"No" to "3rd Party Status" ** Please Respond**

Good afternoon.

For those unaware, a small but disaffected group of lenders, guided by Horace Williams' agenda, continue to make efforts to take control of the Birth of Innocence. This group's July 26th email appeal to our broad lenders group was firmly rejected by many, myself included in my follow up of the 28th. Having gained no real traction with a wider base prior to the August 2nd hearing, the group has now taken an unsupported legal step by themselves. - The group has requested of the court to be granted "3rd Party status" in the present complaint of State of Vermont (i.e.BISHCA) vs. Mac Parker.

To be clear, this request, is to afford Horace's group "equal status" to that of Mac's interests, and the State's, as the case moves forward. If such status were to be granted by the court, it will pose serious risk to us all including, ironically, the very individuals forwarding the petition. Without question, this action will open a legal tarpit that will make our current legal challenges pale in comparison. It's a road to ruin and it's essential this petition not be granted. Please allow me to explain -

As of the August 2nd hearing we're finally moving forward. Judge Crawford made it expressly clear he wants a quick progression to trial (since scheduled for the first week of November). Importantly, he's also scheduled a private meeting in chambers with both counsels in thirty days. The Judge has created a fast track proceeding and as structured, it has real potential to bring the State to the table in consideration of a timely settlement. Something we've all been hoping and waiting for. Hopefully, affording Mac the essential step of the legal opening to allow him to effectively complete and distribute the Birth of Innocence and begin our reimbursement.

Now - just as the judge is finally involved and recognizing our importance of resolution, this proposed petition, if successful, will bring all forward movement to a grinding halt. If granted, the legal precedent will allow potentially every single lender to claim similar "status" - each and all to chime in with their own beliefs, perceived needs, complaints and redress to the challenges facing us all. Whereas we currently have two parties addressing the finer points of the issues and the law, this petition will be precedent for four hundred and fifty others to equally petition and be heard. We're looking at the reality of years of ongoing litigation, separation from any successful film and growing and deepening division among us. It only takes just one dissenting viewpoint to Horace's petition to make this unfold exactly as described here. One of all we lenders and we all suffer the result together - a full blown legal morass stretching into a long and uncertain future.

If the reality which this group's actions will create concerns you, it's essential your voice be heard. You're requested to respond to this email with a simple acknowledgement that you disagree with this group's petition for "3rd party status". To make known that, as a lender, it does not represent your best interests to have the case against Mac opened to others (for sake of the exhausting legal ramifications alone; not to mention any number of reasons and beliefs contained in their further intentions). Mac's defense counsel will be arguing against the petition and, as many of Horace's group have been in active conversation with BISHCA's agents, it's fair to assume the State will be in favor of their aggrieved status. It sows further discord and division among we lenders. Our collected names in unison will be an important tool in seeing that this misguided effort does not ensnare us all.

Should you agree; your name and "No to 3rd Party status" (or the like) in the subject bar of your email (or posted here) is all that's needed. It's not necessary to reply in-depth, your answer will be noted and forwarded to counsel. A timely reply is essential however, as names need to be compiled no later than Wednesday noon.

In closing, while it may sound contradictory to the thrust of this letter, this necessary step of ours (while against the wishes of a few) is very much about preserving our unity as an interested body with a common and valuable goal. The real need for legal resolution and a timely finish of an extraordinary film. A film it's director remains committed to in all respects as well the restitution that will begin to meet the needs of us all.

Thanks for your consideration and your support for a greater good.

Respectfully,

Christopher