> the law firm the letter is purportedly from I quickly determined that there was no such entity; that's part of why I felt completely comfortable responding a

> the law firm the letter is purportedly from I quickly determined that there was no such entity; that's part of why I felt completely comfortable responding as I did. Here's another example of fake legal threats in this affair, from what I would consider the canonical site about it. http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/stanek-responds-to-his-critics/ http://conjugalfelicity.com/robert-stanek/stanek-responds-to... IIRC (it was a long time ago) the email I received wasn't quite the same, but it was broadly similar - fake identity, clearly from someone barely educated let alone educated in law, same general amateurishness as Stanek's books and reviews. BTW, while I'm here: this deep dive into l'Affaire Stanek might seem indulgent and off topic, but it's not. This is the archetype. This is how online defamation and anti-defamation campaigns play out. They're ugly, they're messy, lots of third parties get dragged in, and people do get hurt. To a defamer, merely getting your target involved in something so obviously tawdry is almost as good as having the initial accusations stick. The internet's infinite memory can be used in more than one way to get revenge, and I think that's important to know.