Cease and Desist Email Conversation between Stewart Rutledge, Daniel Duzan & Niki Leinberger
Steward Rutledge attempted to call Duzan and Leinberger on Tuesday morning (August 19th). When they did not answer, he sent them texts asking them to remove the Facebook post. When they refused, he sent the cease and desist email on Friday, August 22.
Forwarded Conversation
Subject: Cease and desist; retraction/deletion demand: Strohm Family
------------------------
From: Stewart Rutledge <stewart.rutledge@rosedalecorporation.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 10:45 AM
To: <dduzan374@gmail.com>, <theclarkcountycourier@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Duzan and Ms. Leinberger:
I am an attorney representing the Strohm family at the request of Dre Strohm in connection with your acquisition of the Marshall Advocate and Casey Westfield Reporter pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement executed on June 12, 2025 (the “Agreement”). I write to address demonstrably false and defamatory statements you have made publicly regarding your contractual obligations, and to demand that you immediately cease and desist further publication of such falsehoods and delete all instances of said falsehoods.
I. Background
As one example of the nature of your false and defamatory actions, you agreed to acquire certain assets of the Strohm family newspapers for no purchase price, in exchange for assuming responsibility for subscription obligations, including refund liability. Section 2(b)-(c) of the Agreement expressly provide:
Buyer shall be solely and fully responsible for honoring and paying any and all subscription refund requests, whether such requests relate to periods before or after the Closing Date, and whether they are made by existing or former subscribers. Seller shall bear no obligation or liability for any refunds, claims, or disputes related to subscriptions after the Closing Date, including those based on transactions or payments made prior to closing.
I have included here a copy of the contract you signed and below is an image of this language.
Despite this unambiguous language, you have made and published statements on Facebook, including on the “Clark County Courier” page and on Mr. Duzan’s personal account, asserting the following:
We discussed their no-refund policy extensively, and both sides agreed: refunds weren’t on the table. Strohm hadn’t issued any, and we couldn’t shoulder that liability as a fledgling operation.
Your statement is categorically false. It misrepresents both the terms of the Agreement and the obligations you voluntarily assumed. Such mischaracterizations are not mere “opinions”; they are factual claims directly contradicted by the signed contract. Further, the result of your publication of this false and defamatory statement is a string of comments and other statements which harm the Strohms' reputation and are continuing to create this harm.
II. Legal Implications
Using public social media, which posts are visible and published in every state in the United States, you have created a public record that is both inaccurate and defamatory per se, insofar at least as it imputes dishonesty and breach of duty to the Strohms in their dealings with subscribers. Additionally, your false statements constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the Agreement.
Should you persist in disseminating these falsehoods, you will expose yourselves to liability for defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and breach of contract. Courts routinely hold that parties cannot rewrite obligations after the fact by misleading the public as to the plain meaning of a contract.
III. Demand
Accordingly, we demand that you:
1. Immediately cease and desist from making any further false, misleading, and/or defamatory statements regarding this transaction or the Strohms
2. Delete the prior publication of any such statements from any platform
IV. Reservation of Rights
Nothing in this correspondence should be construed as a waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies available to the Strohm family, all of which are expressly reserved. Although you have shown a propensity to publish statements aggressively, I highly suggest that you do not publish this letter I am sending you nor attempt to use this communication in furtherance of your actions to date. As such, you are hereby placed on notice that this letter's contents are accurate, supported by documentary evidence, and that any selective or misleading presentation of it will only further evidence malice and intent on your part. This malice has already been shown by you leaving me a voice mail in which you stated that I was "full of shit." You should cease that type of behavior and communication with me, and I advise you to govern yourselves accordingly.
V. Conclusion
It is my hope that you will comply with this demand such that the parties can move on peacefully.
Sincerely,
Stewart Rutledge
MS Bar No. 102578
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 11:37 AM D Duzan <dduzan374@gmail.com> wrote:
You do not practice in Illinois. You have no authority in telling me anything. I've asked you to please leave us alone quite a few times now. This is harassment and I'll be reporting you to the Mississippi bar association. I await formal paperwork for court anything else will be treated as spam.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 11:55 AM Stewart Rutledge <stewart.rutledge@rosedalecorporation.com> wrote:
Thank you for your response, Mr. Duzan. I encourage you to seek legal counsel. But, in an effort to help you avoid further increasing your liability, I share the following.
Your assertion that your conduct is beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Mississippi is legally false. By publishing a defamatory statement on social media, you have intentionally disseminated that content nationwide. Courts have consistently held that online publications, by their very nature, are “published” in every state where they can be accessed and where the subject’s reputation is harmed. This gives rise to personal jurisdiction in any such state. Accordingly, your post subjects you to the jurisdiction of the courts in every state in which it was accessed and caused reputational harm - including Mississippi. Any contrary claim is contrary to settled law.
