Cease and Desist Letter to Tasha Johnson aka Jukebox Jones

ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
9660 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD, SUITE 138-350
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
MAILING ADDRESS
FORUM I BUILDING ———————— 9104 FALLS OF NEUSE ROAD
8601 SIX FORKS RD., ST. 400 TEL: (919) 468-3266 SUITE 200
RALEIGH, NC 27615 FACSIMILE: (919) 882-1466 RALEIGH, NC 27615
www.IshmanLaw.com | www.IshmanLegal.com

ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN
DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626
[email protected]
June 6, 2014 FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION
SUBJECT TO E.R. 408

Sent via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested and Email

Ms. Tasha Johnson
c/o Richard Hutchison, Agent
3071 Arden Road
Atlanta, GA 30305

Ms. Tasha Johnson
Email: [email protected] and [email protected]

Re: Social Media Dispute with Mr. Robert Lee Mitchell III

Dear Ms. Johnson:

As you know, we are contacting you on behalf of our client, Mr. Robert Lee Mitchell III
(“Mitchell”) in regards to certain false, misleading and deceptive statements that you have
published on the Internet (http://tashabilities.tumblr.com/post/58521556793/robert-lee-mitchell-
iii-would-rather-call-me-crazy-than) to others about Mitchell. We have attempted to engage you
in an effort to amicably discuss this topic on April 11
th
and 28
th
. However, you have refused to
entertain these offers and continue to publish false, misleading and deceptive statements about
Mitchell.

Nevertheless, please note that this correspondence is being sent to you in our last attempt to
amicably resolve this ongoing dispute between you and Mitchell, and it is a confidential
settlement communication subject to Evidence Rule 408 of the Federal and North Carolina Rules
of Evidence.

The purpose of this letter is to specifically address your false, misleading and deceptive
statements that you have made about Mitchell. Specifically, it has come to Mitchell’s attention
that you have published statements to others that Mitchell has plagiarized two short phrases that
you have allegedly authored, and have called him a liar when he presents actual evidence to you
that such short phrases were not yours to author.

The first phrase of this dispute is the “Not Me Dance.” Please note that this phrase has been in
commerce since at least 2011, and was not authored by you. Prior to your false claim of
authorship of this phrase, and subsequent meritless plagiarism claim against Mitchell, the
following authors were using this phrase:
Mitchell vs Johnson
June 6, 2014
Page 2

ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN
DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626
[email protected]


(1) Carmen Van Kerckhove, Gwen Stefani: Everyone Else Is Racist, Not Me!,
Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop culture (November 30, 2006),
http://www.racialicious.com/2006/11/30/gwen-stefani-everyone-else-is-racist-not-me/

(2) Bob Hayton, The Legalist “Not Me” Dance, Fundamentally Reformed
(January 8, 2011), http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2011/01/08/the-legalist-not-
me-dance/

(3) Bob Hayton, Jerry Bridges on Judgmentalism, Fundamentally Reformed
(January 10, 2011), http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2011/01/10/jerry-bridges-
on-judgmentalism/.

Likewise, your second claim of authorship of “Authoritative Blackness” is just as meritless.
Long before your alleged claim to “Authoritative Blackness,” many scholars have been using
this term in commerce since as early as 1998, such as:

(1) Wahneema Lubianno, The House That Race Built, pg. 138, quoting Rhonda M.
Williams from her essay “Living at the Crossroads: Explorations in Race, Nationality,
Sexuality, and Gender” (February 28, 1998), also available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=tiFVHZy0vUsC&pg=PA138&dq=%22authoritative+
blackness%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ewp1U8bTEtDpoAT4yYKgBw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwA
w#v=onepage&q=%22authoritative%20blackness%22&f=false

(2) The Social Justice Group, Is Academic Feminism Dead? Theory in Practice, pg.
268, quoting Rhonda M. Williams from her essay “Being Queer, Being Black: Living
Out in Afro-American Studies” (October 1, 2000), also available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y7w7PRzbrAQC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=auth
oritative+blackness+Rhonda+Williams&source=bl&ots=7xXZwjtger&sig=BS9ewgTEU
Yss_uglnnm1rzfaxCE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8gd1U8rOOs_coASWu4HACA&ved=0CCYQ
6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=authoritative%20blackness%20Rhonda%20Williams&f=false

