Steven Nataniel Kodyat's reply of 28 April 2026 rejecting Rahmat Wibowo's somasi in full, documenting his calls from many numbers, posts in alumni groups and messages to Steven's employer and colleagues, and offering a written settlement

What this document is

A typed letter of 15 pages, dated Jakarta, 28 April 2026, from Steven Nataniel Kodyat to the law office of Naupal Al Rasyid, S.H., M.H. & Rekan in Bekasi, which had sent him a “second and final” somasi, No. 09/NAS-SS/IV/2026 of 13 April 2026, on behalf of Rahmat Wibowo. Each page is footed “Tanggapan Somasi - Steven Nataniel | N”. Pages 1–8 are the letter, pages 9–15 its attachments (Lampiran).

The pages are stitched from the 5-second frames of Rahmat’s YouTube video of 11 August 2026, in which he scrolls through it before reading his own “defence brief” against Steven. Where he scrolled past part of a page between two frames, the missing rows are shown as grey bands: the end of page 3, most of page 8 below its first paragraph, and parts of pages 11, 14 and 15. The blue text highlights from his screen have been removed.

What it says

• Rejection. “I firmly reject all the arguments, accusations and demands”, except what the reply expressly admits.
• A. Relevant facts. His posts were replies to content Rahmat had posted publicly first, a context left out of the somasi; he and friends had at first tried in good faith to advise Rahmat; there was no contact at all from 2024 to early 2026; in March 2026 Rahmat restarted the matter on Instagram, X and LinkedIn “without any trigger”; since then Rahmat has (i) contacted him repeatedly by private message and phone “using many different numbers”, (ii) posted in large campus groups, dormant (graduation, scholarship) and active (the alumni association), “to shame and pressure me in front of fellow alumni”, (iii) published a draft of the somasi before it was formally sent, later deleted, (iv) tagged his employer, superiors and colleagues “to damage my professional reputation and threaten my career”, and (v) contacted his colleagues directly about the somasi.
• B. Rebuttal. (1) The quoted posts are cut from their context. (2) Rahmat’s claim of a good professional reputation as a solution architect is inconsistent with his own public LinkedIn admission that he was dismissed for a breach of the company’s code of conduct, sharing internal information and using company attributes without authorisation. (3) Sarcastic criticism is protected by Article 28E(3) of the Constitution and Article 19 of the ICCPR. (4) The matter became public, covered by media and viral on X, because of Rahmat’s own posts. (5) The claim that his posts caused Rahmat’s bipolar disorder has no medical or legal basis: heritability of 60–85%, no literature linking another person’s posts to the disorder, no medical record, expert opinion or proof of specific causation, and a long list of public events in 2023 that had nothing to do with him. (6) Rahmat himself is the aggressor: publishing critics’ personal information, reporting them to lecturers and institutions, attacking anyone who gave advice, restarting the conflict in March 2026 after more than two years of silence, and targeting his workplace.
• C. Formal and material defects. A “second and final” somasi with no first somasi from the same office, “numbering across different law firms” being unusual; articles cited en masse without saying which elements his conduct meets; and a demand that he “prove the truth” of his posts, reversing the burden of proof.
• D. Evidence he holds, E. Rights reserved: criminal reports for defamation, digital bullying and doxxing, a civil suit, and a claim for abuse of process.
• F. Settlement. Citing good faith and the mediation rules, he offers a written settlement proposal, to be requested through Rahmat’s lawyer, ideally within 14 working days, and refuses any meeting, face-to-face mediation or verbal talks because of Rahmat’s conduct.
• G. Closing. “I have moved on with my life and do not want further involvement in this unproductive conflict”; he will take legal action only if Rahmat’s conduct continues. All communication is to be in writing, to him or to his lawyer “currently being appointed”.
• Attachments, with screenshots: a 2023 Instagram conversation with Rahmat’s since-deleted account, in which Steven tried to talk to him politely; a WhatsApp graduation group dated 28 March 2025 in which Rahmat announced the somasi to Steven and two others and asked members for their private contacts “and their families’”; Rahmat’s LinkedIn post about delivering “the first legal notice to Xendit office”, asking the receptionist to have Steven sign it, “like Blitzkrieg method in ww2”; his LinkedIn messages to Xendit’s Head of People and CEO complaining about “your employee”; a WhatsApp message to a colleague asking for an update and the receptionist’s number; Instagram Stories with Steven’s name, photo and workplace, “APAKAH KALIAN AKAN MENGHIRE ORANG INI LAGI???” (will you hire this person again?); the September 2023 posts by @sicupuh (2.9 million views), HRD Bacot and Ecommurz about his dismissal from AWS; and Steven’s own 2023 posts quoting Rahmat.

Observations

1. What he answered with. Rahmat’s reply to this letter was not a settlement request but a 50-page “defence brief” read out in the same video (ev-20260811-002), a YouTube “study case” calling it AI-written, and in October a 26-page “final warning” demanding Rp3 billion and a meeting at his home (doc-20261024-001). That letter lists this reply as Steven’s rejection “in full”.
2. The incidents it lists recur. The tagging of Steven’s employer, the messages to colleagues and the posts about his workplace that this reply describes in April 2026 continued afterwards, for example publishing his details on LinkedIn and calling him a prisoner who “can only mop” (ev-20261028-003).
3. He published the reply himself. Steven asked that all communication be in writing, to him or his lawyer. Rahmat put the whole letter, with its attachments, on YouTube.
4. Attention, not settlement. Steven offered a written settlement proposal, asked only for a written request through Rahmat’s lawyer, and said he had moved on. Nothing Rahmat did afterwards suggests he wanted to resolve the matter quietly: instead of asking for the proposal, he broadcast Steven’s letter, its attachments and his own rebuttal to his audience, and kept escalating publicly, in what looks more like a bid for attention than an attempt at a graceful resolution.