nnn

SETH RAFKIN
April 16, 2021
Hon. Louis L. Nock
111 Centre Street, Room 1166
New York, New York 10007

Re: Gildred v. Foster Index No. 153554/2017

Dear Your Honor:
We represent Carolina Gildred, Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. The Court has set a video
hearing for April 20, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. with respect to Plaintiff’s request for entry of judgment
against Defendant Foster. We write to provide a brief recap of the basis for the request for
judgment and an update on Defendant Foster’s continued violation of the Stipulation of Settlement
– So Ordered entered by Your Honor. (NYSECF No. 161.) We hope this will assist the Court in
preparation for the April 20th hearing.
Plaintiff’s application for judgment papers are found at NYSECF No. 212-219. An earlier
application is found at NYSECF No. 202-209. As set forth in our letter to you dated August 20,
2020, the reason for the two applications was due to the clerk’s request that we file it as a request
for “Judgement – County Clerk” in addition to the previous application for a Clerk’s Judgment.
As the Court may recall, on January 16, 2020, following selection of a jury, the above-referenced
matter was assigned to Your Honor for trial. The parties appeared in Pt. 38 at 11:00 a.m. on January
17, 2020 for a pre-trial conference. Undersigned counsel for Plaintiff, along with my colleague
Ms. Bogue, as well as Mrs. Gildred (Plaintiff) and her husband were present in Pt. 38 at 11:00 a.m.
Defendant Michael Foster was also present, continuing to represent himself Pro Se.
After discussing trial management issues, the parties discussed settlement. The Court inquired as
to whether Defendant Foster desired to settle the case and he indicated emphatically that he did. I
advised the Court of the past settlement discussions, to wit, that Plaintiff had offered Defendant
the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement—So Ordered (NYSCEF Doc. No. 161) back in
September 2019 when the parties were before Justice Chan and again at trial call on January 13,
2020 before Justice Cannataro. The terms of settlement merely required Defendant to take down
his websites and other postings defaming Plaintiff, her husband and counsel and to stop contacting
the Gildreds and their families. If he did so, Defendant would not be required to pay any money to
Plaintiff.

1201 Sussex Turnpike, Suite 102 SRAFKIN@RAFKINESQ.CO

Randolph, New Jersey 07869 M
973.891.3370
nnn

Defendant Foster agreed to the Stipulation of Settlement and signed it in the presence of the Court.
The Court ensured that all parties had a fully executed copy and the Stipulation of Settlement was
“So Ordered” by the Court and uploaded the NYSCEF system that day (NYSCEF Doc. No. 161). 1
Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, Defendant Foster was required to take certain actions on
or before February 3, 2020; namely taking down all information about Plaintiff, her family and her Page | 2
attorneys that he had posted online and to cease contacting them. If he failed to do so, then pursuant
to the Stipulation of Settlement, Plaintiff was permitted to apply for entry of a stipulated judgment
pursuant to NY Civil Practice Law and Rules 3215(i) in the amount of $150,000 plus interest at
the rate of 9% per annum ($36.99 per day) accruing from February 10, 2020. NYSECF No. 161,
Section 3.
Defendant Foster has failed to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement. Specifically, he has not
removed the information as required and he has continued to contact and harass the Gildreds. The
Stipulation of Settlement required Defendant to remove any content from any websites or other
media within his possession, custody or control, including but not limited to those websites set
forth on Exhibit A to the Stipulation of Settlement. Specific examples of Defendant’s violation of
the Stipulation of Settlement are found in NYSECF No. 214-218.
Defendant has continued to violate the Stipulation of Settlement even after Plaintiff sought entry
of judgment through and including today’s date. Attached hereto as Exhibits A-C are true and
correct copies of printouts from several of the websites identified in Exhibit A to the Stipulation
of Settlement, i.e., websites from which Defendant was required to remove content regarding the
Gildreds. As the Court will readily see, Defendant continues his attacks on the Gildreds and his
violation of the Stipulation of Settlement unabated. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a series of
photos taken by me this morning where the Court can see the websites reflected in Exhibits A-C
and today’s date in the upper right corner.
The Stipulation of Settlement also prohibits Defendant Foster from contact or attempting to
contact, directly or indirectly, Mr. or Mrs. Gildred, any members of their families and any of Mr.
Gildred’s businesses. (NYSECF No. 161, Section 3.) Defendant Foster has continued to violate
this provision of the Stipulation of Settlement as well. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and
correct copy of an email from Mr. Foster to FMT Consultants continuing to defame the Gildreds.
FMT is a business that Mr. Gildred founded and for which he remains a member of the board.
Similarly, attached hereto as Exhibit F is an email from Mr. Foster to Emerald Textiles, another
business founded by Mr. Gildred and one where he served as the Chief Executive Officer. We

