Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Chicago Lawyer Rishi Nair (previously disguised as "Bob Breck"), Makes a DECISION That CONDEMNS Some Dang Fool YANKEES!!!!

Rishi Nair, a Chicago lawyer, previously known under the alias "Bob Breck".

And JUST NOW, the CIA has decided to mess with my formatting, so I'll fill some space with images to push the text, here, down down below the text to the right (nothing is wrapping properly when pasted in from email).

Click to enlarge -- can be seen IN FULL, here:



Rishi Nair

4:42 PM (4 hours ago)
to me
Mr. Kenan,

I am getting frustrated.  What more do you want from me? I have other matters that I need to attend to -- I prioritized writing a fair clean agreement that effectuated what you and my client want.  You got your agreement in an expedited timeframe.  Get an attorney friend to review it and they will undoubtedly remark it is a very favorable agreement for you and my client.  

Further, your attempts to bully me will not work.  If you do not want end this matter and insist upon publishing everything -- that is your prerogative but it has consequences and I intend on pursuing all legal remedies available.  I, for one, cannot fathom why you insist on conflict despite professing a desire to put this away.

Please succinctly state your revisions to the proposed agreement and I will discuss them with my client.  I took time to ensure the agreement was succinct, as you requested, please consider extending me the same courtesy.  I don't understand what there is to object to but if you can articulate it succinctly, I will better understand and be able to consider it.

If continue to threaten to breach the agreement we had, the agreement will die.



Rishi Nair
Nair Law LLC
3735 N. Christiana Ave., Suite 1
Chicago, IL 60618


Re: frustratio​n


Scott Kenan

8:28 PM (32 minutes ago)
to Rishi, Jamie, Daliah, jduncan, cmcelwain, Saper, scoop, editorial, Team,

Rishi, you GOD-DAMNED MOTHER-FUCKER -- you have just condemned yourself, Jamie Sutherland, and all the others in Chicago to PRISON and BANKRUPTCY!!!


I only feel sorry for Jamie Sutherland -- this punishment that will be levied on ALL OF YOU will be greater than you can imagine.

Tough Titties,

PS: I'll publish all this after first getting out another posting . . .


Rishi Nair

May 20 (1 day ago)
to me:
Mr. Kenan,

Attached is the draft settlement agreement.  I made it as simple as possible while still being a legal document.  I know 4 pages may seem overly long, but its as short as I can make it while still being effective for both parties.  Trust me when I say most settlement agreements dwarf this one in terms of both complexity and legal jargon.  I worked hard to avoid that but that doesn't mean all of it is simple.

Since I am mentioned in the document I am ethically compelled to encourage you to obtain independent legal counsel to review the document.  As I've said before, I do not represent you though I did make this agreement balanced in order to achieve both of our goals.  I don't mind giving you time to obtain legal counsel to review the document (you mentioned having some potential assistance locally).  Please let me know what, if any, changes you desire and I will discuss that with my client.

Best Regards,


Rishi Nair
Nair Law LLC
3735 N. Christiana Ave., Suite 1
Chicago, IL 60618



This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) between JAMIE SUTHERLAND (“Sutherland”) and SCOTT KENAN (“Kenan”) is effective as of the last day stated on the signature page of this Agreement (the “Effective Date”).  Sutherland and Kenan are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as “the Parties” or individually as a “Party.”


A. Sutherland has a Judgment against Kenan in the civil action No. 2012-L-005377.
B. The aforementioned civil action concerned defamatory statements by Kenan against Sutherland.
C. Sutherland has agreed to cease enforcing the aforementioned Judgment against Kenan in exchange for Kenan’s agreement to cease/remove all mention of Sutherland or his attorneys, Daliah Saper, Saper Law, Nair Law LLC, or Rishi Nair.
D. The Parties agree to further terms as specified below.


In consideration of the recitals, covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement, and for valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:

A. Incorporation of Recitals.  The Recitals stated above are incorporated by reference and are part of this Agreement.

B. Removal of Internet Postings.  Kenan will take all reasonable steps in good faith to cause the removal of any internet posting related to Sutherland or his attorneys, within two (2) weeks from the Effective Date of this Agreement.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall require Kenan to incur any out-of-pocket expense relating to the removal of the internet posting.

C. Test for Removal The Parties agree that the test for successful removal is a Google search for the terms “Jamie Sutherland”, “Rishi Nair”, “Nair Law LLC”, “Daliah Saper”, “Saper Law”, “Chicago”“Kenan” and/or other associated terms, do not bring up results that manifest in webpages with content controlled by Kenan.  The presence of such searchable content through represents a breach of this Agreement.

