🍭

OH YEAH IT’S THE 19th I ALMOST FORGOT

Thanks lollipop anon ^^ love seeing you around every month~

This timeee 🍰🍰 have some cake 😋

Amid Growing Uproar, Poland to Remove 27 Supreme Court Justices

WARSAW — First Poland’s governing party labeled her and her fellow judges communists and obstructionists. Next it took control of the Constitutional Tribunal, which reviews the constitutionality of legislation. Then it co-opted the body responsible for selecting new judges.

This week, it is forcing her to step down as Poland’s top Supreme Court judge.

“I don’t want to say that I am terrified,” the judge, Malgorzata Gersdorf, said days before the government forced her out of her job. “But without a doubt this is not a direction I would like to go in, nor support, as I think it destroys what has been built over the last 25 years.”

For the past three years, Justice Gersdorf has watched as the governing party, Law and Justice, took control of the courts, undermining judicial independence step by step. The culmination of that effort came on Tuesday, when 27 of the 72 judges on the Supreme Court were expected to be forced out by a mandatory retirement age of 65 and a new disciplinary chamber was established to keep judges and prosecutors from stepping out of line.

Major protests against the changes in the judiciary are scheduled for Tuesday. And Justice Gersdorf and dozens of other judges have vowed to show up for work Wednesday morning, setting the stage for a possible confrontation with the authorities if they are barred from the building.

Officials from the governing party say they are simply overhauling a corrupt system that obstructs the will of the people. But critics, both in Poland and abroad, contend they are creating a system where the courts will be subservient to politicians, who then will be able to change the constitution through judicial rulings.

In his zeal to create what he calls a Fourth Republic, free of any vestiges of the days of Communist rule and vest the state with ever greater power, the party’s leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski has set the nation on a collision course with the European Union, which views the changes as a threat to the rule of law and the Western values at the heart of the treaty binding the bloc of nations together.

The European Union’s failure to curb Hungary’s drift toward authoritarianism has already emboldened other leaders in the region, where right-wing nationalism and populism are on the rise. If Poland is not made to pay a high price for its actions, critics and outside legal experts worry, currents unraveling democracy in member states will be further strengthened.

It is far from clear how much more the bloc can do. For the first time in its history, it has gone to the so-called nuclear option, invoking Article 7 of its founding treaty. Poland could lose its voting rights, although that would require a unanimous vote by all 28 member nations — a highly unlikely result, considering Poland’s strong backing from other East European nations.

Still, European officials announced on Monday that an infringement procedure had been started against Poland, which could result in the case being referred to the European Court of Justice. For opponents of the judicial overhauls, the European court is their last, best hope to force the government to change course.

But many of the changes have already taken hold. In a step-by-step process, the Law and Justice party has established control over the Consitutional Tribunal; taken over the selection of judges; and expanded the powers of the justice minister, threatening prosecutorial independence.

For now, many of the country’s 10,000 judges remain united in their opposition to the changes, including Justice Gersdorf, who said she would refuse to retire. And counter-pressures are building in the country’s vibrant civil society.

Lech Walesa, the leader of the Solidarity movement that ended Communist rule in Poland, joined the fray on Sunday, vowing to lead a campaign of civil disobedience if Justice Gersdorf and other judges were forcefully removed.

“I am saying a definite ‘enough’ to this,” he wrote on Facebook. “If they raise their paws against the Supreme Court, then I am going to Warsaw.”

He went on to warn that he would fight to defend himself and his country.

“I would like to remind everyone that I possess a firearm and am authorized to use self-defense,” he wrote.

Judges who have spoken out publicly against the purge have reported being threatened, harassed and intimidated.

Waldemar Zurek, a former spokesman for the National Council of the Judiciary and a district court judge in the southern city of Krakow, has been openly critical of the changes and of Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. In response, both he and his family have been subject to intense pressure and abuse, including death threats.

Judge Zurek said he was dismissed as a spokesman for the court, threatened with disciplinary sanctions over fabricated allegations, and harassed by government agents, including at his home. His financial records have been publicly disclosed, and he has faced investigations about a long-ago real estate transaction and by the tax authorities. “There were even attempts to present me as not paying child support,” he said.

Judge Zurek said that he had received scores of threatening emails and letters, and that he feared he would eventually run into someone on the street who would “do what they have threatened to do.”

He added that judges who had supported him have also come under attack.

