QOLOS v. The Barbie Market — REVISED VOICEMAIL FINDINGS
Exhibit I-8 | Updated October 15, 2026 | Supersedes prior five-call findings

Master set: seven recordings supplied by Chad VanCalster on October 15, 2026, replacing the previous five-recording set. All call dates are May 11, 2026, as confirmed by Chad; this date is not independently authenticated carrier metadata. Within-day times and sequence remain unconfirmed. Exhibit order follows source suffixes 6–12, not call chronology.

Superseding numbering: I-1–I-7 now identify the seven master audio files; I-8 is this revised findings report. Earlier I-6 report citations and earlier file-to-exhibit mappings are superseded; use this manifest rather than earlier exports.

Excerpts are automated-transcription candidates, not certified or listening-verified quotations. Verify wording and context against each full recording before filing. Name, amount, and other recognition errors occur; unclear passages are not treated as admissions. Four 3:00 files (suffixes 8–11) end mid-thought in transcription; preserve the supplied files unedited and check source call records for completeness.

Most useful potential points: I-6 acknowledges contractual labor rates; I-6/I-7 recognize and criticize a website or work; I-3–I-5 tie refund demands to planned publicity; I-5 references doing what she did last time. These are arguments for counsel, not conclusive admissions of liability.

Chronology: the May 11, 2026 calls follow the June 2024 messages/posts and July 2024 demand letter, and precede the October 2026 Google review. They do not show that the May 2026 threats caused the 2024 posts. No within-day order is established, including for the Facebook assurance and conflicting publicity threats.

Settlement-evidence caution: these calls propose resolving a disputed refund claim. Wisconsin Stat. 904.08 may restrict their use to prove liability or amount, including attempted impeachment by inconsistency; counsel must assess admissibility and any genuinely permissible other purpose. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/904/08

Limits: private voicemail is not itself public defamation. Hostility, insults, follower counts, and threats to sue do not alone establish falsity, knowing falsity, a crime, publication, business loss, or an entitlement to an injunction. She repeatedly asserts truth or truth to the best of her knowledge. Preserve those statements; prove any actionable public statement and harm separately.

Preservation: retain original files, source call logs, caller identification, timestamps/time zone, and the complete conversation. Caller identity and call date are supplied by Chad, not independently authenticated here. Pair verified excerpts with the contract (A), walkthroughs (E-1/E-2), contemporaneous messages/posts (F/G), and payment invoices (H). Summary for attorney review; not legal advice.

MASTER AUDIO MANIFEST AND PER-CALL FINDINGS

Exhibit I-1 — Direct contact and attorney representation
Date: May 11, 2026 (Chad-confirmed; within-day order unknown)
Source filename: Voicemail_19207136472_20260511-6-2.mp3
Duration: 0:43
Download filename: Exhibit-I1-Voicemail-6.mp3
Automated excerpt — verify against audio: “I've never received a letter of representation from your attorney, so that's why I'm contacting you.”
Potential significance and limits: Context rather than an adverse admission: she explains direct contact, apologizes, and offers to contact counsel. This does not prove improper contact or wrongdoing.

Exhibit I-2 — Refund demand paired with hardball language
Date: May 11, 2026 (Chad-confirmed; within-day order unknown)
Source filename: Voicemail_19207136472_20260511-7-2.mp3
Duration: 1:47
Download filename: Exhibit-I2-Voicemail-7.mp3
Automated excerpt — verify against audio: “I could literally destroy you. I don't want to do that.”
Potential significance and limits: Also says “I just want the $10,000 back” and “Again, if not, I will play hardball.” Potentially supports refund leverage rather than a neutral complaint. Read with her desire to resolve the dispute; the language does not establish knowing falsity, extortion, or a threat of physical harm.

