What happened
AngryPages helped him for free, briefly published several of his books, refused him three times, reconsidered once—and was rewarded with spam, pressure and private correspondence sent to California newsrooms. A retired author from Matale, Sri Lanka, formerly employed by an oil firm in Kuwait, came to AngryPages asking for help. Lehan spent approximately ninety minutes speaking with him. AngryPages waived around $90 in support fees, helped edit and package his work, and briefly published several of his books. They did not sell. During a later call, after some of his work had already appeared on AngryPages, he asked: “When am I getting published?” That was an early sign that we were not sharing the same reality. There were other contradictions. He had a laptop, then he did not have one, then he had several. He asked us to teach him the platform, then said he did not want to learn how to use it. Older authors have published successfully with AngryPages. Children have used our system with fewer emails and less confusion. The platform was usable. We just couldn’t get this relationship to work.
We refused him three times
AngryPages told him in writing that we would not continue publishing or supporting his work: • 20 May 2026 • 21 May 2026 • 26 May 2026 One refusal should have been enough. Instead, more than 80 emails arrived through multiple addresses, including messages that bypassed our filters. He wanted publishing, staff access, technical help, a recommendation for other publishers and continued answers after the relationship had already ended. We do not force readers to buy books. We do not promise that every book will succeed. We do not become an author’s permanent staff because we once decided to help him. Still, in late July, Lehan felt sorry for him and reopened the door by one inch. He was invited to send one book. He sent several, so we withdrew the offer that same day.
Then he went to Sacramento
After AngryPages refused him, private correspondence about active Quran-related work involving other people was forwarded to Sacramento news organizations. He copied us into the distribution. The Sacramento Bee, Capitol Weekly, Comstock’s Magazine, the Sacramento Observer, the Sacramento Business Journal and other local outlets were among those approached. We weren’t going to panic over it. AngryPages is a California publisher. Sacramento is our corporate home. If somebody believes sending our private publishing discussions around the city will frighten us into reversing a decision, they have misunderstood both the company and the city. The press may examine anything sent to it. So may we. What concerned us was that correspondence involving three Muslim collaborators had been distributed as part of somebody else’s dispute. Those people were not the subject of the refusal. Their identities, involvement and private discussions were not bargaining chips. We asked that their personal information be protected and that they not be contacted. A person who wants to complain about AngryPages may complain about AngryPages. He does not get to drag everybody standing nearby into it.
What the leaked Quran project actually showed
The private correspondence concerned a Quran publishing project. We weren’t discussing it because we hated Islam. The author had previously expressed interest in publishing the Quran. Lehan considered helping partly because the request mattered to the man’s Muslim faith. AngryPages was exploring whether the Quran could be presented through a clearer chronological experience with the help of Muslim scholars. That created a real engineering problem. AngryPages was originally built around diaries and stories. Every Story Card receives a timestamp. A memory from 2001 belongs in 2001, even if the author writes it in 2026. The Quran does not move through events like a conventional three-act book. Material concerning different moments, locations and periods may appear beside each other in its received order. Our system was designed to organize time. The Quran required us to respect a structure that does not behave like one ordinary timeline. That is not an argument against the Quran. It is the kind of publishing problem worth solving. We were trying to work out how a California technology publisher could present one of the world’s most important texts without flattening it, falsifying it or handing the project to some radioactive cleric who claimed to speak for roughly two billion Muslims. Lehan used harsh private language while discussing who should—and should not—advise the project. He also said some episodes involving Muhammad were “cool” while acknowledging that controversial material would be difficult to publish responsibly on the modern internet. He was trying to build the thing. The project was paused. It may return when AngryPages has the time, calm and right scholarly help to do it properly. The strangest result of this attempted embarrassment is that it revealed something worth knowing about AngryPages: while larger publishers were frightened of the problem, we were designing a solution.
Why banking entered the story
The author or his wife had also placed Kuwaiti banking information inside material published through AngryPages. That violated our rules and created unnecessary risk for him. Instead of using the mistake as a reason to throw him out immediately, Lehan tried to help. AngryPages reviewed whether the relationship could proceed and made an exception to authorize him despite Kuwait remaining a market under review within our system. We let him through and regret it. Banks decide whom they trust. Publishers do too. That is not because every declined customer is a criminal or every rejected writer is evil. It is because institutions cannot function if access becomes permanent the moment it is granted. AngryPages is not merely a storage bucket for documents. Our authors can create public records, earn money and reach readers internationally. That power requires judgment. Small company or large company, the principle is the same. We control our doors.
We are not politically neutral plumbing
AngryPages has received publishing approaches connected to places and organizations we considered hostile to the United States. Our answer was not a committee memo. It was: fuck no. A permanent publishing record can legitimize a person. A profitable book can finance them. A global campaign can amplify them. We will not provide those powers merely because somebody invokes “free speech.” Free speech protects a person’s right to speak. It does not require AngryPages to package the speech, place our name on it, sell it, translate it or send the speaker money. We do not automatically take orders from the White House, State Department or Senate Foreign Relations Committee either. AngryPages is privately owned. We make our own publishing decisions. But we are a California company. We are American-aligned. We will not pretend that every government, armed movement, political cause or foreign market is equally compatible with us. We can publish criticism of America. We do not have to publish products intended to damage it.
Ron Perlman had a word for this
A few months earlier, Lehan approached Ron Perlman through his agent in Florida about possible AngryPages projects. The response encouraged Lehan to put his best foot forward with a proper proposal. That is how access works. You approach respectfully. You make the best case you can. The other side chooses whether the conversation continues. Lehan later remembered footage of Perlman confronting an intrusive YouTuber who had followed and provoked him. When security asked for the pest’s name, Perlman spelled out his judgment: C-O-C-K-R-O-A-C-H. Lehan recognized the behaviour from that encounter. People who repeatedly cross a boundary often imagine the boundary is the offense. They provoke, pursue and record the reaction. Then they present themselves as victims of the reaction they worked so hard to manufacture. We recognize the routine.
We think publishing stopped being the real objective
We cannot prove what lived inside this man’s mind. We can say what the pattern looked like to us. Ask repeatedly. Receive a refusal. Promise to stop. Disappear. Return months later appearing cooperative. Gain another opening. Ignore its limits. Trigger a harder response. Send that response to outsiders. Then act surprised that AngryPages is angry. We began to suspect he was more interested in pressuring us than getting published. Perhaps he believed persistence would exhaust us. Perhaps he wanted attention, sympathy, leverage or material for a complaint. Perhaps he simply could not accept that a publisher had made a final decision. We could refuse further contact based on what he had already done.
AngryPages is not Google Drive
Some people still imagine an online publisher is an upload button with customer service attached. AngryPages is not Google Drive. We edit, package, price, index, market and publicly stand behind work. We place authors beside our company name. We help turn stories into products and permanent public records. That means we choose. Harvard does not admit everybody who keeps emailing. Louis Vuitton does not hand over a product because somebody refuses to leave the shop. A publisher does not surrender its list because a rejected author finds eleven more email addresses. The books were approximately C-grade to us: potentially workable, but not strong enough to justify the relationship surrounding them. If the author finds another publisher, we wish him success there. He will not find it here.
The decision
We had helped for free, briefly published his work and refused the relationship on three separate days. When we reconsidered one book as an act of mercy, he sent several. Private Quran correspondence involving other people was then distributed to Sacramento news outlets as part of his campaign against us. His account was closed. The publishing offer was withdrawn. A permanent no-contact boundary was issued. We choose whom we publish. When somebody has okayish products but behaves like an asshole to Lehan, we will not tolerate it. We will tell them to fuck off.