“My mother calls me crying and asking that I stop” the criticism, he said. “She says, ‘I have never been so scared as I am now, and I’ve lived some years in the world.’ She was a member of Solidarity.”

He said that the government viewed him and other judges defending the rule of law as enemies of the state. “All those who stand in the way of the minister become public enemies,” he said. “They are spat on.”

In the drafting of the Polish Constitution, great care was taken to ensure Soviet-era abuses of the courts would never recur. That is why, among other protections, the document explicitly states that Supreme Court judges serve six-year terms.

Justice Gersdorf, 65, whose title is first president of the Supreme Court, said she thought that the mandatory retirement age was set with her in mind. Backed by 63 other judges on the court, who voted unanimously last week that she should stay in office until the end of her term, she said that she would continue to show up for work.

“I have no intention of resigning, since my term of office is six years,” she said. “They are throwing me out of office. Please write that the first president of the Supreme Court is thrown out of office.”

Her defiance is the latest and most high-profile development in a confrontation that has been building for months.

In December, the Venice Commission, which is responsible for monitoring the rule of law for the European Union, expressed “grave concerns” that the judicial overhaul effort “puts at serious risk the independence of all parts of the Polish judiciary.”

Poland was given until the end of June to make changes that would satisfy those concerns. But no agreement was reached in meetings last week in Luxembourg, and Polish leaders vowed to press ahead.

“In essence, this is the end,” Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Thursday after meeting with European leaders. “We do not intend to withdraw from this reform.”

That critics see a reversion to Soviet-style jurisprudence is not without irony.

Mr. Kaczynski, a fierce ideologue who controls most of the levers of power in Poland, has sought to portray the changes as a battle against former Communists, “red spiders” who were never properly purged after the transition to democracy in 1989.

It is a belief that was reinforced when Mr. Kaczynski’s Law and Justice party first held power, from 2005 to 2007, and he found many of his efforts stymied by the country’s Constitutional Tribunal.

Mr. Kaczynski has not hidden his intentions.

“In a democracy, the sovereign is the people, their representative in Parliament and, in the Polish case, the elected president,” he said in a 2016 speech. “If we are to have a democratic state of law, no state authority, including the Constitutional Tribunal, can disregard legislation.”

Since the governing party does not have the required two-thirds majority to change the Constitution, Justice Gersdorf said, they needed control over the tribunal so they could pass laws that she said were clearly unconstitutional, like most of the changes they have made in the courts.

“The rationale from the authorities was very intelligent from their point of view,” she said. “‘Let’s disarm the Constitutional Tribunal. It’s ours.’”

The Law and Justice party used a variety of means to stack the court in its favor — including refusing to print the rulings of the court itself when it was not composed of judges appointed by the party and claiming, therefore, that its decisions did not have the force of law.

The next step was to gain control of the common courts. The Minister of Justice assumed the role of prosecutor general, which had previously been independent.

Then the party took over the National Council of the Judiciary, which is responsible for appointing judges.

In addition to lowering the mandatory retirement age, the judiciary changes also create a new disciplinary chamber within the court that Justice Gersdorf said would be used to attack judges who displeased the party.

“Judges in this disciplinary chamber will be earning 40 percent more than the justices on the Supreme Court,” she said. “It has to be emphasized that this is political bribery.”

Justice Gersdorf said that one of the great accomplishments of the Polish state in its transition to democracy was restoring public faith in the courts.

“Undermining the authority of the justice system and the judges will require years of rebuilding,” she said. “This beautiful attitude of our society toward the justice system was crushed by the ruling party in just two years for no reason really. This is the blame they will have to bear.”

She planned to report for work on Wednesday, but did not expect to be let into the building.

She shrugged off concerns that she might have to pay a high price for her defiance.

“They are not putting people in jail, yet,” she said.

Anatol Magdziarz contributed reporting.

The post Amid Growing Uproar, Poland to Remove 27 Supreme Court Justices appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2IMOiTH via Everyday News

Amid Growing Uproar, Poland to Remove 27 Supreme Court Justices

WARSAW — First Poland’s governing party labeled her and her fellow judges communists and obstructionists. Next it took control of the Constitutional Tribunal, which reviews the constitutionality of legislation. Then it co-opted the body responsible for selecting new judges.

This week, it is forcing her to step down as Poland’s top Supreme Court judge.

“I don’t want to say that I am terrified,” the judge, Malgorzata Gersdorf, said days before the government forced her out of her job. “But without a doubt this is not a direction I would like to go in, nor support, as I think it destroys what has been built over the last 25 years.”

