. Barker,

I represent John Pelan. This letter is to serve as a formal response to
the numerous Internet postings you have made regarding Mr. Pelan and
statements attributed to him regarding lsomedia.com. L.L.C.
("Isomedia"), as well as an attempt at partial resolution of what
has become a tiresome, however comical, feud.

First, in the interest of disclosure, I will represent to you that I am
also a writer who knows Mr. Pelan by virtue of having sold him a story
for one of his anthologies and who is currently co-editing another with
him. After having established that professional relationship with him,
I have also come to represent Mr. Pelan on several occasions over the
better part of the last few years as an attorney in various capacities.
A portion of my representation has included financial matters personal
to Mr. Pelan.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. You have repeatedly accused
Mr. Pelan of being a liar and dishonest person in numerous internet
bulletin board posts. The genesis of this accusation stems from Mr.
Pelan's comments regarding purchase of additional "blocks of
stock" in Isomedia being more important to that company than
appeasing people who have complaints, real or imaginary, about Mr.
Pelan's posts. In conjunction with this statement Mr. Pelan
apparently implied or stated he was one of the current owners of the
company. While you have breathlessly related rather sparse emails and
statements from Isomedia arguably refuting this for quite some time,
Mr. Pelan has neither confirmed nor denied your allegations, choosing
mostly to ignore them. The reason for this Is that the explanation was
simply too cumbersome to warrant laying out. The time has come to set
the record straight.

The source of the confusion over the ownership claim comes from Mr.
Pelan's participation in an investment consortium. This group buys
chunks of small companies using pooled retirement funds in
self-directed accounts. One of the investments made by the group was in
a small internet service provider that had an almost identical name to
an internet service provider acquired by Isomedia. Because the
group's investments are so diversified, when Mr. Pelan came across
information about the acquisition, It did not occur to hIm to check it
against the group's holdings. He simply assumed the group had been
traded Isomedia stock in exchange for the target company's stock,
which he believed the group owned. He was mistaken.

Explaining such a thing, however, not only seemed inappropriate for an
Internet bulletin board, but also seemed likely to run afoul of the
spirit or the group's mutual confIdentiality pledge.

It is clear that you and Mr. Pelan have serious professional and
personal disagreements. That Is unlikely to change. This particular
dispute, however, has grown both wearisome and boring. It has also
degenerated into the realm of libel due to the harsh accusations you
continue to make. Because Mr. Pelan understands the nature of your
confusion (if not your motivation for failing to just let it go) and
because he also readily concedes his own mistaken assumption, he is
willing to let this drop if you are. I suggest the following post by
you should be enough to lay this particular matter to rest:

Regarding John Pelan, I have been provided certain information through
an intermediary regarding stock- ownership Issues, and while I was
correct in some respects, I was also premature in calling Mr. Pelan a
liar based on his comments. The contusion has now been cleared up, and
while we will likely continue to have our differences, this matter is
behind us and won't be spoken of again.

Because this is an attempt at resolution, legal action is not being
threatened at this time. Mr. Pelan has, however, noted your challenge
to engage legal counsel and wished to paint out to you the reasons he
has, until this point, not escalated the matter further. But enough, as
they say, is enough.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Hank Schwaeble


************************************************** *****************************************

The above letter was indeed received by me from HS. In reponse, we
corresponded two or three times, but HS fell suddenly silent when the
following issues were pointed out to him:

1. John Pelan did originally refute the allegation that he had lied. He
only stopped commenting on the issue after Isomedia allowed their
emails branding him a liar to be published.

2. John Pelan could not have been mistaken about which company his
consortium owned shares in because he had stated very clearly in a
public forum that he had been laughing and joking with Isomedia / CNW
on the telephone about buying "another block of stock" in their
company.

Link to prove this:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.b...df8d5675b516c0

3. Kevin O'Brien claimed on numerous occasions to have seen emails in
John Pelan's possession which were allegedly from Isomedia. O'Brien
claimed that Isomedia had written to John Pelan confirming that he did
own shares in their company. O'Brien also claimed that Isomedia
confirmed that they had never corresponded with me via email over the
issue.

O'Brien's claims conflict with Hank Schwaeble's admission that John
Pelan never owned shares in Isomedia. They also conflict with the fact
that the Legal Counsel at Isomedia (a Mr Barry Maulding) has elsewhere
confirmed to independent third parties that he did indeed reprimand
John Pelan for lying. And finally, if I had forged emails from their
very own Legal Counsel, why have Isomedia not taken action against me?
At the very least they would be able to compel my web-host and ISP to
terminate my account.


Naturally, I asked to see proof of this new claim that Pelan owned
stock in a company which had an almost identical sounding name to
Isomedia. Mr Schwaeble was unable or unwilling to provide it. Indeed,
he was unable to even advise of the name of the company, let alone
produce any documentation in support of it.