(3) Muriel Dimen & Virginia Goldner, Gender in Psychoanalytic Space: Between
Clinic and Culture (Conteporary Theory Series), quoting Kimberlyn Leary from her
essay “Race in Psychoanalytic Space” (November 9, 2010), also available at
http://books.google.com/books?id=6wwDgKVS76kC&pg=PT444&dq=%22authoritative
+blackness%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ox11U6f_PITvoATrloKYDg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA
A#v=onepage&q=%22authoritative%20blackness%22&f=false

(4) MaryFrances Knapp, “The Unity of Life and Death,” SevenPonds (March 2,
2014), http://blog.sevenponds.com/soulful-expressions/the-unity-of-life-and-death-by-
otto-freundlich


Mitchell vs Johnson
June 6, 2014
Page 3

ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN
DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626
[email protected]

Your statements that you are the author of these two short phrases are absolutely false, and there
is no basis for you to make such outrageous and damaging statements about Mitchell.

As you can imagine, as a result of these false, misleading and deceptive statements, Mitchell has
suffered substantial damages, including but not limited to, ongoing emotional stress. Although
Mitchell is still investigating into this matter, he believes that these false, misleading and
deceptive statements about him will affect his ability to perform his professional responsibilities.

Being known as a plagiarist and liar tends to impeach a person in that person's trade or
profession, and compromises ones ability to realize opportunities and obtain lawful employment
with third parties.

Your deliberate and intentional acts have now subjected you to liability under North Carolina
common law for defamation per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil liability for
violations of North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-1 to
§75-35), and other related causes of actions. These acts have collectively interfered with
Mitchell’s personal life and business affairs, and damaged his reputation both personally and
professionally. As a result of your conduct as alleged herein, you have impaired both Mitchell’s
personal and professional life.

At this time, our client only desires that you: (i) retract all of your false, misleading and
deceptive statements about Mitchell by taking down the entire blog and all your posts at
http://tashabilities.tumblr.com/post/58521556793/robert-lee-mitchell-iii-would-rather-call-me-
crazy-than; (ii) contact each person that you have communicated to that Mitchell is a plagiarist
and/or liar and retract such statements identified herein; and (iii) execute a notarized affidavit
that identifies all of your false, misleading and deceptive statements about Mitchell, where you
have made these statements, to whom you stated these statement to, and your agreement to cease
and desist from making any other false, misleading and deceptive statements about Mitchell.

If you comply with this Retraction Demand, Mitchell will then execute a full release of all of his
claims against you that are related to these identified false, misleading and deceptive statements,
and this matter will be resolved amicably.

It is important that Mitchell’s Retraction Demands are met and we receive a reply from you by
June 20, 2014 (i.e., 10 business days from the date of this letter) that you intend to meet these
demands. However, if Mitchell’s demands stated herein are not met, then Mitchell will have to
consider any and all remedies available to him, including but not limited to, litigation.

This letter is not intended, nor shall it be construed as a full statement of all the facts and
circumstances relating to this matter. Nothing contained in this letter, nor any act or omission to
act by Mitchell is intended or should be deemed to be a waiver, abridgement, alteration,
modification or reduction of any rights, claims, defenses or remedies that Mitchell may have in
regard to this matter and all such rights, claims defenses and remedies, whether at law or in
Mitchell vs Johnson
June 6, 2014
Page 4

ISHMAN LAW FIRM, P.C. MARK W. ISHMAN
DIRECT LINE: (919) 539-7626
[email protected]
equity, are hereby expressly reserved. We are sending you a copy of this letter by electronic
mail in case you refuse to accept the certified mail, return receipt requested version of this letter.

With best regards,
ISHMAN LAW FIRM, PC

/s/ Mark W. Ishman

Mark W. Ishman
ATTORNEY AT LAW

cc: Mr. Robert Lee Mitchell III