CEASE AND DESIST – DEFAMATION PER SE, FALSE LIGHT, CIVIL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION, AND INDUCEMENT OF DEFAMATION (CALIFORNIA LAW)
Date: February 27th, 2026
Via: Electronic Delivery and Certified Mail
Julie Denny Cohen
Administrator, “Justice for Mark and Jacob Iskander” Facebook Page
Re: Formal Demand to Cease and Desist Defamatory, Harassing, and Retaliatory Conduct
Ms. Cohen,
This letter serves as formal notice that your conduct toward me constitutes defamation per se, false light, civil harassment, retaliation, and inducement of defamation under California law. You are hereby demanded to immediately cease and desist from all such conduct.
Since at least June 2025, you have knowingly published, republished, and promoted false statements of fact about me on the “Justice for Mark and Jacob Iskander” Facebook page and other platforms you control or participate in. These statements accuse me of “reporting lies,” engaging in unethical conduct, and acting with improper or deceptive motives in my professional work as an investigative journalist.
Under California law, statements that falsely impute dishonesty, unethical behavior, or professional misconduct constitute defamation per se because they directly injure a person in their trade or profession. See Civ. Code § 45a; Washer v. Bank of America, 21 Cal.2d 822 (1943); Burrill v. Nair, 217 Cal.App.4th 357 (2013). Such statements are presumed damaging as a matter of law and require no proof of special damages.
Your statements are objectively false. No plaintiff, no attorney for any party, and no subject of any of the eighteen (18) published articles has ever requested a retraction, correction, or issued a cease-and-desist regarding my reporting. Your assertions are presented as statements of fact, not opinion, and are demonstrably untrue.
Your conduct satisfies the standard for actual malice. You have continued to publish these false statements with knowledge of their falsity or, at minimum, reckless disregard for the truth, including after it was clear that no legal objection to my reporting exists. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 244 (1984).
You have further mischaracterized my paid investigative journalism as unethical or “nefarious.” That assertion is false as a matter of fact and law. It is a lawful, ethical, and well-established practice for litigants to retain independent investigative journalists to research, analyze, and publish fact-based findings related to criminal and civil proceedings. Entire professional directories and marketplaces exist for this purpose, including Journalist.net and freelance journalism platforms such as Upwork and Guru. Portraying a litigant’s use of an independent journalistic platform to inform the public as misconduct constitutes knowing or reckless publication of a false narrative.
There is no state or federal law requiring investigative journalists—independent or otherwise—to disclose sources of funding. Compensation does not negate First Amendment protection or transform reporting into misconduct. See First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989). Every media outlet covering this case has relied on paid journalists. My independent status does not impose disclosure obligations that do not exist for mainstream media, and your attempt to single me out on this basis further evidences malice.
You have also placed third parties in legal jeopardy by promoting and encouraging dissemination of privileged and protected communications, including discovery materials improperly leaked by counsel. The knowing publication or encouragement of leaked, privileged material for the purpose of retaliation or reputational harm constitutes evidence of malice and improper motive. See Kachlon v. Markowitz, 168 Cal.App.4th 316 (2008).
You have further acted with malice by advancing the false narrative that it is unethical or improper for a litigant to seek an independent platform to correct misinformation or present factual context to the public. Such conduct is retaliatory and intended to chill protected journalistic activity, contrary to settled First Amendment principles.
It is documented that you have supplied false narratives in this case to mainstream media outlets. I possess documented proof establishing that you are one of the responsible parties involved in shaping and disseminating that misinformation, further supporting liability for inducement and republication.
You have expanded the scope of harm by acting as a source of misinformation to third parties who have acknowledged you as such. Notably, the social media account “Joe Knows Ventura” has republished and amplified false narratives originating from you and has publicly acknowledged you as the source. Under California law, both the originator and the republisher of defamatory content are independently liable. See McKinney v. County of Santa Clara, 110 Cal.App.3d 787 (1980).
In addition, you have actively encouraged, solicited, endorsed, and failed to moderate defamatory statements by others on your Facebook page. This conduct exceeds passive hosting and constitutes coordinated defamation and harassment. See Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230 (2003).
You have also disseminated information protected by California’s journalist Shield Law, Cal. Const. art. I, § 2(b); Evid. Code § 1070, as well as discovery materials improperly leaked by attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Iskanders’ lawsuit against Rebecca and Peter Grossman, despite not being a party to that litigation.
Taken together, your conduct reflects a pattern of civil harassment, not isolated or good-faith commentary. See Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., 129 Cal.App.4th 1228 (2005). Your prior history of harassment complaints, which I have reported on in connection with this case, further demonstrates a longstanding course of conduct.
Accordingly, you are hereby demanded to immediately cease and desist from publishing or repeating false or defamatory statements about me; remove all defamatory content under your control; cease inducing or facilitating defamatory, retaliatory, or harassing conduct by others; immediately stop disseminating Shield Law-protected information, privileged communications, or unlawfully leaked discovery materials; and preserve all evidence related to this matter.
Failure to comply will result in pursuit of all remedies available under California law, including claims for defamation per se, false light, civil harassment, and injunctive relief. Continued publication after this notice will constitute willful and knowing misconduct, substantially increasing exposure to liability. See Civ. Code §§ 48a, 3344; Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6.
Nothing herein constitutes a waiver of any rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
Cece Woods
Editor In Chief, Investigative Journalist
thecurrentreport.com
info@thecurrentreport.com
This is formal notice that complaints documenting online harassment were filed with the Los Angeles Police Department, Pacific Division, on March 1, 2026. The reported conduct was classified under the following categories: Harassing Communications (California Penal Code § 653m), Stalking/Cyberstalking (California Penal Code § 646.9), and Threatening or Annoying Electronic Communications based on repeated internet and social media activity.
Additionally, a federal cyber harassment complaint was filed today with the Federal Bureau of Investigation through the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). The IC3 Submission ID for this report is 48fa88a3f22541b0bef40afe0e3d76
