5063-001 Winster Drive

Winston-Salem, NC 27106
daniel.e.skinner@gmail.com
(704) 838-6341
October 6, 2014

Joe Patrice
Assistant Editor
Breaking Media
611 Broadway, Suite 907D
New York, New York 10012

Dear Mr. Patrice:

Please remove Wake Forest Lawsuit Follow-Up from your website. Issues include:

1. So what got that Wake Forest law student mad enough that he started
calling for Wakes accreditation?

Skinner took to his personal blog calling for Wakes accreditation because
the student handbook didnt include instructions for filing written
complaints.

Both statements are false. I did not call for Wakes accreditation. I suggested that
the law school publish a corrective statement and give students an opportunity to
ensure that any verbal complaints made during the previous year were included in
the written record that the law school must make available at its next accreditation
review. It was a corrective, non-punitive sanction even though the misconduct
associated with the law schools violations was considerable.

A whistleblower who demonstrates restraint and sound judgment can nevertheless
become the object of hatred and contempt, and responsible journalists keep that in
mind. You, however, falsely claimed that I requested the most severe sanction,
and you attributed my alleged conduct to anger.

You had notice that the statements above were false. On May 18, 2013, I wrote:

I did not call for removal of Wake Forest from the list of approved law
schools. In my response to the ABAs dismissal of my complaint, I wrote:

Wake Forest would have to maintain a record of
student complaints submitted during the most recent
accreditation period to be currently in compliance with
of 3 1
Standard 512. That would require contacting the students
who attended Wake Forest during the 2011-2012 year,
letting them know about the standard, and giving them the
opportunity to file a written complaint pursuant to that
standard. Wake Forest has not done any of those things.

My response implied that I thought the ABA should have at least
required publication of a corrective statement under Rule 16(c)(4).

Failure to remove the false statements after they were brought to your attention
demonstrates reckless disregard for the truth.

2. Daniel Skinner, filed a defamation suit. . . over a letter he received suggesting that
hes quick to accuse folks of fraud and deceit.

The statement is factually inaccurate in three ways. First, Dean Reynolds did not
characterize my conclusions as premature or careless, but you reported that the
letter suggested that I was quick to accuse folks of fraud and deceit and implied
that the conclusions were the result of a lack of diligence. The conduct Dean
Reynolds addressed, however, was how I allegedly understand and react to
disagreement, not carelessness or lack of diligence. As I explained in my October
4, 2014 letter to you,

Dean Reynolds implied that I would conclude without proof that people
were acting in bad faith if they disagreed with me, and then accuse them
of fraud on the basis of that assumption.

Her statement implicates fitness to practice law; a person making the
accusations attributed to me would be unemployable. A lawyer would be
disbarred if he made baseless accusations of fraud whenever people
disagreed with him, and a court would be required to impose Rule 11
sanctions if the allegations were made in a signed pleading. Civil liability
for per se defamation would attach if baseless allegations of fraud were
made outside of court.

Second, libel wasnt the only claim. I also alleged that Dean Reynolds was
incompetent, and that Wake Forest was negligent in supervising her. That claim
was not reported in Wake Forest Lawsuit Follow-Up or Law Student Sues
Law School For Implying Hes Litigious.

Third, I did not file a libel claim over a letter I received; the claim was filed over
publication of libelous material to third parties.

of 3 2
3. The details of this claim werent clear from the complaint and Skinners
personal blog. But thankfully some folks have stepped up and provided us
with more material. . . .

You put people in front of a national audience; destroy their professional
reputations with falsehoods; and then characterize the people who attempt to
correct your mistakes as stepping up, as if the public is responsible for your
recklessness. The public is not responsible for what you write you are.

4. You can read a memo outlining Skinners full argument on the next page. . .

So in the interest of full disclosure, lets take a look at Skinners side of this
story. . .

The memo did not outline my full argument I explicitly stated otherwise:
This memo is a basic introduction; I would be happy to provide more
information. I concluded with a disclaimer because the memo was nothing more
than background information that a journalist would need to know before
investigating misconduct at Wake Forest. Your statement misleads readers and
implies that you have adequately researched what you are writing about.
Furthermore, you did not present my side of this story or act in the interest of
full disclosure.

5. And heres what kicks off the current round of rhetorical skirmishes. Wake Forest
claimed to fulfill all the ABAs accreditation standards, but Skinner checked out his
student handbook and found a fault.

It seems to me that this was a failure that merited a hey whats up with this? and
not lets take this to the ABA, but Im probably more laid back than the average
lawyer.

The first statement is factually inaccurate. The second statement is an opinion
based on assumptions that are factually inaccurate. Both are harmful to my
reputation.

Please remove Law Student Sues Law School For Implying Hes Litigious immediately. If
you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

/s/ Daniel E. Skinner
of 3 3