Second, with regard to your threat to file a complaint against me for my efforts, I would advise you to reconsider that action as it would further prove your malice and intent, including abuse of process. But, at the same time, I am absolutely confident in the propriety of my communications to you, and, as such, the email address for the Mississippi Bar Office of General Counsel is ogc@msbar.org.
Again, I encourage you to promptly seek legal counsel, and, if you do so, please refer that person to me.
In conclusion, I repeat the demand.
1. Immediately cease and desist from making any further false, misleading, and/or defamatory statements regarding this transaction or the Strohms
2. Delete the prior publication of any such statements from any platform
Sincerely,
Stewart Rutledge
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 12:10 PM D Duzan <dduzan374@gmail.com> wrote:
August 22, 2025
Stewart Rutledge, Esq.
MS Bar No. 102578
Law Offices of Stewart Rutledge
Oxford, MS 38655-4109
Re: Cease and Desist Demand - Immediate Cessation of All Unauthorized Contact and CommunicationsDear Mr. Rutledge:
This letter serves as a formal demand for you to immediately cease and desist from any and all forms of contact or communication with me, including but not limited to telephone calls, emails, text messages, letters, faxes, in-person visits, or any other method of outreach. The only exception to this demand is the formal service of legal process from a court with proper jurisdiction over the matter in question.
I reside in Illinois and have repeatedly instructed you to stop contacting me on multiple occasions, yet you have persisted in doing so. To my knowledge, you are licensed to practice law solely in Mississippi and are not authorized to practice in Illinois. Your continued attempts to contact me regarding legal matters may constitute the unauthorized practice of law under Illinois statutes and could violate professional ethics rules.
Your persistent and unwanted communications, despite my clear requests to cease, amount to harassment. Be advised that if I receive any further contact from you outside of the specified exception, I will have no choice but to:
Contact local law enforcement authorities in Illinois to file a harassment complaint and pursue any available remedies, including seeking a restraining order if necessary.
Report your conduct to The Mississippi Bar for investigation of potential ethical violations, including but not limited to unauthorized practice of law and harassment.
Report your conduct to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) regarding the unauthorized practice of law in Illinois.
Pursue any other legal remedies available to me, including but not limited to civil action for damages resulting from your actions.
This letter is not intended to be an exhaustive statement of my legal rights or remedies, nor does it waive any claims I may have against you. I strongly advise you to consult with your own legal counsel regarding this matter.All future communications from you must comply with this demand. I will document any violations and take appropriate action as outlined above.Govern yourself accordingly.
Daniel Lee Duzan & Nicole Leainberger
From: Stewart Rutledge <stewart.rutledge@rosedalecorporation.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Cease and desist; retraction/deletion demand: Strohm Family
To: D Duzan <dduzan374@gmail.com>
Cc: <gwaddle@msbar.org>
Mr. Duzan,
Although I appreciate what appears to be your use of AI to respond, I encourage you to recognize that it is no substitute for the advice of qualified counsel, which you would do well to retain before you further prejudice your own position.Please return to the core issue: your actions. You signed a binding contract that unambiguously imposed responsibility for subscriber refunds. You then published statements on social media that flatly contradicted those obligations, falsely representing the Strohms as refusing or evading their duties. Those statements are not only inaccurate—they are defamatory per se and continue to damage the reputation of my clients.
Attempts to distract with jurisdictional bluster or accusations against me do nothing to change the facts. You voluntarily published falsehoods in a forum accessible nationwide. That conduct creates liability wherever reputational harm is felt, including in Mississippi. You are now on clear notice, and your persistence only strengthens the case for willful misconduct.
Equally untenable is your attempt to declare that the Strohm family's efforts to stop your conduct must themselves “cease” simply because you have unilaterally labeled them as harassment. That is no different than a trespasser insisting the property owner may not order him off the land because the command makes him uncomfortable. The law does not work that way. You have published false and defamatory statements that continue to harm my clients, you have been directly called to account, and your answer is, in effect, “I know I am harming them, but do not tell me to stop.” The irony is striking, and your actions serve as further proof of malice, not as a shield from liability.
The demands therefore remain unchanged and in full effect:
1. You must immediately cease publishing any false or misleading statements concerning the Strohms or the transaction.
2. You must promptly remove the false statements you have already published from every platform where they appear.Your refusal to comply will be treated as further evidence of bad faith and malice. Should litigation become necessary, the record will show that you were repeatedly warned and elected instead to double down on conduct you knew to be unlawful.
Finally, I note your decision to copy Mr. Glen Waddle. That is entirely your prerogative although I consider it a waste of his valuable time. If you choose to wrongfully expand your tactics, you should be aware that by doing so you risk expanding your liability beyond the harm already inflicted on the Strohms.
The matter is simple: your publications are false, harmful, and unlawful. The demands stand. The longer you delay compliance, the greater your exposure.
Sincerely,
Stewart Rutledge