For the past three years, Justice Gersdorf has watched as the governing party, Law and Justice, took control of the courts, undermining judicial independence step by step. The culmination of that effort came on Tuesday, when 27 of the 72 judges on the Supreme Court were expected to be forced out by a mandatory retirement age of 65 and a new disciplinary chamber was established to keep judges and prosecutors from stepping out of line.

Major protests against the changes in the judiciary are scheduled for Tuesday. And Justice Gersdorf and dozens of other judges have vowed to show up for work Wednesday morning, setting the stage for a possible confrontation with the authorities if they are barred from the building.

Officials from the governing party say they are simply overhauling a corrupt system that obstructs the will of the people. But critics, both in Poland and abroad, contend they are creating a system where the courts will be subservient to politicians, who then will be able to change the constitution through judicial rulings.

In his zeal to create what he calls a Fourth Republic, free of any vestiges of the days of Communist rule and vest the state with ever greater power, the party’s leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski has set the nation on a collision course with the European Union, which views the changes as a threat to the rule of law and the Western values at the heart of the treaty binding the bloc of nations together.

The European Union’s failure to curb Hungary’s drift toward authoritarianism has already emboldened other leaders in the region, where right-wing nationalism and populism are on the rise. If Poland is not made to pay a high price for its actions, critics and outside legal experts worry, currents unraveling democracy in member states will be further strengthened.

It is far from clear how much more the bloc can do. For the first time in its history, it has gone to the so-called nuclear option, invoking Article 7 of its founding treaty. Poland could lose its voting rights, although that would require a unanimous vote by all 28 member nations — a highly unlikely result, considering Poland’s strong backing from other East European nations.

Still, European officials announced on Monday that an infringement procedure had been started against Poland, which could result in the case being referred to the European Court of Justice. For opponents of the judicial overhauls, the European court is their last, best hope to force the government to change course.

But many of the changes have already taken hold. In a step-by-step process, the Law and Justice party has established control over the Consitutional Tribunal; taken over the selection of judges; and expanded the powers of the justice minister, threatening prosecutorial independence.

For now, many of the country’s 10,000 judges remain united in their opposition to the changes, including Justice Gersdorf, who said she would refuse to retire. And counter-pressures are building in the country’s vibrant civil society.

Lech Walesa, the leader of the Solidarity movement that ended Communist rule in Poland, joined the fray on Sunday, vowing to lead a campaign of civil disobedience if Justice Gersdorf and other judges were forcefully removed.

“I am saying a definite ‘enough’ to this,” he wrote on Facebook. “If they raise their paws against the Supreme Court, then I am going to Warsaw.”

He went on to warn that he would fight to defend himself and his country.

“I would like to remind everyone that I possess a firearm and am authorized to use self-defense,” he wrote.

Judges who have spoken out publicly against the purge have reported being threatened, harassed and intimidated.

Waldemar Zurek, a former spokesman for the National Council of the Judiciary and a district court judge in the southern city of Krakow, has been openly critical of the changes and of Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. In response, both he and his family have been subject to intense pressure and abuse, including death threats.

Judge Zurek said he was dismissed as a spokesman for the court, threatened with disciplinary sanctions over fabricated allegations, and harassed by government agents, including at his home. His financial records have been publicly disclosed, and he has faced investigations about a long-ago real estate transaction and by the tax authorities. “There were even attempts to present me as not paying child support,” he said.

Judge Zurek said that he had received scores of threatening emails and letters, and that he feared he would eventually run into someone on the street who would “do what they have threatened to do.”

He added that judges who had supported him have also come under attack.

“My mother calls me crying and asking that I stop” the criticism, he said. “She says, ‘I have never been so scared as I am now, and I’ve lived some years in the world.’ She was a member of Solidarity.”

He said that the government viewed him and other judges defending the rule of law as enemies of the state. “All those who stand in the way of the minister become public enemies,” he said. “They are spat on.”

In the drafting of the Polish Constitution, great care was taken to ensure Soviet-era abuses of the courts would never recur. That is why, among other protections, the document explicitly states that Supreme Court judges serve six-year terms.

Justice Gersdorf, 65, whose title is first president of the Supreme Court, said she thought that the mandatory retirement age was set with her in mind. Backed by 63 other judges on the court, who voted unanimously last week that she should stay in office until the end of her term, she said that she would continue to show up for work.

“I have no intention of resigning, since my term of office is six years,” she said. “They are throwing me out of office. Please write that the first president of the Supreme Court is thrown out of office.”