SHOCKING that I did not then realize that not only my mentioning "Chicago" in any blog post, Facebook posting, etc., would be a BREACH OF THIS CONTRACT -- but even mentioning MY OWN LAST NAME (which is automatically posted on the Internet EVERYWHERE, because I have NOTHING TO HIDE, would ALSO be a breach of this contract -- in fact it TOTALLY keeps me OFF the Internet, or I am automatically in BREACH OF CONTRACT -- LOL!!!

D. Non-Disparagement.  Kenan agrees not to make any statements, written or verbal, or cause or encourage others to make any statements, written or verbal, that defame, disparage, slander, or in any way criticize the personal or business reputation, practices, or conduct of Sutherland, Daliah Saper, Saper Law, Rishi Nair, Nair Law LLC, or their employees, directors, and officers.  Kenan acknowledges and agrees that this prohibition extends to statements, written or verbal, made to anyone, including but not limited to the news media, social media websites such as Facebook or Twitter, investors, potential investors, any board directors or advisory board or directors, industry analysts, competitors, strategic partners, vendors, employees (past and

Page 2 of 5

present), and clients. The Parties agree that nothing herein shall prohibit Kenan from making any statements concerning any other parties or matters.

E. Contact regarding book.  Sutherland agrees that he will contact and update them about this Settlement Agreement with regards to Kenan’s book and inform them that he no longer wishes to enforce the Judgment against Kenan so long as Kenan complies with this Agreement.

F. Non-Enforcement of Judgment.  The Parties agree that the test for non- enforcement of Judgment will be the lack of collection, enforcement, bank account freezes, or the plethora of other remedies available to Judgment-Creditors under the laws of Illinois and the United States.  If any document is filed, it will be considered a breach of this Agreement.


A. Advice of Counsel.  The Parties represent that they have had the opportunity to consult with an attorney of their choosing, have investigated the facts, and are not relying upon any representation or acknowledgment, whether oral or in writing, of any other Party hereto except as contained herein.  Further, the Parties expressly waive any right to rescind this Agreement except upon breach of either Party.

B. Meanings of Pronouns and Effects of Headings.  As used in this Agreement, the masculine, feminine and/or neuter gender, in the singular or plural, shall be deemed to include the others whenever the text so requires.  Captions and paragraph headings are inserted solely for convenience and shall not be deemed to restrict or limit the meaning of text.

C. Entire Agreement.  Except as otherwise set forth herein, this Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof.  No course of prior dealing between the Parties, no usage of the trade, and no parol or extrinsic evidence of any nature shall be used or be relevant to supplement, explain, or modify any term used herein.  Each Party represents and warrants that they are not relying on any other Party for tax or bankruptcy advice.  This Agreement is a product of negotiation and preparation by and among each Party.

 Therefore, the Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement should not be deemed prepared or drafted by one Party or the other and shall be construed accordingly.

D. Counterparts.  The terms of this Agreement are contractual and not merely recital.  This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original.  Facsimile or E-mail copies of this Agreement and the signatures hereto may be used with the same force and effect as the original.  This Agreement shall be deemed fully executed and effective when all Parties have executed at least one of the counterparts, even though no single counterpart bears all such signatures.

E. Modification in Writing Only.  Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be changed, waived, discharged or terminated, except by a subsequently executed instrument in writing signed by the Party against whom enforcement of the change, waiver, discharge or termination is sought.

Page 3 of 5

F. No Waiver.  No failure to exercise and no delay in exercising any right, power, or remedy hereunder shall impair any right, power or remedy which any Party may have, nor shall any such delay be construed to be a waiver of any such right, power, or remedy, or any acquiescence in any breach or default hereunder; nor shall any waiver of any breach or default of any Party hereunder be deemed a waiver of any default or breach subsequently occurring.  All rights and remedies granted to any Party hereunder shall remain in full force and effect notwithstanding any single or partial exercise of, or any discontinuance of, any action begun to enforce any such right or remedy.  The rights and remedies specified herein are cumulative and not exclusive of each other or of any rights or remedies which any Party would otherwise have.  Any waiver, permit, consent or approval by any Party of any breach or default hereunder must be in writing and shall be effective only to the extent set forth in such writing signed by the Party to be charged and only as to that specific instance.

G. Non-exclusive Remedies.  In the event of a breach of any provision of this Agreement, the Parties, in addition to and not in lieu of the remedies expressly provided in this Agreement, shall be entitled to exercise such remedies that exist at law or equity to enforce this Agreement, including but not limited to seeking specific performance.

