Lookie what landed in the inbox before coffee: a cease-and-desist. Number 25 in thirty-some years of telling the truth in public. I must be slacking. I stacked 18 of these in the first ten years of helping run the GSL site alone. The old ones came from real firms with real letterhead and a four-figure hourly rate. This one came from ChatGPT and a Gmail account belonging to the felon mother of the perforated prince.
Same demand as the other twenty-four: take it down, forget the knife, forget the door, forget the threats, and pretend a “Justice for Jasiyah” rally is a confidential juvenile proceeding.
Same answer as the other twenty-four: we print the letter, we leave the article up, and the public can decide which one of us is afraid of the facts.
Sep 1, 2026, 10:54 PM (8 hours ago)
Mr. Boch and Guns Save Life:
I am Amanda Wenger, the mother and legal guardian of Jasiyah, a 13-year-old minor. This letter constitutes formal notice demanding that you cease publishing and disseminating harmful content concerning my son and me.
On September 1, 2026, you published an article titled “‘JUSTICE FOR JASIYA’: Mom organizes rally for her thug son after he FAFO’d,” located at:
The article identifies my minor son by name, publishes his photograph, discusses his shooting injuries and alleged juvenile history, and characterizes him using terms including “thug,” “knife boy,” “would-be butcher,” “animals,” and “perforated prince.” It further states or implies that he attempted to murder another child and had previously committed criminal acts. The article celebrates and mocks the shooting of a 13-year-old child and encourages further hostility toward him.
The article also publishes my photograph and makes degrading sexual insinuations about me, including suggesting that I was “working a hotel lobby looking for a ‘date.’” It refers to me as a felon, accuses me of felony battery, attacks my parenting, and includes additional degrading statements presented alongside purported factual allegations.
I dispute the article’s inaccurate, misleading, and inflammatory portrayal of my son and me. Allegations involving a minor must not be presented as established criminal facts merely because another person made the accusation. Your publication has exposed a minor child and his family to public ridicule, hostility, threats, and possible physical danger.
You are hereby directed to do the following:
1. Remove the article, headline, photographs, captions, and associated identifying information from Guns Save Life and every platform under your control.
2. Remove all social-media posts, previews, excerpts, archived copies under your control, and other republications promoting or linking to the article.
3. Cease publishing or distributing my son’s name, photograph, medical information, alleged juvenile history, or other identifying information.
4. Cease making or republishing unverified allegations that my son attempted murder or committed other criminal offenses.
5. Cease publishing degrading sexual insinuations and unverified criminal accusations concerning me.
6. Do not encourage, request, or assist another person or organization in republishing this material.
7. Preserve all drafts, source materials, photographs, messages, recordings, communications, website analytics, social-media records, and information identifying the sources of the statements and alleged juvenile information contained in the article.
8. Provide written confirmation within 48 hours of receiving this notice that the article and associated posts have been removed and will not be republished.
9. Identify whether any information concerning my son’s alleged arrest, juvenile history, or electronic monitoring originated from law enforcement, court, school, or other confidential records.This notice is not a request to destroy evidence. You must preserve relevant evidence even while removing the material from public access.
If you refuse to comply or continue publishing material targeting my minor son or me, I reserve the right to consult counsel regarding defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, improper disclosure of confidential juvenile information, harassment, and all other available remedies. I may also submit appropriate complaints to law enforcement, the courts, website service providers, search engines, and social-media platforms.
Nothing in this notice waives any rights or remedies belonging to me or my minor child.
Do not contact my son. Any response must be provided to me in writing and limited to confirming compliance with this demand.
Sincerely,
Amanda Wenger
Mother and legal guardian of Jasiyah, a minorAmandawenger[REDACTED]@gmail.com
Our response:
Via email: Amandawenger[redated]@gmail.com
Re: Your ChatGPT-generated demand regarding the September 1, 2026 Guns Save Life article
Ms. Wenger:
I have your letter. We will publish it next to this reply so readers can compare the demand with the record.
