April 28, 2006

Dear Mr. Larsen:

We are outside counsel for Quixtar Inc. We have been retained to address the recent posting you placed on your website entitled "Do Mona-Vie products Compete with Quixtar's?" It contains numerous false and misleading statements. We demand that you take immediate corrective action.

You state that Amway paid the Recording Industry of America ("RIAA") $13.5 million to settle a copyright suit. This is false. You then falsely state that the reason for the settlement was "so that the King Pins books would not be opened up in discovery." In fact, the RIAA did take and receive discovery before the case was settled. You then describe what happened during a JAMS arbitration between Mr. Gooch and Mr. Anderson, as if you were a first-hand observer to the whole process. In fact, the Gooch-Anderson arbitration process was confidential. You do not know the whole story and have no business falsely implying otherwise.

You next falsely accuse Quixtar of "using the JAMS arbitration to keep him (Anderson) from earning a living." It is very clear in Quixtar's arbitration demand, which Mr. Anderson published on his website, and you republished on your site, that Quixtar is not trying in any way to stop Mr. Anderson from being a MonaVie distributor. Quixtar only asks that Mr. Anderson not use Quixtar's trade secrets and not raid independent Quixtar businesses in building a new MonaVie distributorship. It is not fair for him to use the fruits of Quixtar's labor and the labor of numerous independent Quixtar businesses to try and jumpstart a MonaVie business in a matter of months.

You then suggest that there is no real competition between Quixtar and MonaVie. Your uninformed and incorrect statements ignore the reality that Quixtar and MonaVie are both multi-level marketing businesses ("MLMs"). They directly compete in their efforts to recruit and retain persons who chose to participate in an MLM. You also completely overlook the harm to Quixtar when it loses prospective and current IBOs because of exaggerated earning claims by other MLMs. You also mislead by failing to mention that several of Quixtar's Nutrilite-brand nutritional products that are competing alternatives to MonaVie's nutritional drinks.

Please take immediate action to correct your website and retract these false and damaging statements in writing with each person to whom you have made them, online or offline, to include all who have already published these statements.

Furthermore, please immediately confirm your agreement to cease and desist from making these and similar false statements.

We look forward to receiving your response and evidence of your steps to correct these statements within 24 hours.

Sincerely,

James R. Sobieraj

BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

April 29, 2006

Dear Mr. Sobieraj,

Thank you for your note expressing your client's concerns. In my effort to educate readers about matters of public interest and concern, I strive to be as accurate as possible. I speak with sources and review documents and sincerely believed that everything I had published was truthful.

Especially since I have not received any complaints for over a year (my understanding of Michigan's statute of limitations for defamation), this only further strengthened my belief that what I had published was truthful and accurate.

Now that you have raised concerns, however, I want to make sure that I have the right information and am hopeful that you and/or your client will help me in that effort

Let me explain some of the reasons I published the information. When I spoke with Mr. Luster on the phone in March of 2005, he told me the total paid to all parties in the lawsuits was about $13.5 million.

I'm not mistaken there was the RIAA and the National Music Publishers Association, and possibly others. If I was mistaken as to how much each party received then I want to correct that information.

In other words, it does appear as if the RIAA may not have received the full $13.5 million.

Since your note I have reviewed the documentation on the web and found that the RIAA received $9 million alone. I went to the Associated Press website http://www.ap.org/ and found this headline.

"Amway pays $9 million to settle copyright infringement suit Associated Press. New York: Mar 25, 1998" As requested I will modify the page to reflect the $9 million paid to the RIAA. I will assume that information is correct unless I hear otherwise from you.

I could not find out how much the National Music Publishers Association was paid. Can you please provide me with that information or tell me how I can obtain it?

I searched the website http://www.brinkshofer.com/resources.cfm?case_id=16 and found the Amway case. It stated "In September of 1997, after some discovery was completed, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement." I assume that after all these years there is no need to continue to keep that information confidential.

I also spoke with Bruce Anderson this morning. He restated again that he clearly remembers being in a meeting in Atlanta in the presence of Doug DeVos saying, "if there was not a settlement soon, the Judge would allow discovery into everybody's books". Anderson stated to me that Foley's and Gooch's books were not yet reviewed. In order to [prevent this discovery, Amway settled.] Mr. Luster also told me a similar story during my March 2005 phone call with him.