Finally, I enclose an email inc of header received from Isomedia which
corroborates the matter.

CB

(Off to watch the The Simpsons. There's a great episode about Police
Chief Wiggum and the lawyer Lionel Hutz that I want to see.)


Received: from [207.115.64.110] (helo=tpa6.isomedia.com)
by smtp.web-mania.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
id 1ClyVy-0004nR-00
for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:55:02 +0000
Received: from auctiondev (flare.isomedia.com [207.115.64.77])
by tpa6.isomedia.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EC5F71C821B
for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:25:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "Barry Maulding"
To:
Subject: John Pelan
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:29:08 -0800
Message-ID: m
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at isomedia.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 tagged_above=-999.0 required=999.0
tests=BAYES_00
X-Spam-Level:
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: LEVEL=
X-WM-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
information
X-WM-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UIDL: Yme"!oYX!!To$#!;TJ"!
X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 2.53168E-060; #1: 1
X-NAS-Classification: 0
X-NAS-MessageID: 1775
X-NAS-Validation: {77A9AD63-8FD8-4D3A-9047-52D783B327C0}

Mr. Barker,

Regarding your email of Dec. 29, you are authorized to publish
any emails I sent you and this email.

I do not deny and have not denied that I warned Mr. Pelan to
stop making false claims about being an owner of ISOMEDIA.
Barry Maulding
General Counsel

On 23 Feb 2006 04:03:34 -0800, "Shelf Space"
wrote:

First up, let me point out that I am only posting this because John
Pelan is now trying to rewrite recent history, by claiming that I
forged emails from his former ISP in which they confirmed Pelan had
lied about owning shares in their company. I certainly did not do this,
and invite any interested party to contact Barry Maulding at
www.isomedia.com to verify this.

Pelan then refused to withdraw the new allegations in his typically
abusive manner. I pleaded with him to do so since to prove my point I
would have to publish a letter from his attorney. I didn't want to do
this and only do so with much reluctance. However, John Pelan appears
to be as incapable of owning up to a lie as he is of thinking
compassionately about his friends and colleagues.

This, then, is the letter that John Pelan's attorney sent me. I have
xxx'ed out the phone number for obvious reasons.



Monday, July18, 2005 1:40 PM

H. Schwaeble, Esq. 2812258434

HANK SCHWAEBLE
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

12320 Barker Cypress Rd
Suite 600-107
Cypress, Texas 77429
Phone: (281) 225-XXXX
Fax: (281) 596-XXXX

July 18, 2005

Chris Barker
Haunted River Press via electronic transmission
United Kingdom

Ongoing Dispute with John Peian

Dear Mr. Barker,

I represent John Pelan. This letter is to serve as a formal response to
the numerous Internet postings you have made regarding Mr. Pelan and
statements attributed to him regarding lsomedia.com. L.L.C.
("Isomedia"), as well as an attempt at partial resolution of what
has become a tiresome, however comical, feud.

First, in the interest of disclosure, I will represent to you that I am
also a writer who knows Mr. Pelan by virtue of having sold him a story
for one of his anthologies and who is currently co-editing another with
him. After having established that professional relationship with him,
I have also come to represent Mr. Pelan on several occasions over the
better part of the last few years as an attorney in various capacities.
A portion of my representation has included financial matters personal
to Mr. Pelan.

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. You have repeatedly accused
Mr. Pelan of being a liar and dishonest person in numerous internet
bulletin board posts. The genesis of this accusation stems from Mr.
Pelan's comments regarding purchase of additional "blocks of
stock" in Isomedia being more important to that company than
appeasing people who have complaints, real or imaginary, about Mr.
Pelan's posts. In conjunction with this statement Mr. Pelan
apparently implied or stated he was one of the current owners of the
company. While you have breathlessly related rather sparse emails and
statements from Isomedia arguably refuting this for quite some time,
Mr. Pelan has neither confirmed nor denied your allegations, choosing
mostly to ignore them. The reason for this Is that the explanation was
simply too cumbersome to warrant laying out. The time has come to set
the record straight.

The source of the confusion over the ownership claim comes from Mr.
Pelan's participation in an investment consortium. This group buys
chunks of small companies using pooled retirement funds in
self-directed accounts. One of the investments made by the group was in
a small internet service provider that had an almost identical name to
an internet service provider acquired by Isomedia. Because the
group's investments are so diversified, when Mr. Pelan came across
information about the acquisition, It did not occur to hIm to check it
against the group's holdings. He simply assumed the group had been
traded Isomedia stock in exchange for the target company's stock,
which he believed the group owned. He was mistaken.

Explaining such a thing, however, not only seemed inappropriate for an
Internet bulletin board, but also seemed likely to run afoul of the
spirit or the group's mutual confIdentiality pledge.