A word about the stationery. This is not our first cease-and-desist. It is the twenty-fifth. The first twenty-four usually arrived on letterhead from high-powered firms billing $500 an hour and up. Yours arrived from ChatGPT and a Gmail address. The quality gap is educational. The answer is the same as it was for the expensive versions: we publish the threat, we publish the reporting, and we let the public decide.
We will not remove the article, the headline, the photographs you and your household put on Facebook, the captions, or the links. We will not pretend a public home-invasion shooting, a public threat campaign, and a public “Justice for Jasiyah” rally pitch are a sealed family matter because the aftermath is inconvenient.
What we will do
We will not contact your son. Direct all further correspondence to me in writing, as you requested.
We will preserve drafts, source material, photographs, messages, and related records. Your letter is not a license to destroy evidence, and we are not destroying any.
We will not confirm a takedown within 48 hours, because there will not be one.
What your letter gets wrong
You asked us to stop identifying a minor whose name, face, ankle monitor, and slogan you put on Facebook while soliciting protests. You do not get to launch a publicity campaign and then demand the press treat the campaign as a confidential juvenile file. A rally is not confidential. A Facebook photo is not a suppression order. Threats aimed at a mother and her children are not a privacy interest that binds everyone except you.
You object to words. “Thug,” “knife boy,” and the rest are commentary on conduct the homeowner described and that you chose to litigate in public: a 13-year-old in a monitor, a hunting knife, a chase on scooters, a shoulder through a door, a lunge at another woman’s child, and then a demand that strangers pick your side. Opinion about that sequence is not a crime. Mockery of a narrative you advertised is not a court order.
You dispute that allegations involving a minor may be reported because “another person made the accusation.” The other person is the woman whose house was forced, whose son was the target of the blade, and whose daughter you are accused—by that same homeowner—of putting hands on after you came through the door. Readers can weigh her account. They can weigh yours. A chatbot demand that treats the homeowner as a rumor and your Facebook page as scripture does not change the facts.
You complain that we called you a felon. If Stephenson County’s public court records are wrong, send the certified dispositions that prove it. Until then, “felon” is not an insult. It is a status the clerk already published. The same is true of a weapons case and of an order of protection involving Julius Pendleton. Public dockets do not become “unverified” because ChatGPT prefers softer adjectives.
You claim the article made “degrading sexual insinuations,” including that you were “working a hotel lobby looking for a ‘date.’” We are not repeating that framing here and we are not adding to it. We described a public photograph you posted and the public criminal record attached to your name. If a specific sentence is false as a matter of fact, quote the sentence. A generated letter that inflates commentary into a sex allegation does not convert opinion into defamation.
You want the names of every source for monitor, arrest, and juvenile history. We are not turning a newsroom inside out because you dislike coverage of a controversy you advertised. Material drawn from public social-media posts you controlled, from public court indices, and from the homeowner’s firsthand account will remain what it is: on the record.
What you are actually asking
You are asking a gun-rights publication to memory-hole a self-defense shooting because the shooter was a mother and the person she stopped was your child. You are asking us to treat threats against that mother and her children as less important than your hashtag. You are asking us to un-publish photographs you published. You are asking us to speak of a forced door and a hunting knife as if they were a misunderstanding at a bake sale.
Twenty-five letters. Same request. Same answer. No.
If you want a courtroom, file a complaint and attach the false statements of fact, not a list of words that stung. If you want the internet to forget the knife, the door, the monitor, and the threats, you picked the wrong website—and you should have spent the $500 an hour. ChatGPT does not issue injunctions. Neither do we.
We will keep the article up. We will keep your letter next to it. Readers can decide which document sounds like a mother protecting a child and which one sounds like a prompt.
Do not contact our sources. Do not contact the homeowner through us. Further demands to delete true reporting and fair comment will be published too. Furthermore, we would recommend you instruct your children not to contact, harass, threaten or batter the victim in our story or her children. Or to vandalize her property.
Sincerely,
John Boch
Guns Save Life