To avoid any further issues, however, and in the spirit of cooperation, I will remove the statement "that the King Pins books would not be opened up in discovery." from my page.

I'm sorry if was I interpreted to be an expert in the Gooch-Anderson Case-that was obviously not my intent. I am not an expert, but I did spend a lot of time reading all the documents that were on Mr. Anderson's web site. I believe Mr. Anderson had published all of these documents on his site and I am in possession of all the files from his website. To my knowledge the arbitration documents are also on file with Florida 17th Judicial Circuit court and some are now on my website.

I reviewed the documents and Mr. Anderson's site and wrote my analysis of them. Mr. Anderson's case is very unusual, and I believe that it would be beneficial if there were more public debate on the subject as it is my opinion that a great injustice was done to him.

I am sorry if I did not expressly state it here but in this case, as with much of my writing, I am expressing my opinion. Most readers are able to glean that easily from the tone, tenor and content of my website. And while I believe that I am well within my First Amendment rights to do so, again in the spirit of cooperation and the desire to be as accurate as possible, I will remove the wording and highlight the "raiding issue" and state that "Quixtar's complaint does have some exhibits with E-mails about Anderson prospecting Quixtar existing IBOs for his new venture."

I expanded my reporting on nutritional benefits of MonaVie, and also added some notes on the three anti-oxidant pills Quixtar has that might be substitutes for the MonaVie whole fruit drink product. Additionally I have clearly noted where I state my opinion to avoid any future issues.

When writing about any subject, including the public-figure corporation Quixtar, it is not my intent to make any false statements and I didn't make any knowing false statements here and do not intend to do so in the future. It seems that other than perhaps a minor mix-up with the RIAA settlement figure - which clearly did not alter the "gist or sting" of my posting, the only thing that perhaps I can be even more clear on is what was my opinion and what was not.

I will repost the revised page with a note on my "what's new page" as being updated. Those who read the page before will have an opportunity to see the changes. I hope and trust the revised page will meet your client's expectations.

I further hope and trust that these good-faith efforts on my part, coupled with the First Amendment protections applicable here (statute of limitations, opinion, actual malice), would preclude any threat of litigation.

Should you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to write.

Best Regards,

Scott Larsen

May 4, 2006

Dear Mr. Larsen:

Thank you for promptly removing from your web site false information which you published without confirmation of the truth.

It is surprising that, as someone who holds himself out as a careful and thorough researcher of Quixtar, you would rely on Mahaleel Lee Luster as a trusted source for information concerning the RIAA litigation. If you had made any effort to research Mr. Luster's credentials, you would have found that Luster has been guilty of felony perjury and a misdemeanor obstruction for lying to police in an official investigation. I have attached .pdf files with some examples of references found in the public domain about Luster's criminal activities.

One of the articles recounts a number of criminal charges against Luster, including that he was a "registered ex-felon in California for perjury." These articles are just a sampling of the extensive publicly available information on Mr. Luster that would lead any fair-minded person to doubt his credibility. Is a person found guilty of multiple crimes, including perjury and obstruction, the type of person you trust to tell the truth?

If you had done a fair and reasonable investigation you also would have learned that Mr. Luster was directly responsible for copyright infringement in the RIAA case. He was the producer who copied music onto videotapes, and misrepresented to IBOs that he had permission to do so. Claims of legal liability against them in the case were derived from Luster's copying, when he pointed the finger at them to avoid legal liability.

It also is interesting that you seek to shield yourself from liability by invoking the statute of limitations for defamation. Does this mean that you believe it is appropriate to republish false information simply because you think you're less likely to be prosecuted? If so, you are mistaken. We will demand that you correct statements when we feel it is necessary.

We cannot provide you with information that is subject to a confidential settlement agreement, as you have requested. It is not for you to decide when the information is no longer confidential. If you induce someone else to release information to you, in violation of a confidentiality agreement, you may expose yourself to liability.

Sincerely,

James R. Sobieraj

BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE