ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.

14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor

New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

By email to:
glubin@businessinsider.com

August 17, 2010

Mr. Gus Lubin

Staff Writer
The Business Insider
119 5th Avenue
New York, New York 10003

Re: August 7, 2010 Article Concerning Amber Ready

Dear Mr. Lubin,

We represent John Thomas Financial (“JTF” or the “Firm’) and its Chief
Executive Officer, Mr. Thomas Belesis (“Mr. Belesis’), and thank you in advance
for the opportunity to be heard in response to the recent article the Business
Insider re-published entitled “AMBER Ready: The Moonlighting Cop, The
Wanna Be Mogul and the Killer App That Wasn’t” (hereinafter referred to as the
“Article”).

The Article appeared in Roddy Boyd’s “The Financial Investigator” which, we

submit, should have in subtext underneath its title the words “All the Rubbish
That’s Unfit For Print”.

In the Information Age, access to a wealth of information in a myriad of forms

is available almost instantaneously, at the touch of a button. As a result, the
potential is magnified for great or even irreparable harm to befall innocents at
the hands of those whose grossly irresponsible (if not more insidious) conduct
leads to the wide-scale dissemination of factually incorrect, incomplete and/or
unreliable material on the World Wide Web. Rumor, innuendo, false or
misleading assertions, and editorial opinion disguised as ‘fact” all trigger
immediate, reactionary behavior, often times before there is ample opportunity
for those adversely affected by abuse of the written (or, more appropriately, the
electronic) word to be heard in response.

1
 ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.
14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

In this day and age, therefore, it is increasingly important that true journalists
conduct themselves with this sensitivity in mind, in addition to rising above
and beyond yellow journalistic tendencies to exalt sensationalism, devalue
straight factual reporting, and infuse opinion and/or bias into factual
presentation for the purpose, or with the effect, of coloring the reader and
exhorting him or her to reach a conclusion desired by the author.

In the remainder of this letter, we expose for you, the benefit of your
readership, and, hopefully, the larger internet audience, the terrible disservice
Mr. Boyd’s “The Financial Investigator” has done to Amber Ready, my clients,
and the entire public by publishing the Article, which manifestly demonstrates,
at best, a cavalier regard and, at worst, a purposeful disdain for, the following:
a) conducting a thorough investigation of the facts before publishing them, b)
confirming facts before publishing them, c) investigating, if not also disclosing
to the reader, the bias and/or likely unreliability of relied upon sources, and c)
fair and balanced factual presentation through inclusion of all the salient, as
opposed to selected, facts.

It is impossible here, in the limited space we understand will be available, to

address each and every error, omission and unfair or misleading statement in
the Article. We confine ourselves here to the most glaring of them and take
comfort from our belief that the open-minded, intelligent reader, who is
interested in the facts and not being told what he or she wants to hear, will
discern that Mr. Boyd’s piece should serve as a college course feature in
demonstrating how NOT to be a good journalist.

Kai Patterson’s Indictment

Roddy Boyd and “The Financial Investigator” (in our view, a misnomer)
apparently would have the reader believe that they “reported” the full “scoop”
on Amber Ready. Yet, nowhere in the Article do they reference, or even allude
to, the indictment less than two months ago of Amber Ready’s former Chief
Executive Officer, Kai Patterson, in the Superior Court of New Jersey for the
following alleged acts, including alleged acts which occurred while he was in
operational control of Amber Ready:

a. Theft in the Second Degree (two counts);

b. Theft in the Third Degree (three counts);

2
 ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.
14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

c. Theft By Deception in the Second Degree (two counts);

d. Theft By Deception in the Third Degree (three counts);
e. Forgery in the Third Degree;
f. Falsifying or Tampering With Records in the Fourth Degree; and
g. Computer Theft in the Third Degree.

We have included a copy of Kai Patterson’s publicly available indictment

here for your ready reference.

The Article’s failure to relate or even refer to the matter of Kai Patterson’s
indictment raises a great many questions, only some of which we set forth here
but none of which we anticipate Mr. Boyd and “The Financial Investigator”
(bold and underlining added for emphasis) will want to answer. They include
the following:

i. If they investigated the facts before publishing the Article, how is it

that they could have failed to ascertain the existence of this
indictment?
ii. If they knew about the indictment, how come they chose not even to
mention it in the Article?
iii. If they knew about the indictment, which is less than two months old,
how come they did not post it or create a link to it, like they did with
publicly available, outdated, information regarding one of my clients?

