Mr. Karam, you mention a “finding of the court stating that there was no illicit money transfer or any money transfer at all by us as alleged by the said Setraco Nigeria Ltd.” I am not aware of the decision, but if you will provide a link to it, I would be happy to publish it.

Our attention has been drawn to the publication in re Application of Setraco Nigeria Ltd (M.D. Fla. 2013) wherein you published and posted to the internet that Setraco Nigeria Ltd alleged that in 2012 it discovered that two of its employees, Michel Nehme and Bechara Karam had incorporated entities using the Setraco name in the United States and Canada without its knowledge or permission. That according to Setraco Nigeria, the two employees used these North American entities to transfer money illicitly.

That the aforesaid assertion without confirmation that the two employees used these entities to transfer money illicitly imports the requisite innuendo of criminality and holds us out as fraudulent dishonourable, and persons not to be trusted thereby exposed us to hatred, ridicule, odium and undermined our integrity in the estimation of reasonable member of the society all over the world particularly in the United State of America, Canada and Nigeria. Your said publication has no legal justification whatsoever as investigation by the court has revealed that we are innocent of the allegations against us for which they have tried to tarnish our image and reputation.

We are therefore demanding that you publish the finding of the court stating that there was no illicit money transfer or any money transfer at all by us as alleged by the said Setraco Nigeria Ltd. This becomes imperative in order to exclude you from the impending legal actions against Setraco Nigeria Ltd. If you fail, refuse or neglect to so do, we shall not hesitate to join you in any matter concerning this case.

Mr. Karam, I believe my post was a fair report of the Florida proceedings. You are right to point out that the court heard the case ex parte, but that is what almost always happens in § 1782 cases. You are welcome to comment here on the facts of the case from your perspective if you like. My post, though, was not really about the facts of the case, but whether the Flordia court was right to grant Setraco’s request for leave to serve a subpoena given what Setraco told the court about the facts of the case.

BECHARA KARAM