In particular, I'd recommend looking at the full response. While the original article covers the plain-language juicy-sounding excerpts, the full letter to Mons

In particular, I'd recommend looking at the full response. While the original article covers the plain-language juicy-sounding excerpts, the full letter to Monster also contains some artful legalese that even I as layman can appreciate: It starts with several pages worth of requests for information. I'm pretty sure those aren't actually requests for information - they're a threat. If Monster were to actually sue, he'd be entitled to these documents as part of discovery, so he's essentially saying "if you sue me, you'll spend a lot of money on discovery (and be forced to reveal stuff you'd rather not)". Sprinkled in are some suggestions of ethics violations on the side of Monster's lawyers, a hint at Monster's likely corporate tax evasion scheme (and the requirement to produce the material that proves the tax evasion in discovery), and the threat to break their racket in the last paragraph that kopirgan already pointed out. All this is even more impressive than the quoted part, and sadly omitted in the original blog post.