H. Confidentiality.  No Party, or any representative of any Party, shall, without the prior, written consent of the other Party (1) provide a copy of this Agreement or any portion of this Agreement to any person/entity not a party to this Agreement; (2) disclose to any person/entity not a party to this Agreement any or all parts of the terms of this Agreement; (3) disclose to any person/entity not a party to this Agreement any of the prospective parts of this Agreement or terms of settlement which were discussed in negotiations prior to the execution of this Agreement.

1. Exceptions.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Party may make the following disclosures: (a) disclosures mandated by legislative, judicial and/or administrative order, rule or regulation; (b) disclosures to as part of compliance with this Agreement; (c) disclosures to any taxing authority for the purpose of submitting the respective party’s tax information to that tax authority; (d) disclosures required by governmental regulatory bodies with the legal right to review the books and records of a party; (e) any other disclosure which is mandated by applicable law, regulation, rule or order; (f) disclosures as needed in connection to divorce, probate, or bankruptcy court, or similar legal matters; (g) and as necessary to enforce this Agreement.

I. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.  Neither Party shall make any demand against the other Party for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in negotiating or reviewing this Agreement.  However, in any action to enforce this Agreement, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs will be awarded to the prevailing party.
J. Construction and Severability.  This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted to effectuate the intent of the Parties, which is to cease all enforcement efforts of the aforementioned Judgment in exchange for removal and discontinuation of blog postings or other statements pertaining to the aforementioned persons.

  If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid, void or illegal, such provision shall be construed and amended in a

Page 4 of 5

manner which would permit its enforcement but in no event shall such provision effect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof.  This Agreement shall be construed without regard to the identity of the person who drafted its various provisions; each and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though all of the Parties participated equally in the drafting of the same, and any rule of construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting Party shall not be applicable to this Agreement.

K. Contact Information. The Parties agree that they will update each other in writing about any address changes or other changes in contact information in order to keep each other abreast of compliance issues.

 The Parties contact information at present is as follows:

Scott Kenan:
Mr. Scott Kenan (Correct mailing address REDACTED)

Jamie Sutherland:
Mr. Jamie Sutherland C/O Nair Law LLC 3735 N. Christiana Ave., Suite 1 Chicago, IL 60618-4401

L. Voluntary Agreement.  This Agreement was freely and voluntarily entered into by the Parties who each had the opportunity to be represented and advised by counsel with respect to entering into this Agreement.

M. Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws, other than choice of laws, of the State of Illinois, regardless of where executed or performed.  If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid, void or illegal, such provision shall be construed and amended in a manner which would permit its enforcement, but in no event shall such provision affect, impair or invalidate any other provision hereof.

N. Time Is Of The Essence.  As to all obligations hereunder, time is of the essence.


Page 5 of 5

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective as of the last date stated below.  

By:  Name:  Scott D. Kenan  Date:  

Approved as to form:
  Counsel for Scott D. Kenan


By:  Name: Jamie Sutherland  Date:  

Approved as to form:
  Counsel for Sutherland  


Scott Kenan  

May 20 (1 day ago)
to Rishi, Jamie,

Dear Mr. Nair:

Having read through the draft twice, I agree that you did a great job of being clear and as concise as possible, although it is true that I would need a lawyer’s advice concerning the fine print aspects, especially, but of all of it – when we come to final draft. And since I have no money to speak of, I can’t hire an attorney, but expect to be able to convince a lawyer friend or two to look over this, but without my ability to pay him or her, I’m not certain they could sign something identifying them as my lawyer. Would it work to have a Witness instead? I believe the same person at Mailboxes, Etc. who signed receipt of the service from common carrier, which Saper Law somehow convinced a judge, falsely, that I, myself, had been legally served, is a Notary Public in some US jurisdiction – or could connect me with one.

It is said that in this Age of Conflict, that most of us read with the intention of amassing GOOD REBUTTALS, rather than actually reading for comprehension of message, and I fear that may be the case with us. I know I have done that at times. I have had an on and off relationship with the City of Chicago since age five, but going forward, there are two things relating to the city that cause me to say that “Chicago” as a search term is something I could never agree to. First, I was very much a part of the premiere of Tennessee Williams’ play, A HOUSE NOT MEANT TO STAND at the Goodman Theatre there, and my literary agent, who eventually worked against me, was based in Chicago. But I’m guessing that this is in reference to my using the term “the Chicago legal matter” and similar, recently. If I am correct, please rewrite that part to cover what you mean and exempt the city itself.

Additionally, since I am not finished legal actions (actually haven’t initiated them yet), against New Hanover County District Attorney Benjamin R. David in Wilmington, North Carolina, and Saper employee Jeff Duncan was an INTERN with Mr. David while the eight false charges were brought against me (at least part of that time), this connecting link of the actions will be necessary, so I could not include Mr. Duncan or his employer in Chicago in any agreement not to mention entities’ names.

