L&W INVESTIGATIONS: Business is Booming for Private Eye Franchise

Comments

1. sean says:

   September 15, 2008 at 10:16 am

   Please feel free to add a comment regarding this post. Please don’t paste full documents or text composed for other purposes.

   Reply
2. carol cross says:

   September 15, 2008 at 11:57 am

   If those who will take the time to read Rod’s Complaint and “Racketeering Report” you will understand that “fraudulent inducement to contract” appears to be protected under current regulatory policy —-the FTC Rule and the State FDD’s.

   Even the FBI retired “shills” used in presale recruitment of Rod by L&W must have recognized the appearance of “fraud” and quickly jumped ship to avoid any bad consequences for themselves, but, of course, they wanted no further involvement and asked for civil releases in return for their statements. Even the FBI knows you don’t fool around with FTC regulatory policy that is backed by The Congress of the United States.

   If you read Robert Purvin’s Comment #79 to the Federal Trade Commission in 1997 concerning franchise regulation, you might agree with Robert Purvin of the AAFD that the PURPOSE of the FTC Franchise Rule was to protect franchisors from common law fraud actions in the state courts from those franchisees who would feel that they were lied to, cheated, and defrauded by the franchisors in the sales process.

   I don’t suppose that Sean Kelly wants to expose himself to gunfire by publishing this comment #79 on this thread.

   Rod tried to report the fraud perpetuated against him to the proper authorities but no law enforcement authority would take his victim”s complaint. Apparently, the franchise contract underlain by the state government disclosure document is a license to lie, cheat, and steal, once the contract is signed by the new buyer. (See Franchise Remedies, Richard Solomon’s tutorial on this subject matter)

   When you use GOOGLE SEARCH, you can see that L&W uses the Internet, Press Releases, and Articles to advertise their franchise and to provide the appearance that they are a legitimate franchisor selling a valuable franchise.

   The FTC Rule has taken franchisors out from under TRUTH IN ADVERTISING LAWS and they are free to huff and puff and blow their horns on the Internet and their many positive advertisements far outweigh the negative comments on the Bad Bureau Rip Off Site and on Franchise Pick and Blue Mau Mau.

   The pity is that under franchise law as developed from the FTC Rule promulgated in the late 70’s, all L&W has to do is comply with the 23 items of disclosure required under federal and state laws, and they can declare themselves to be “legitimate” and in compliance with the law and the arbitrators and the courts will work to protect them using the letter of the law.

   Where can Rod go from here? All he can do is tell his story and LET THE BUYER BEWARE.

   Reply
3. sean says:

   September 15, 2008 at 12:19 pm

   Where can Rod go from here? All he can do is tell his story and LET THE BUYER BEWARE.
   I thought Rod’s arbitration was still moving forward… no?
   Wasn’t there something about his attorney having $1,000,000 invested so far on behalf of Rod & 11 others?
   Or did I misread that?

   Reply
4. carol cross says:

   September 15, 2008 at 1:26 pm

   My understanding is that the attorneys, who knows one of the franchisees, personally, are doing this on contingency for the 11 plaintiffs, and that the $1,000,000 that has been invested in arbitration is the attorney’s own time that represents the $1,000,000. But, I may have misundestood. I’m sure Rod will be happy to straighten this out.

   FranchiSEE attorneys don’t, as a rule, EVER take franchisee cases on contingency and I was hopeful that Rod’s attorneys who had the sworn statements from the FBI retired officers would be able to do something and get Rod’s and the other plaintiff’s money back —or some kiind of settlement.

   Of course, if the attorney fees are $1,000,000, that may mean, even if there was a settlement, that there wouldn’t be that much left for the plaintiff franchisees.

   As Les Stewart of Franchise Fool says, when franchisees litigate, it is like “trying to revive a corpse” and when the Art of the Con is legalized, sometimes the litigation for the franchiSEE is the second victimization of the franchisees —-or something like that.

   Guess you aren’t going to publish Comment #79 —Robert Purvin’s private comment to the FTC in 1997 —-huh! Sean! on this thread.

   Reply
5. sean says:

   September 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm

   Guess you aren’t going to publish Comment #79 —Robert Purvin’s private comment to the FTC in 1997 —-huh! Sean! on this thread.
   Why don’t you go ahead, Carol.
   My Comment #79 is in the shop being bronzed.

