Aaron Krowne 14525 SW Millikan Way #9599 Beaverton, OR 97005 Honorable William J.

Wenzel Connecticut Superior Court, Stamford/Norwalk District Civil and Criminal Division 123 Hoyt Street Stamford, CT 06905 April 3, 2013 Your Honor, I write with urgent concern upon learning that trusted colleague Teri Buhl has been convicted of Harassment and Breach of Peace in the pending case S20N-CR10-0127478S. I agree with defense counsel (based upon my admittedly still in-progress law school education) that these charges are not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this deficiency necessitates acquittal. However, I can add nothing original to defense counsel's apt arguments to this effect. What I can more uniquely contribute to the court's understanding are in terms of Ms. Buhl's professional integrity and the import of this verdict, if left to stand, to journalism in general. I am the founder, since 2007, of ML-Implode.com and a number of sister sites, collectively the Implode-o-Meter or (Implode), which provided groundbreaking coverage on the subprime, mortgage and global financial crises. My small, independent media network has been globallyrenowned, and has racked up over 50 million web site visits. From the early days of Implode, I have collaborated and contracted with Ms. Buhl to provide original investigative coverage in particular areas concerning the financial economy and various individuals', companies' and funds' relation to the financial crisis, as well as general unsoundness which might necessitate enforcement or policy reform. Ms. Buhl has proven herself to be a hard-nosed investigative journalist of the classic type, of which there are lamentably too few today. We are now in an era where such original reporting, which genuinely speaks truth to power, points fingers and names names is nearly impossible to do under the umbrella of a major media company. Despite lacking the safety and comfort of such a brick and mortar panoply, complete with in-house counsel, Ms. Buhl has been undeterred, bravely publishing her work on her own news site at www.teribuhl.com, and with small and independent internet media publications such as Implode and trade publications. This case (if let stand) illustrates the mortal risk to one's safety, well-being, and ability to do one's journalistic job, that lies in striking out on one's own to do the sort of real investigative reporting that our society so sorely needs. Here, despite the court's not having eliminated the perfectly plausible explanation that Ms. Buhl is protecting a confidential source on an important matter of public concern, she now finds herself facing jail time. All this for invoking a long-recognized pillar of journalistic privilege. I, and the others who have helped produce the Implode-o-Meter, are intimately familiar with this this precise issue. In 2008, Implode was sued by a New Hampshire mortgage company called The

Mortgage Specialists, for an anonymous post and leaked loan volume data. We refused to agree to a take-down of the information, and more critically, refused to give up the anonymous sources. Despite an initial contrary order by the New Hampshire trial court, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ultimately sided with us on all points of merit, agreeing that implicated were not only free speech but journalistic privilege, and further, that an online/independent outlet such as ours still qualified for journalistic protection (see The Mortgage Specialists v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, New Hampshire, 2010). From this, and other similar cases Implode has fought, I am highly attuned to the threat of litigation regarding speech, which purports to be about defamation, trade secrets, or some other charge (e.g. harassment), but is actually about suppressing the speech or attempting to get to an anonymous source through the site/publisher. I can attest that failing to quash this sort of legal action at the earliest possible stage has an acute chilling effect on free speech and journalism, as the costs and risks of being enjoined can make it impossible to go forward with publishing a story simply because it might upset someone (who might have the resources to file suit). This can effect not only the target of the litigation, but others who observe the consequences of speaking said truth to power, leading to less honest coverage of important public issues, thus diminishing the public discourse. Further, with today's constrained budgets, now more than ever the public and the government are relying on whistleblowers to come forward with information on illegality and wrongdoing. This may not only be through formal whistleblower programs (see the SEC and IRS's recent beefed-up programs, as well as the Dodd-Frank legislation), but also by going straight to the press, when no program is available or the government does not act adequately (or needs to be shamed into acting by publication). It is critical in these situations that the anonymity of the whistleblower-informant be protected, at least until the issue can be resolved through enforcement or policy, or the personal threat to the informant be removed, or otherwise the undue risk to them passes. This court should not contribute further to the chilling of free speech, critical hard-hitting investigative journalism, and socially-important whistleblowing by upholding Teri Buhl's conviction. Sincerely,

Aaron Krowne Founder, Publisher, The Implode-o-Meter Juris Doctorate Candidate, New York Law School (2015) (Stevens, Harlan, and Greenberg Scholar; 2013 GSBF scholarship recipient)