Her defiance is the latest and most high-profile development in a confrontation that has been building for months.

In December, the Venice Commission, which is responsible for monitoring the rule of law for the European Union, expressed “grave concerns” that the judicial overhaul effort “puts at serious risk the independence of all parts of the Polish judiciary.”

Poland was given until the end of June to make changes that would satisfy those concerns. But no agreement was reached in meetings last week in Luxembourg, and Polish leaders vowed to press ahead.

“In essence, this is the end,” Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Thursday after meeting with European leaders. “We do not intend to withdraw from this reform.”

That critics see a reversion to Soviet-style jurisprudence is not without irony.

Mr. Kaczynski, a fierce ideologue who controls most of the levers of power in Poland, has sought to portray the changes as a battle against former Communists, “red spiders” who were never properly purged after the transition to democracy in 1989.

It is a belief that was reinforced when Mr. Kaczynski’s Law and Justice party first held power, from 2005 to 2007, and he found many of his efforts stymied by the country’s Constitutional Tribunal.

Mr. Kaczynski has not hidden his intentions.

“In a democracy, the sovereign is the people, their representative in Parliament and, in the Polish case, the elected president,” he said in a 2016 speech. “If we are to have a democratic state of law, no state authority, including the Constitutional Tribunal, can disregard legislation.”

Since the governing party does not have the required two-thirds majority to change the Constitution, Justice Gersdorf said, they needed control over the tribunal so they could pass laws that she said were clearly unconstitutional, like most of the changes they have made in the courts.

“The rationale from the authorities was very intelligent from their point of view,” she said. “‘Let’s disarm the Constitutional Tribunal. It’s ours.’”

The Law and Justice party used a variety of means to stack the court in its favor — including refusing to print the rulings of the court itself when it was not composed of judges appointed by the party and claiming, therefore, that its decisions did not have the force of law.

The next step was to gain control of the common courts. The Minister of Justice assumed the role of prosecutor general, which had previously been independent.

Then the party took over the National Council of the Judiciary, which is responsible for appointing judges.

In addition to lowering the mandatory retirement age, the judiciary changes also create a new disciplinary chamber within the court that Justice Gersdorf said would be used to attack judges who displeased the party.

“Judges in this disciplinary chamber will be earning 40 percent more than the justices on the Supreme Court,” she said. “It has to be emphasized that this is political bribery.”

Justice Gersdorf said that one of the great accomplishments of the Polish state in its transition to democracy was restoring public faith in the courts.

“Undermining the authority of the justice system and the judges will require years of rebuilding,” she said. “This beautiful attitude of our society toward the justice system was crushed by the ruling party in just two years for no reason really. This is the blame they will have to bear.”

She planned to report for work on Wednesday, but did not expect to be let into the building.

She shrugged off concerns that she might have to pay a high price for her defiance.

“They are not putting people in jail, yet,” she said.

Anatol Magdziarz contributed reporting.

The post Amid Growing Uproar, Poland to Remove 27 Supreme Court Justices appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2IMOiTH via Today News

No Sir, We Will Not Be Paying This Invoice

For the sake of this submission, we’ll call the antagonist Lord Farquaad because in episode one, this mental midget tries to force payment on a counterfeit invoice from the wrong party.  As the head of an at best marginal advertising publication for realtors, this intellectual half-stack has been using bullish tactics to wring realtors of every dollar possible.  Past plays have included debiting cards on file without notice and providing invoices afterwards, double-billing, over-billing and acting as if past advertising subscriptions had not been terminated.  Today this stopped.

The development opens with two phone calls this morning.  The first to my boss who will be referred to as [Cujaho’s Boss] in all subsequent emails in this episode.  While I was not privy to this conversation, the jist of it goes:

-------

Lord Farquaad (LF): Hey you still haven’t paid your invoice and the credit card we have on file is cancelled

Cujaho’s Boss (CB): What are you talking about?  We don’t advertise with you anymore, we haven’t for a long time

LF: The invoice for the September magazine, we’re featuring four of your listings and now you need to pay

CB: I have no idea what you’re talking about but I’m late for a showing, go fuck yourself Lord Farquaad

LF: This is going to get settled one way or another!