But I will reiterate my concerns that you seem to have missed in my many emails to (or copied to) you. This agreement allows the original Court Judgment to stand. I am not absolutely opposed to that, but given the track record of malfeasance by Saper Law and her employees, I ABSOLUTELY do not trust Saper Law not to use that Judgment to go after any new moneys I have as soon as I accumulate some (leaving me, once again, financially unable to exercise my right to sue them for breach of THIS contract) – the convincing of a judge that I had been legally served when I never was legally served, and I even offered Saper Law that I would be CERTAIN that I was legally served if they issued new service -- the trial in absentia without a defense by me, regardless your take on the constitutionality of that, and the actual conduct of that trial (I’ve never seen a transcript of it, but when I invited you to explain how it was proven that Jamie suffered more than embarrassment, you did not respond), I simply CANNOT TRUST Daliah Saper or Saper Law!

And given that and that the Court awarded TEN TIMES what Jamie sought, financially – despite his and Andrew Emerson Cooks’ assurances that they knew I was broke and they did NOT actually want to get money, as well as copyright to my memoir, EVERY blog post from and assignment of URL for – the great bulk of which have NOTHING to do with Mr. Sutherland – and ALL my emails past and future regarding this matter, remains SUPER-SHOCKING to me, and without some way of having assurances BEYOND what is in this draft, I could not proceed further with you, if the original Judgment is not vacated.

You see, given Saper’s PROVEN ability to break the law in their operation, I would have NO peace of mind without either the cancellation of the Judgment – or additional remedy. One thing I have thought might work would be some proper compensation of me. Since the judgment is for half a million dollars plus attorney fees (and my various copyrights), I think DOUBLING that to one million dollars should cover everything as a BASE on which to construct fair compensation.

As I made clear here and other places, I currently hold no grudge against you or Jamie, which is why I have already removed all named reference to you both. This is ALL I feel morally obliged to do – in Jamie’s case because I feel he has had enough trouble from all of this, and ended up a pawn in Fox News employee Daliah Saper’s bigger game. I feel YOU have, on the surface at least, “kept your nose clean”, but your refusal to consider HOW this case was illegally handled by Saper Law does not change the fact that I many times tried to get you to look – and I have the email trails saved that would prove this in any Court of Law, should things become highly contentious. I suppose if I were to sue or bring Criminal Charges against Saper Law, Jamie’s name and our history would have to become quite public, again.

God forbid it should come to that, but as you have noticed, I CAN be quite aggressive, although it would behoove you not to take anything like that “personally” again – a good strategy in front of juries prone to emotional judgments, but not appropriate here. I take nothing from ANY of you personally. But I bring back to your attention something I did and posted on blog fairly recently: .

While $50,000,000.00 might appear excessive on the surface, so was half a million for a recently homeless person on $12,000.00/year SSI Disability income, so that is just tit-for-tat. It could become more SERIOUS in court as Jamie’s employer’s parent, Wells Fargo Bank, Chicago, really DID receive the highest penalty yet given to a bank for laundering drug money in about 2010, so given Jamie’s claim in 2010 to me that he made approximately $23,000,000.00 per month on average – and that is not likely reflected in his tax returns, but supports the possibility that he was also involved in other things – Wells Fargo Advisors and Bank officials might need to be called to testify -- or even be named in a lawsuit.

So it seems to me, all of us truly wishing for a friendly resolution and to put this all in the PAST, that the Judgment either needs to be vacated and nothing else agreed to (besides my KEEPING Jamie, Wells Fargo Advisors, Rishi Nair, and his company OFF my blog and broadcast emails), and I can sue Saper Law later, should I decide to do that, or I would need $10,000,000.00, net (its clearing in my possession being one of the stipulations that the agreement has been completed), and then could agree to keeping ALL these parties off my blog and broadcast emails (perhaps etcetera), except for the city of Chicago and Jeff Duncan and his employer, for reasons stated previously. And I suppose even that might be negotiable.

Should you agree to such a remedy, the breakdown of who contributes what amount would be completely up to your side, however, from what I currently understand, I would suggest that Jamie Sutherland and Rishi Nair each contribute one dollar, and the rest be contributed by Daliah Saper, her law firm, and Jeff Duncan, proportional to ability to pay.

Thanks again for your fine efforts, and I look forward to your response.

I have not yet contacted Bank of America, but will do so and let you know what they tell me about sending you the money – and reopening my account.

You can see that I am copying Jamie on this – I trust that is OK with you.

All best wishes,
Scott David Kenan
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico


No comments:

Post a Comment