It is clear that you and Mr. Pelan have serious professional and
personal disagreements. That Is unlikely to change. This particular
dispute, however, has grown both wearisome and boring. It has also
degenerated into the realm of libel due to the harsh accusations you
continue to make. Because Mr. Pelan understands the nature of your
confusion (if not your motivation for failing to just let it go) and
because he also readily concedes his own mistaken assumption, he is
willing to let this drop if you are. I suggest the following post by
you should be enough to lay this particular matter to rest:

Regarding John Pelan, I have been provided certain information through
an intermediary regarding stock- ownership Issues, and while I was
correct in some respects, I was also premature in calling Mr. Pelan a
liar based on his comments. The contusion has now been cleared up, and
while we will likely continue to have our differences, this matter is
behind us and won't be spoken of again.

Because this is an attempt at resolution, legal action is not being
threatened at this time. Mr. Pelan has, however, noted your challenge
to engage legal counsel and wished to paint out to you the reasons he
has, until this point, not escalated the matter further. But enough, as
they say, is enough.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Hank Schwaeble


************************************************* ******************************************

The above letter was indeed received by me from HS. In reponse, we
corresponded two or three times, but HS fell suddenly silent when the
following issues were pointed out to him:

1. John Pelan did originally refute the allegation that he had lied. He
only stopped commenting on the issue after Isomedia allowed their
emails branding him a liar to be published.

2. John Pelan could not have been mistaken about which company his
consortium owned shares in because he had stated very clearly in a
public forum that he had been laughing and joking with Isomedia / CNW
on the telephone about buying "another block of stock" in their
company.

Link to prove this:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.b...df8d5675b516c0

3. Kevin O'Brien claimed on numerous occasions to have seen emails in
John Pelan's possession which were allegedly from Isomedia. O'Brien
claimed that Isomedia had written to John Pelan confirming that he did
own shares in their company. O'Brien also claimed that Isomedia
confirmed that they had never corresponded with me via email over the
issue.

O'Brien's claims conflict with Hank Schwaeble's admission that John
Pelan never owned shares in Isomedia. They also conflict with the fact
that the Legal Counsel at Isomedia (a Mr Barry Maulding) has elsewhere
confirmed to independent third parties that he did indeed reprimand
John Pelan for lying. And finally, if I had forged emails from their
very own Legal Counsel, why have Isomedia not taken action against me?
At the very least they would be able to compel my web-host and ISP to
terminate my account.


Naturally, I asked to see proof of this new claim that Pelan owned
stock in a company which had an almost identical sounding name to
Isomedia. Mr Schwaeble was unable or unwilling to provide it. Indeed,
he was unable to even advise of the name of the company, let alone
produce any documentation in support of it.

Finally, I enclose an email inc of header received from Isomedia which
corroborates the matter.

CB

(Off to watch the The Simpsons. There's a great episode about Police
Chief Wiggum and the lawyer Lionel Hutz that I want to see.)


Received: from [207.115.64.110] (helo=tpa6.isomedia.com)
by smtp.web-mania.com with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
id 1ClyVy-0004nR-00
for ; Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:55:02 +0000
Received: from auctiondev (flare.isomedia.com [207.115.64.77])
by tpa6.isomedia.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EC5F71C821B
for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:25:15 -0800 (PST)
From: "Barry Maulding"
To:
Subject: John Pelan
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:29:08 -0800
Message-ID: m
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at isomedia.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 tagged_above=-999.0 required=999.0
tests=BAYES_00
X-Spam-Level:
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: LEVEL=
X-WM-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more
information
X-WM-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UIDL: Yme"!oYX!!To$#!;TJ"!
X-NAS-Bayes: #0: 2.53168E-060; #1: 1
X-NAS-Classification: 0
X-NAS-MessageID: 1775
X-NAS-Validation: {77A9AD63-8FD8-4D3A-9047-52D783B327C0}

Mr. Barker,

Regarding your email of Dec. 29, you are authorized to publish
any emails I sent you and this email.

I do not deny and have not denied that I warned Mr. Pelan to
stop making false claims about being an owner of ISOMEDIA.
Barry Maulding
General Counsel


Is this the best you can do?

John

"Shelf Space" wrote in message
ups.com...
First up, let me point out that I am only posting this

purported letter snipped

Anyone with any knowledge or experience of the legal profession
knows that solicitors and attorneys don't write letters to
anyone - even simply to confirm what day of the week it is -
without first being paid large sums of money.

And so who are you claiming paid Mr Schwaeble to write
that letter ?

michael adams

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:26:03 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Shelf Space" wrote in message
oups.com...
First up, let me point out that I am only posting this

purported letter snipped

Anyone with any knowledge or experience of the legal profession
knows that solicitors and attorneys don't write letters to
anyone - even simply to confirm what day of the week it is -
without first being paid large sums of money.