-------

Lord Farquaad then calls me shortly after.  As someone who enjoys his life, I’ve enacted a standing policy to screen all Lord Farquaad’s calls since we terminated our account.  Forced to leave a voicemail, the palpably steamy Lord Farquaad proceeds to go on to call myself and my boss the least professional people he’s ever met, fucking ignorant and promises on top of that to make sure everyone knows how we’ve acted.  He closes by saying he doesn’t give a shit if we pay or not, he’ll just send collection services after us and then extends the “olive branch” that we’ll be terminated after settling and that we won’t have to deal with him ever again.

Shortly following this is the first email we’ve received from him for the alleged invoice - note that this is after the two prior phone calls.  This is confusing as it’s been the better part of the year since we stopped using Lord Farquaad’s publication.

-------

“Hi Cujaho, [Cujaho’s Boss], Attached is an invoice for the Fall issue, please send your updated card information or a check for your 4 listings included in the fall issue. Had you told me or responded to any of the emails I sent out over the last month saying you were not continuing I could have removed you from our pull. I have now removed you from the pull going forward but your listings are in the fall issue and until this invoice is paid your account is now frozen. Please pay your bill.

Lord Farquaad”

-------

This is when I get excited.  I know what I get to do next, so I immediately start researching the Better Business Bureau and its protocol for making a complaint.  The BBB makes it very clear that any submission made is immediately final, no revisions can be made.  The BBB also makes it clear that I need to show I have tried communicating with the alleged fraudulent business and have any and all supporting evidence included in this submission.  I set out to build a paper trail of any past correspondence that I might need, screenshotting everything relevant as well as copying excerpts to be used in my counter threat email to Lord Farquaad.  I then go about drafting the email, building a timeline of our business relations from the termination of his service on, point out every necessary change to service that may be contested, explain why he can’t be right and end with a threat of my own.  I also include a screenshot of every quote from its original email.  My rebuttal in its sent form reads as follows:

-------

“Hi Lord Farquaad, In your invoice today you mentioned that: "Had you told me or responded to any of the emails I sent out over the last month saying you were not continuing I could have removed you from our pull." Unfortunately for you, we have twice done this and have both in writing.  First, November 29, 2016 you emailed to follow up on phone conversations and emails we had exchanged that week regarding the forfeiture of our spots in the Oak Bay and Victoria editions.  As found in the screenshot attached below, it reads: "Thanks Cujaho Did you sell the listing we feature on the cover of the Victoria edition last time? Just to confirm you want us to sell your spots in Oak Bay and Victoria correct? [Random realtor] has expressed interest in taking your spot in the Oak Bay issue and will put a deposit on it Friday if you’re giving it up.  So if you want back in later in 2017 as [Cujaho’s Boss] expressed to me you would be put back on the waitlist until someone drops out. Next issue Feb 5th 2017 Let me know what you want me to do." To which I replied: "We were able to sell the townhome yes.  And that's correct, we would like to forfeit our Oak Bay and Victoria spots recognizing that there could be a waitlist if we try to get back in. I've confirmed the proofs with our marketing team and am just awaiting the print ready versions which will be sent to [Lord Farquaad’s assistant] the moment I have them. Best regards,

Cujaho" Then for the following issue, [Cujaho’s Boss] was emailed by [Lord Farquaad’s right hand woman] of your team on January 27, 2017 asking if he had received the email sent earlier in the week for his personal ad in the latest issue of BCLH - Oak Bay.  Need I remind you this was the very next issue of the magazine that we had already confirmed that we were no longer interested in advertising in.   Again, we confirmed that we were no longer interested in advertising.   As can be seen in the screenshot attached below, it reads: "Good afternoon, I'm just checking to see if you received my below email from Tuesday regarding your ad in the [BCLH] Magazine - Oak Bay February 2017 issue? Just let me know if there are any changes to the attached ad below, and I can make them for you! We will need all changes in by January 31st, with final approval by February 2nd, as we are going to press on February 6th. Thank you!