These questions are hard ones for Mr. Boyd to answer – because there are no
good ones. Given that the Article refers to litigation documents that are not yet
public, it would appear that Mr. Boyd and his “publication” relied on Kai
Patterson himself for much of the “source” material used to create (and we use
the word “create” deliberately) the Article. It remains to be seen whether he
also relied on Blinglet, the developer of the cell phone application that Amber
Ready determined it could not use, Blinglet’s attorneys or other Blinglet
representatives.

From what we have been able to find out about Mr. Boyd’s background, we find
it difficult to believe that he and his publication did not know about Kai
Patterson’s indictment. If they did know about it, the failure to discuss it in
the Article was grossly irresponsible. Our belief, however, is that they did
know about it and deliberately chose not to mention it in the Article, for

3
 ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.
14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

reasons best known to them but which, in any event, reveal a) a blatant bias,
b) a hidden agenda or ulterior motive and c) a less than candid, and fairly
balanced, presentation.

On his website, Mr. Boyd, who admits to having complete editorial control,
pontificates (no doubt while straining his arm to the breaking point as he pats
himself on the back) that his publication is “critical investigative reporting” that
“fills a vacuum”, but with no “criteria for investigation” other than that
something a) should be “supported by a document”, b) should not really be “out
there” in the market and c) should be “important for investors to know”. (The
excerpt from his Disclosure Page on his website is attached here.)

If Mr. Boyd was true to his own stated creed, it is difficult to understand how
he could have determined that Kai Patterson’s indictment did not meet ALL of
his own (Boyd’s) specified criteria for inclusion in the Article.

If this were Mr. Boyd’s only sin of omission or commission in the Article,
perhaps he might appropriately be afforded some greater latitude for error. The
fact of the matter, however, is that his exclusion of Kai Patterson’s indictment
from the Article was by no means an isolated instance of failing to adhere to
fundamental principles of journalistic investigative reporting. Coupled with the
fact that by dint of occupation Mr. Boyd was a news reporter, it is reasonable
to conclude that the Article was not so much an attempt to report the facts as
it was fueled by a desire to stir the pot.

Other factual matters that the Article failed to report besides Kai Patterson’s
indictment:

a) According to Amber Ready, it fired Kai Patterson for cause when it learned
about his conduct, which, in part, is the subject of his indictment;

b) According to Amber Ready, its Board of Directors, with the support of the
company’s succeeding Chief Executive Officer Frank Delevecchio, who Mr.
Boyd attempts to ridicule, brought Patterson’s conduct to the attention of law
enforcement authorities; and

c) Since his ouster, Kai Patterson and another disgruntled former employee
terminated for cause have been hell bent on destroying Amber Ready in

4
 ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.
14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

retaliation, by means of disparaging written and other communications with

investors and the general public.

The Blinglet Cell Phone Application

In yet another example of either failing to ascertain (and comprehend) the facts,
negligent reporting and/or deliberate obfuscation of the salient facts, the
Article blurs the distinction between the Blinglet cell phone application and the
Amber Ready program itself. The Article thereby creates a false impression
that the Blinglet cell phone application is an essential, or even an important,
component of the service provided. The insinuation the Article wishes the
reader to draw is that Amber Ready has a product that does not work, or does
not work properly, when Amber Ready can confirm for you nothing could be
further from the truth.

The Article, while mentioning in passing that the Blinglet cell phone application
would allow parents to enroll in the Amber Ready program and upload their
children’s’ profiles, via cell phone, leaves out the fact that the most common,
and easier way for parents to subscribe is to do so from a computer. The
Article does not report that the Blinglet application was but an afterthought, a
convenient marketing feature but totally unnecessary and unimportant
component of the Amber Ready program.

As his “investigation’ did not even break the surface of the water regarding the
subject matter of his Article, it should also come as no surprise that Mr. Boyd
failed to inform the reader that the Blinglet device was unacceptable to Amber
Ready. This is because Amber Ready determined that parents who would have
used the Blinglet cell phone application to subscribe via cell phone would
unknowingly have had their kids’ profiles stored on a server, which predators
and hackers could conceivably invade. Amber Ready deemed it ill advisable,
and not in the best interest of parents and their children, to permit child
profiles to be stored in the hands of a third-party. Our understanding is that
even Amber Ready does not store that information when parents subscribe
using a computer. It is our understanding that the ONLY people who maintain
children profiles are those to whom that information should be entrusted –
PARENTS!

