IRTA Our ref: SB/SMI001.1 524 Middle Street Portsmouth Virginia

IRTA
524 Middle Street Portsmouth Virginia 23704 United States of America For the attention of Ron Whitney Executive Director BY EMAIL: [email protected] AND AIR MAIL Our ref: SB/SMI001.1 29th August 2014 Dear Sirs RE: Defamation – Letter of Claim We have been instructed by Dennis Arthur Smith of Camp Samoa, Aleisa East, PO Box 55, Apia, Samoa in connection with defamatory statements made against our client by Annette Riggs (“AR”), President of the International Reciprocal Trade Association (“IRTA”) and Rob van Hilten (“RVH”). Board Member of IRTA in their capacities as officers of IRTA. The events leading up to the defamatory statements are as follows: 1. From 29th July 2014 onwards, our client published an online “blog” entitled "The Barter Series". A summary of these posts can be viewed online (http://www.dennis.co.nz/2014/08/the­barter­series­summary/) 2. The said blog contained posts relating to the future of barter, Bartercard and other barter related matters as well as some relating to IRTA. 3. On 18th August 2014, our client posted a blog post entitled "Fraud at Universal Currency" (http://www.dennis.co.nz/2014/08/fraud­at­universal­currency/) in which he alleged that there was fraudulent activity within the operations of Universal Currency. 4. On 19th August 2014, he posted another blog post entitled "The IRTA / UC Fraud [2]" (http://www.dennis.co.nz/2014/08/the­irta­uc­fraud­2/) in which he demonstrated his allegations of fraud with analysis based on actual Universal Currency figures. 5. Following publication of these blog posts, our client posted the following on an internet forum entitled “The Open Collective”: [19/08/2014 7:13:05 p.m.] Dennis A Smith: Hi All. Following on from my extensive blogging in the Barter Series (some two dozen posts of over 2,000 words each), I now dive headlong into the Universal Currency data (IRTA's baby) and conclude that it's broken ­ much more than bankrupt with toxic and aged debt; hidden accounts and an imbalance in a theoreitcal zero­balance system raising many hair­raising questions for IRTA's members. UC’s management is ineffective and corrupt with nepotism, deception and illegal conduct, all run totally contrary to the By­Laws under which it operates. I highlight figures taken directly from data plainly visible to IRTA Members, proving without a shadow of doubt, that Universal Currency has been deliberately mis­managed for personal and political gain. Over the coming weeks I will be extrapolating lessons from the secret IRTA/Bartercard deal, the expose of UC fraud and what this means for the industry. Feel free to ask me any questions at any time about anything on or off­list. http://www.dennis.co.nz/2014/08/fraud­at­universal­currency/ http://www.dennis.co.nz/2014/08/the­irta­uc­fraud­2/ 6. Within an hour following this posting, AR replied on the same Forum: [19/08/2014 8:03:03 p.m. | Edited 8:54:56 p.m.] Annette Riggs: Dennis gave me a couple of hours to respond to his absolute lies and misinformation before publishing it. I only saw it at the end of his deadline. Sad that he is so misinformed and that personal agendas reign. More sad that people doing important work could be distracted by this nonsense. I won't be responding further except by sincere and personal inquiry. 7. Our client also posted on the same day a link to his blog post entitled "Universal Currency is broken" without any comment, to a LinkedIn forum (Think Barter) 8. AR then posted the same day the following comments in reply: “The Facts About UC 1) UC is thriving and is not mismanaged or even struggling, let alone anywhere near bankruptcy. Members continually seek to earn more UC which reflects the high demand for the currency. The UC users themselves know this to be the case. 2) IRTA’s UC account is currently at ­206,308, which is typical for this time of year, five weeks before the IRTA convention. Like most years, IRTA had to pre­pay the hotel 128,634 in UC for the convention on May 16, 2014. As in prior year’s IRTA will earn that pre­payment back from convention sponsorships and convention registration revenues, plus IRTA receives an 80,000 trade management fee from UC in December. UC’s bad debt reserve account has a healthy surplus. 3) UC is set up to allow members to see the balances of other active UC members, however they are not able to view the trading history of other members or system reports, hence Mr. Smith is obtaining information about UC from a mysterious source and apparently an unreliable one. 4) UC reports its ACTUAL trade volume generated directly from the GETS monthly reporting system. 5) Nordic Barter has not had a sale in UC since 2007 and the account is listed as a collections account/frozen. 6) No IRTA board members or staff are gaming/milking the UC system for their personal benefit. Such statements are defamatory and malicious. 7) Richard Logie (the software provider) has repeatedly stated for years, that UC is the model exchange system in the industry and operates as a true zero­based system. Nothing has changed in the last four weeks to change that correct assessment. Conclusion: UC is healthy, professionally managed and setting new trading records virtually every month.” 