[Lord Farquaad’s right hand woman] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From:  [Lord Farquaad’s right hand woman] Date: Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:57 PM Subject: BCLH Magazine - Oak Bay To: [Cujaho’s Boss] Good afternoon, We are currently working on updating personal ads for the next BCLH, Oak Bay Magazine. Please send any changes that you want done to your ad as soon as possible. I've attached your ad from the last issue. We will need all changes in by January 31st, with final approval by February 2nd, as we are going to press on February 6th. Thank you in advance! [Lord Farquaad’s right hand woman]" Along with [Cujaho’s Boss'] response: "Hi [Lord Farquaad’s right hand woman], We are no longer advertising in your publication at this time. Best regards, [Cujaho’s Boss] Sent from my iPhone" Since this exchange, [Cujaho’s Boss] nor myself have ever expressed interest in advertising in your publication.  Moreover, as your format has changed and you have moved to an expanded issue with feature ads and small page ads, you have needed realtors to: "Respond or Call to register, your high end listings featured for $99.00 each." - as noted in your April 25, 2017 email (full screenshot attached below) which marked the first issue with the new change in publication format. We did not respond or call to register, and subsequently have never since for your July 10, 2017 issue and most recently the September 13, 2017 issue. In your August 24, 2017 email for the latest September issue, you changed your wording in the call to action. As can be seen in full in the attached screenshot below, the pertinent excerpt reads: "The next listing pull for the fall issue of BCLH is Sept 13th. If you're registered do nothing, if you'd like to register call or respond by Sept 12th. We pull all registered Realtor's high end listings Sept 13th" So when you say we should have replied to your email saying we weren't interested, I would counter with, what part of our multiple confirmations that we were terminating our advertising in your publication, as well as the fact that we have never called or responded to register with the new format, could lead you to believe that we were registered? Your decision to pull our listing, choose to advertise it and then try to invoice our thankfully discontinued credit card that you should no longer have on file is a massive breach of any ethical business practice.   Should you not cancel this invoice within 48 hours, we will be reporting you to the Better Business Bureau with everything included in this email as well as the recording of the voicemail you left me today (September 20, 2017) at 10:50am threatening to send a collection service after us should we not settle the invoice. We understand that you have been harassing other agents in our office as well and are confident that should we have to move forward with reporting you, our already condemning experience in dealing with you will only be bolstered by other agents’ accounts of similarly unethical experiences with your business. We await your response, Cujaho”

-------

This is sent in the early afternoon and now I wait for Lord Farquaad’s reply.   Maybe it’s the caffeine, maybe it’s knowing that I have my foot on a douchebag’s throat and that I’m not stepping off until he succumbs, but either way I am buzzing at this point.  The Lord Farquaad types are always proud  - think the type of proud to have photos with big pick up trucks behind them on social media - so having the opportunity to be the source of personal reduction for this real estate barnacle is undoubtedly going to be my champagne in victory.  All that I’m waiting for is the impending email confirming his retreat from his prior held convictions as to how he can operate his business.

Two hours later Lord Farquaad finally replies:

-------

“Hi Cujaho

Yes that was for your full page ad which I sold off to another Realtor ages ago.  Since then you’ve had your listings on the left positions which are 99.00 each.   Anyway there is no time to replace your listings at such a late date so this invoice will remain outstanding. Your proof will be out tomorrow and I have removed you going forward. Have a great evening

Lord Farquaad”

-------

This is a classic hybrid of Lord Farquaad tactics.  He is blatantly lying to me about already having used this advertisement format - unfortunate for him, as I have spent the morning reading every email we have ever exchanged both personally as well as on my boss’ account.  He is acting as though it is too late - it’s never too late to not pay a counterfeit invoice.  And then he is proceeding ahead as if I have to accept this outcome - I don’t.

And so I don’t.

-------

“Lord Farquaad,

We have never communicated interest or been invoiced for a listing in your updated format.  We have made it explicitly clear that we were no longer interested in your product in November 2016 and again in January of this year and have done nothing to suggest a change to this position.   This is an unacceptable response Lord Farquaad.  We are not responsible for you adding our listings without our consent and trying to bill us with a credit card that you should not still have in your system.  We have provided ample evidence of our discontinuation along with the fact that we have never tried to re-initiate any form of advertising in your publication.  (You will not find and cannot show a piece of correspondence suggesting we have done so). It is not our concern that you have added our listings and it is now too late to replace them.  The reality is that they should never have been in your publication in the first place, you choosing to do so does not make [Cujaho’s Boss] liable for your fraudulent invoice. We're not even interested in having our listings in your magazine regardless, you don't have permission to put them in and we have never authorized you to put them in.  Please remove them.

Cujaho”

-------

A further hour passes and then Lord Farquaad finally relents:

-------

“Hi Cujaho

So I’ve looked at this carefully and spoken to [Lord Farquaad’s business associate], we will delete the invoice but your listings are in already so I guess your getting them for free.   I’ll have a proof to you tomorrow let me know if you want any changes. At this point I can’t pull them so your getting them at no charge.

Lord Farquaad“

-------

And that’s how you get free ad space.