   Reply
6. carol cross says:

   September 15, 2008 at 8:24 pm

   Comment #79
   American Association of Franchisees & Dealers

   P.O. Box 81887
   San Diego, CA 92138-1887
   1-800-733-9858
   1-619-235-2565

   April 27, 1997

   Secretary
   Federal Trade Commission
   Rm 159
   Sixth Street & Pennsylvania Ave., NW
   Washington, DC 20580

   RE: Franchising Comment re 16 CFR Part 436

   Comment of Robert L. Purvin, Jr.
   Chairman, Board of Trustees
   American Association of Franchisees and Dealers
   regarding the
   Federal Trade Commission on the FTC Rule on Franchising
   16 CFR Part 436

   Note: This comment reflects the personal views of the commentator, and is not the official opinion of the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers, except where specifically indicated.

   Commentary to Item 4 of FTC Notice of Proposed Rule Making, “Earnings Disclosures”

   Next to the failure of the FTC to identify and proscribe unfair and abuses trade practices within the franchise industry (see the General Comment below), the failure of the FTC to mandate the disclosure of available earnings data that are material and relevant to making an informed investment decision by a prospective purchaser of a franchise is perhaps the most objectionable aspect of the current FTC rule, and therefore is the focus of this comment.

   Although generally this commentator agrees with the FTC analysis that prescribed mandatory disclosure is not the desired solution (and may even provide a significant burden on the franchisees the rule purports to protect), the rule should definitely be amended to require franchisors to disclose all material and relevant financial data in its possession essential to making an informed decision on the value of offered franchise opportunity. It seems an anomaly that the FTC rule permits franchisors to escape disclosure of material financial data, when in every other instance of investor or consumer protective regulation or legislation, sellers are required to disclose all material information relevant to a purchase decision!

   The source of this anomaly is revealed in the comparison of franchise disclosure regulation to disclosure regulation in the securities industry. Under federal securities laws and applicable rules (e.g., SEC Rule lOb-5), it is unlawful for any seller of securities to offer or sell a security by means of a material misrepresentation of material information, or by the omission to state material information, which is relevant to the decision to purchase the security. Simply stated, the Rule in securities disclosure is that all material information Secretary known to the seller must be disclosed, and the seller is liable (by private right of action, no less) for misrepresentation. It is most relevant to note that with respect to unregistered securities (which are comparable to the sale of franchises in non-registration states) federal law further requires disclosure by offering circular of all material information without limiting the disclosure requirements of the rule. It is especially notable that securities sold pursuant to a private offering exemption in which an offering circular is not mandated by federal law, nevertheless are subject to the mandate of full disclosure. Often, a private offering circular provides a safe haven for issuers so that they cannot be found to have failed to provide all relevant disclosure.

   There is no reason why franchises should not be placed under the same or similar mandate by the FTC franchise rule as issuers of securities have long accepted. The Rule should simply state that it is unlawful for any franchiser to offer or sell a franchise in the United States by means of a misrepresentation of a material fact or facts, or by the failure to state a material fact or facts, including material facts concerning earnings.

   At a basic minimum, it should be a violation of the Rule for any franchisor to refuse to respond to a reasonable request for data (accessible to the franchiser) on a confidential basis from qualified prospective purchasers (prospects who have already been invited to apply for a franchise).

   By applying this well settled standard of disclosure to franchising, all of the objections raised by franchisors to mandated earnings disclosure are solved. Foremost, only facts which are known (or should be known) need be disclosed. Franchisors need not be mandated to make disclosure within their offering circulars, but rather can use their offering circular as a safe haven to insure their disclosure satisfies the requirements of the rule for full and accurate disclosure.

   In truth, most franchisors would like to extol the virtues and successes of their systems. Earnings claims are more often dampened by cautious legal counsel than by the franchisor’s marketing team. However, franchisors have legitimate concerns over the reliability of information they receive from their franchisees, their lack of earnings information, and the cost of acquiring, compiling and publishing data. In many instances these concerns are justified. For this reason, the AAFD has encouraged the disclosure of available data, rather than mandatory earnings claims.

   The disclosure of known Risk Factors, known defects, known data that is available for disclosure, are all well accepted practices in most areas of consumer protection. Certainly, franchisors can comply with these accepted norms.

   As to the questions posed by the FTC for comment:

   (21) To what extent do franchisors represent that either the Rule or the Commission prohibits them from making earnings representations? Is there a need to clarify the Rule to make clear that neither the Commission nor the Rule prohibits franchisors from making earnings representations?