Exhibit I-3 — Refund deadline linked to audience and reputational pressure
Date: May 11, 2026 (Chad-confirmed; within-day order unknown)
Source filename: Voicemail_19207136472_20260511-8-2.mp3
Duration: 3:00
Download filename: Exhibit-I3-Voicemail-8.mp3
Automated excerpt — verify against audio: “I am going to tell everybody the truth about you.”
Potential significance and limits: After demanding $10,000 by the end of the week, she mentions followers and people trusting her; later says “I will literally destroy you.” Potential evidence of intended reputational pressure to obtain a refund. She expressly denies falsehood and says she is not trying to threaten him; preserve that context. Does not prove any actual publication or knowing falsity.

Exhibit I-4 — Explicit refund ultimatum and planned public accusations
Date: May 11, 2026 (Chad-confirmed; within-day order unknown)
Source filename: Voicemail_19207136472_20260511-9-2.mp3
Duration: 3:00
Download filename: Exhibit-I4-Voicemail-9.mp3
Automated excerpt — verify against audio: “I'm also going to be reporting the truth to every social media and every person in Green Bay, Wisconsin”
Potential significance and limits: This follows her demand for $10,000 by the end of the week and threatened litigation. Potential evidence that publicity was tied to payment. Her assertion that QOLOS used other people to do the work also recognizes work existed, but does not prove completion. She calls statements true to the best of her knowledge; verify any public repetition, falsity, and damages separately (F-1–F-3, G-2–G-4, G-9).

Exhibit I-5 — Express plan to repeat prior publicity if unpaid
Date: May 11, 2026 (Chad-confirmed; within-day order unknown)
Source filename: Voicemail_19207136472_20260511-10-2.mp3
Duration: 3:00
Download filename: Exhibit-I5-Voicemail-10.mp3
Automated excerpt — verify against audio: “If I do not receive it by a certain day, I will go to the public first.”
Potential significance and limits: Also says “I'll do exactly what I did last time” and “I know how to play the game, so don't screw with me.” Potentially links planned repeat publicity to a refund and acknowledges prior activity; compare with the 2024 posts and June 26 messages. It does not identify every earlier post or admit falsehood. She again asserts truth to the best of her knowledge and offers to settle for $10,000.

Exhibit I-6 — Website, work, and contractual labor rates acknowledged
Date: May 11, 2026 (Chad-confirmed; within-day order unknown)
Source filename: Voicemail_19207136472_20260511-11.mp3
Duration: 3:00
Download filename: Exhibit-I6-Voicemail-11.mp3
Automated excerpt — verify against audio: “labor rates, which were in the contract, I agree. But the contract”
Potential significance and limits: This is the clearest potential acknowledgment that labor rates were in the contract, but the sentence cuts off: it is not agreement to $95/hr, every invoice, or contract enforceability. She also says “take the website, and freaking eat it. It's crap” and “You had somebody else working on it.” Those statements may undermine a literal claim that no website or work existed, not prove satisfactory completion. Her “I'm not going to run your name through Facebook” assurance contrasts with the publicity threats in I-3–I-5; same-day call order is unknown, so no later reversal can be inferred.

Exhibit I-7 — Quality complaint contrasted with claim of nothing delivered
Date: May 11, 2026 (Chad-confirmed; within-day order unknown)
Source filename: Voicemail_19207136472_20260511-12.mp3
Duration: 2:41
Download filename: Exhibit-I7-Voicemail-12.mp3
Automated excerpt — verify against audio: “I don't give two shits about the website. I mean, it was a piece of junk.”
Potential significance and limits: She evaluates a website but also says “I basically paid you $10,000 and you gave me nothing.” Potential inconsistency between dissatisfaction and literal nonexistence, relevant to the later October 2026 “have no site” review (G-9). Compare with E-1/E-2 and QOLOS's account that the work was on her servers. Neither this nor the ambiguous refund/keep-website passage proves acceptance, delivery of every requirement, or a waiver of her claim.

Exhibit I-8 — This revised report. All seven master audio files and this report are included in the attorney exhibit ZIP.