5
 ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.
14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

Adding insult to the injury they have caused, Mr. Boyd and his publication
failed to inform the reader that the Blinglet application was developed, and
John Thomas Financial raised capital for Amber Ready, while Kai Patterson
was in operational control.

We urge you and every one of your readers to try subscribing to the
Amber Ready program for yourselves. Go to Amber Ready’s website, and
see if any problems are encountered while enrolling using a computer
device.

The “Wall Street Scapegoat” Theme

Practicing what more resembles demagoguery than investigative journalism,

the Article seeks to blame the banker for the fact that Amber Ready’s program
has not yet taken off as was hoped. How or why the banker is to blame is not
articulated with any discernable degree of causal connection. Is it the banker’s
fault that Kai Patterson, whose indictment Mr. Boyd did not even think worth
mentioning, stands accused of harming the company through his conduct both
before and after he was employed by it? Is it the banker’s fault that a party
(Blinglet) that contracted to develop an inconsequential application filed a
lawsuit which Amber Ready is defending?

No, from Mr. Boyd’s standpoint, the banker’s fault is much more basic than
that. The banker had the temerity to get paid for raising approximately $13
million for the company. Naturally, since the banker should not have accepted
remuneration, according to Mr. Boyd, the fact that John Thomas Financial’s
compensation was fully disclosed to investors and in conformance with
industry requirements, does not matter.

The Article’s discussion about penalty shares issued to investors is a perfect

example of how the Article unfairly plays the “blame game” in appealing to
public emotion at a time when Wall Street (quite appropriately in many
instances) is being harshly criticized. In it, Mr. Boyd insinuates, incorrectly,
that my clients received penalty shares from Amber Ready. That is not true.

The Article further fails to disclose that the penalty shares issued to the John
Thomas Bridge and Opportunity Fund (the “Fund”), which provided a bridge

6
 ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.
14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

loan to Amber Ready, ALL went to Fund investors, some of whom are also JTF
clients.

The fact of the matter is that ALL the penalty shares went to investors in the
John Thomas Bridge and Opportunity Fund (the “Fund”), a number of whom
are investors in Amber Ready and are JTF clients). (The Fund licenses the use
of the John Thomas name, and is not a JTF subsidiary or managed by JTF,
contrary to the Article’s express or implicit assertion.)

Further, the only reason those penalty shares were issued is because Kai
Patterson failed to meet (repeatedly) deadlines to provide audited financial
statements, which was required of him for the protection of the Fund’s
investors.

If his baseless bashing of the banker was not enough, Mr. Boyd goes on to
insinuate that JTF’s continued support for Amber Ready is to protect some
financial interest, which is ludicrous. JTF invested no monies in Amber Ready.
The monetary and non-monetary compensation it received was for the services
it rendered. JTF’s continued support for the company is for the benefit of the
company and the investors, and borne of a belief that the program is a valuable
tool for parents and law enforcement to use in the search for missing or
abducted children, where every second of delay increases the chances for a
tragic end.

Let’s Hold Mr. Boyd Accountable

The magnitude of harm Mr. Boyd has potentially caused because of his failure
to ascertain all the facts, or failure to report all the salient facts, in an
impartial, unbiased manner after a less than thorough investigation, is
incalculable.

While we suspect he will hide behind the cloak of journalistic privilege, we have
sent to Mr. Boyd a written request (see attached memo to Mr. Boyd) for him
to answer some very simple questions calculated to flush out what he
considered, in publishing the Article, to be a) a thorough investigation of the
facts, b) confirmation of the reliability of the facts he obtained, c) confirmation
of the reliability of the sources from which he obtained those facts, d) a

7
 ROBERT M. BURSKY, ESQ.
14 Wall Street - 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005

Telephone: (212) 299-7843 Facsimile: (212) 299-7842

complete presentation of all the pertinent facts and e) the absence of any bias,
hidden agenda, or ulterior motive.

We will let you know if he responds.

Thank you.

Robert M. Bursky
__________________
Robert M. Bursky