And so who are you claiming paid Mr Schwaeble to write
that letter ?

michael adams


Oh dear, a logical question... I predict that Barky will respond with
"whatever" or a lengthy screed about sockpuppets and the little people
putting salt in his sugar bowl.

Cheers,

John

Chris Barker wrote:

[snipped]

John Pelan replied:

Is this the best you can do?

I agree. If you can't be on topic (book collecting, remember?), you could at
least be entertaining!

If there is anything that makes me believe this attorney's letter may be
genuine it is the fact that it is so *dull*. There is nothing in it that
indicates anything other than a total weariness with the whole silly
business - the same weariness rcbers have been feeling since Chris Barker
started posting here four years ago.

Plus ça change...

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.org

michael adams wrote:

"Shelf Space" wrote in message
ups.com...
First up, let me point out that I am only posting this

purported letter snipped

Anyone with any knowledge or experience of the legal profession
knows that solicitors and attorneys don't write letters to
anyone - even simply to confirm what day of the week it is -
without first being paid large sums of money.

And so who are you claiming paid Mr Schwaeble to write
that letter ?

michael adams

Even though you are a buffoon, that's a good question.

I asked HS whether John Pelan was paying him because I suspected he had
bartered free legal advice in exchange for promising to pull strings to
get him (HS) published.

HS never did confirm whether Pelan was paying. He evaded the question
more than once.

Knowing Pelan to be a cheapskate, I very much doubt he did get paid.

CB

"Shelf Space" wrote in message
ups.com...
michael adams wrote:

"Shelf Space" wrote in message
ups.com...
First up, let me point out that I am only posting this

purported letter snipped

Anyone with any knowledge or experience of the legal profession
knows that solicitors and attorneys don't write letters to
anyone - even simply to confirm what day of the week it is -
without first being paid large sums of money.

And so who are you claiming paid Mr Schwaeble to write
that letter ?

michael adams

that's a good question.

I asked HS whether John Pelan was paying him


That isn't the question.

The question is, why should HS go to the trouble of answering
your question, unless you paid him, or are an existing client
of his ?

Why should he go out of his way to accomodate you?

You're free of course to ask anyone anything you like. Even
a cat can look at a Queen, as they say.

However, no solicitor or attorney would ever divulge information
as to whether a third party was, or was not, a client of theirs,
to a stranger. That breaches their code of Professional Ethics
for a start. For which they could be struck off.

If you were known to them in a professional capacity and could be
trusted to be discrete, or they were presented with a Court Order
or Warrant compelling them to disclose that information, then that
would be different. But that isn't the case here.

So as thing stand, contrary to what you say, no solicitor, or
attorney has ever furnished you with the information which you
claim they did, let alone provide it for you, without charge.


michael adams

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases:
A Personal View
H.D.Janowitz
Yearbook Medical Publishers
1986

....







because I suspected he had
bartered free legal advice in exchange for promising to pull strings to
get him (HS) published.

HS never did confirm whether Pelan was paying. He evaded the question
more than once.

Knowing Pelan to be a cheapskate, I very much doubt he did get paid.

CB

michael adams wrote:

"Shelf Space" wrote in message
ups.com...

First up, let me point out that I am only posting this


purported letter snipped

Anyone with any knowledge or experience of the legal profession
knows that solicitors and attorneys don't write letters to
anyone - even simply to confirm what day of the week it is -
without first being paid large sums of money.

And so who are you claiming paid Mr Schwaeble to write
that letter ?

michael adams



What bothered me most about the letter was the disclosure of transactions
between attorney and client. I would have regarded that as confidential to the
client.


Francis A. Miniter

wasnt this letter already posted once?
or was that in another group?
cant we confine this junk to just one place????

Francis A. Miniter wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Shelf Space" wrote in message
ups.com...

First up, let me point out that I am only posting this


purported letter snipped

Anyone with any knowledge or experience of the legal profession
knows that solicitors and attorneys don't write letters to
anyone - even simply to confirm what day of the week it is -
without first being paid large sums of money.

And so who are you claiming paid Mr Schwaeble to write
that letter ?

michael adams



What bothered me most about the letter was the disclosure of transactions
between attorney and client. I would have regarded that as confidential to the
client.


Francis A. Miniter

The concerns some of you have raised led me to investigate things. I've
been in contact with other businesses who occupy the same building -
they've never heard of Schwaeble. I've emailed the building owners -
they've never heard of him. What's more, there's no reference to Hank
Schwaeble being an atorney anywhere on the internet.

If this is true - if Hank Schwable is not an attorney - then it means
he falsely portrayed himself as one in order to help John Pelan get out
of a tight corner.

Bearing in mind both are senior officials at the HWA (the Horror
Writers Association), this could be a very serious matter.

I don't know what the law is like in the US, but in the UK it is a
serious offence to impersonate a solicitor.

CB