9. On or about the same day, RVH posted the following comments on a Dutch barter forum (Complementair geld in Nederland) following a post by a third party highlighting Dennis' posts about fraud at Universal Currency “N.a.v. de berichtgeving van Denis heb ik e.e.a. nagetrokken en kom tot de conclusie dat er weinig van het verhaal van deze Denis blijft staan: ­ de UC functioneert volledig binnen de door UC / IRTA gestelde regels, daar wordt op de daar voor geëigende momenten over gerapporteerd en gecommuniceerd naar bestuur en leden. ­ geen enkele van de bestuurders heeft een saldo of gedrag dat afwijkt van wat door de UC committee is geautoriseerd. ­ Niet 8 maar 5 bestuurders hebben momenteel een negatief saldo, wij zijn daar eentje van met een saldo van ­224 US dollar. Als IRTA zijn we blij met het werk dat Denis heeft gedaan rond Ormita. We hebben het onderzoek vergeleken met onze eigen kennis en ervaring over Ormita en op basis daarvan besloten het aan te bevelen. Echter, het rapport blijft van Denis en de inhoud en de verantwoording daarvan blijft zijn discretionaire verantwoordelijkheid. Wij hebben het alleen aanbevolen. Het is het goed recht van Denis om welk blog of rapport dan ook te maken. Ook als hij zich tegen IRTA of UC wil richten. Alleen moeten de feiten dan wel kloppen. Dat is in dit geval niet het geval. Nogmaals: ik claim niet dat IRTA of UC foutloos of onfeilbaar is – elke organisatie heeft zijn zwakke punten, grenzen en beperkingen. Het is echter niet zo dat er in IRTA of UC structureel wordt gefraudeerd. Mijn rol als bestuurder van IRTA is – samen met mijn collega bestuurders – de vereniging te blijven verbeteren. IRTA blijft voor mij een van de belangrijkste plekken om collega’s wereldwijd te leren kennen, kennis te delen en ervaringen uit te wisselen. Ik vertrouw erop dat dit voldoende toelichting is” A partial translation of this (the first sentence) is: “On account of the report on Dennis, I have checked some of the information and have come to the conclusion that very little of the story from this Dennis stands” 10. In response to IRTA's defamatory statements which in our opinion satisfy the ”serious harm” test under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, our client gave notice of his intent to commence legal proceedings under the title "I must sue IRTA" (http://www.dennis.co.nz/2014/08/i­must­sue­irta/) posted on 24th August 2014 It is further brought to your notice that: a. AR has known of our client’s desire to be seen as a man of integrity and a thought leader within the industry as this intention was made clearly known to both AR and Ron Whitney of IRTA, being discussed many times during the period that IRTA worked with our client on another investigation into Daniel Evans and Ormita (from November 2013 onwards); b. IRTA had worked closely with our client on his investigation into Daniel Mensi Evans and The Ormita Report, and had openly and in public praised the quality of our client’s research, his ethical approach and personal integrity; c. our client had blogged about his personal objective to be involved in a leadership role in the barter industry openly in his series on barter; d. the defamatory statements were made in three specialist forums frequented by industry leaders; e. most of the participants in such forums will have have been aware that AR was President of IRTA; f. in the LinkedIn forum AR identified herself as "Annette Riggs ­ President at International Reciprocal Trade Association"; g. in the Open Collective, AR is widely known as the President of IRTA, and is frequently referred to by the members as a source of credibility in the field, and h. in the Dutch forum RVH specifically identified himself as an IRTA Board Member. It is therefore concluded that all comments made by AR and RVH were specifically designed to cause maximum loss of credibility to our client and to cause serious harm to our client’s reputation. The statements made by AR and RVH show a clear cause of action for defamation. The only defences open to an action for defamation under the Defamation Act 2013 are that the statements are substantially true (Section 2 Defamation Act 2013), that the statements were statements of opinion that an honest person could have held (Section 3 Defamation Act 2013) or the statements were or formed part of statements on a matter of public interest and the makers of the statements reasonably believed the statements to be in the public interest (Section 4 Defamation Act 2013). We submit that none of these defences apply to the statements made. Due to the nature of defamation, time is of the essence, as serious harm to our client's reputation continues for so long as the statements are not corrected or apologised for and our client’s reputation restored. This is recognised by paragraph 1.4 of the Pre­action Protocol for Defamation. Our client therefore requires the following remedies: 1. A full retraction and apology to be distributed in a form and at times and places agreed with our client. 2. Compensation in the amount of $250,000. 3. Payment of our client’s legal costs in relation to advice given to our client and preparation and service of this letter of claim. Please respond in accordance with the Pre­Action Protocol for Defamation. Any failure to comply with the Protocol will of course have adverse consequences for you in the event of legal proceedings being commenced for defamation. Yours faithfully, SERENITY LAW Cc Carl A Steinbrenner, Steinbrenner Law Offices, LLC (by email only: [email protected])