1
Defendant Foster subsequently requested to rescind the settlement on the grounds that he had a
condition called “Delayed Cognitive Thinking.” He filed copious documents with the Court,
necessitating an order by the Court to cease filing anything without express permission of the
Court. (This was not the first time this happened. Mr. Foster filed three summary judgment
motions, all of which were denied, prompting the Court to direct him not to file anything further
without permission). Mr. Foster was unable to provide any evidentiary support for such a position
and the Court ultimately denied his motion to rescind. See NYSCEF Doc. No. 195.

1201 Sussex Turnpike, Suite 102 SRAFKIN@RAFKINESQ.CO

Randolph, New Jersey 07869 M
973.891.3370
nnn

have redacted the names of the employees receiving and forwarding these emails to protect them
from Defendant Foster.
The Stipulation of Settlement also prohibits Defendant Foster from directly or indirectly making
any statements regarding the Gildreds or undersigned counsel or his colleague Jennifer Bogue.
NYSECF No. 161, Section 2. Defendant Foster has continued to violate this provision as well. P
Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct photo of a Google search for “Seth Rafkin” taken today. a
As Exhibit G demonstrates two of the first-page results are from Foster and disparage Mr. Rafkin,
Ms. Bogue and their firm. The third search result refers to Mr. Rafkin as “known to have been
involved in journalism fraud, embezzlement, bribery, and extortion.” Exhibit H shows the content
of the Calamelo site, which is the last search result on shown on Exhibit G and refers to Mr. Rafkin
as, among other things, “master of outside of courts under-arm CASH negotiations.”
Again, the name of the recipient who provided it to me is redacted. Among other things,
Defendant Foster states:
Warning, Seth Rafkin along with associate Jennifer Bogue is known to be
recommended by NY Supreme Court Judges for disciplinary actions for Jury
Selection Staging, Jury Document Tampering and exparte dragonetti style under-
coining within the legal circles - they both are confirmed on the record per certified
court reports NYSCEF for recommendations on potential disciplinary actions. Be
careful:
Seth Rafkin uses a Chicago based Tech firm Owned by one of his favorite client
Tom Gildred (tm the irm hires bare broke off shore indian technicians to do there
dirty work - which can get really dirty and cannot be easily replicated in any defense
strategy) San Diego CA. base FMT Consultants electronic technicians and
engineers can earnestly and innocuously insert themselves into your very book
keeping programs run from within your offices unsuspecting you may be a client
divulging privilege information to a source who you may think is just a firms tech
support representative.
Indeed, Defendant Foster’s violations of the Stipulation of Settlement also involves disparaging
Your Honor and other justices and staff of the Court. In Exhibit I Defendant Foster states:
At the end though the New York Supreme Court was only too overwhelmed with
their Unprofessional PROFESSIONAL approach to the point of orchestrating a
juror selection ONLY THEN the Chief Justice STEPPED in to put a close to the
DUO's contention. All went down-hill as the case was conveniently referred to a
lower court judge who'd predetermined its out come could not be good for the Duo
litigators…. We hope the foregoing is of assistance to the Court and we look forward to
the hearing next week.

1201 Sussex Turnpike, Suite 102 SRAFKIN@RAFKINESQ.CO

Randolph, New Jersey 07869 M
973.891.3370