   Surveys conducted by the AAFD of prospective franchise owners have uniformly demonstrated the belief by most franchise purchasers that franchisors are prohibited by law from making earnings claims, and that purchasers are nevertheless protected by “federal regulation ” of franchises offered for sale. Exculpatory language in offering circulars does little to correct investor’s “false sense of security” engendered by the official look and feel of Uniform Franchise Offering Circulars. It is unimportant to determine who is to be faulted for the false impression conveyed by offering circulars, negligent or intentional misrepresentation by franchisors, inadvertence in the design of the Rule itself, or the negligence or gullibility of buyers. The plain truth is that buyers should be educated to insist on receiving financial data, and franchisors should not be able to deny access to data within their possession or scope of knowledge. The Rule should be amended to require disclosure to prospective purchasers, as follows: “You have a right to receive any material financial information and data within the franchisor’s knowledge, and it is a violation of the FTC Franchise Disclosure Rule for the franchisor to deny your reasonable requests for financial data.”

   (22) Should the Commission modify the Rule to require all franchisors to make the following prescribed statement (quotation omitted), and (2) What alternative language would be appropriate? What would be the costs and benefits of such a disclosure?

   Given this commentator’s urging to amend the Rule to require disclosure of all material financial data within the franchisors scope of knowledge, the following prescribed statement should be made to all prospective franchise owners:

   The FTC’s Franchise Rule prohibits the offer or sale of a franchise by means of a material misrepresentation of financial information concerning the franchise opportunity being offered, or the failure to disclose material financial information with the franchisor’s scope of knowledge. You have a right to receive any material financial information and data within the franchisor’s knowledge, and it is a violation of the FTC Franchise Disclosure Rule for the franchiser to deny your reasonable requests for financial data.

   Given the recommendation of this comment to require full disclosure of material information known to franchisors, the remaining questions posed by the FTC become moot.

   Before leaving the subject of earnings claims, this commentator challenges the notion that franchisees should be encouraged to obtain financial information by talking to other existing and former franchise owners. This approach to “due diligence” has been endorsed by franchise consultants, and has been seemingly endorsed by the FTC. Franchisors are not likely accountable for disclosures made by other franchisees–and it is franchisors (not their franchisees) who need to he held accountable! The Rule should not allow franchisors to “pawn off” their disclosure responsibilities to their franchisees (even though it may be a prudent practice to “talk to existing and former franchisees”).

   Comment to Section 6, “Self Regulation and Alternatives to Law Enforcement.”

   In its comment, the FTC makes reference to a March 4, 1995 White House Memorandum which asked federal agencies “to consider if the intended goals of regulation can be achieved in a more efficient, less intrusive way, and whether private sector alternatives can better achieve the public good envisioned by the regulation.” The FTC’s comment states:

   The Commission intends to use the private sector as a partner in a cooperative effort to tackle deceptive and unfair trade practices where they exist. Indeed, developing partnership with industry has become vital in an age of reduced law enforcement resources. This, in addition to its role as a vigilant law enforcement agent, the Commission will encourage self regulation by the private sector, where appropriate.

   Sounds like the perfect argument for the Commission to simply recommend a private right of action for the enforcement of the Rule as has been urged by franchisee advocates for years.

   General Comment:

   As stated in the FTC’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking inviting this comment, the Federal Trade Commission (”FTC”) Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a et seg., grants the FTC authority “to promulgate, modify, and repeal regulation rules that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of’ Section 5(a)(1) of the Act. Notwithstanding several earlier comments, the FTC continues to ignore its authority to deal with unfair trade practices within the franchising community and focuses solely on deceptive practice issues. This commentator objects to the FTC’s refusal to go to the heart of serious abuses in franchising practices, and I repeat my opening remark from my 1995 commentary:

   The state of modem franchising demands vigorous investor and consumer protection. Unfortunately, the FTC Rule, as constituted, exacerbates and even promotes current franchise practices. The current FTC Rule provides no minimum standards of fair franchising practices. Indeed, with some minor exceptions dealing with termination rights, and the Iowa Franchise Law, there are virtually no federal or state laws that mandate minimum standards of franchisor/franchisee relationships. On the other hand, the existence of the FTC Rule is highly touted by the industry (and sometimes by the government) as an effective regulation which protects franchise purchasers and owners. More importantly, the Rule is relied upon by the consuming public as evidence that franchising is a safe path to business ownership and that franchise opportunities are safe, at least in part, as a result of substantial government regulation.

   The FTC should also realize (and remember), mandated disclosure did not come into existence to protect consumers. It is important to recall that mandated disclosure was negotiated by franchisors to provide a safe harbor to avoid being accused of fraud. The purpose of the FTC Rule was to simply declare that misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a franchise was a fraudulent and deceptive practice covered by the Federal Trade Act. In a compromise with the franchising industry, the FTC agreed to allow franchisors to provide a disclosure statement to distance themselves from “oral representations.” In this light, and from the perspective of a franchisee advocate, mandated disclosure (without minimum standards of fairness) created a rule drafted for the protection of the franchising industry and not the consumer.

   In revising the FTC Rule, the Commission is urged to “get back to basics.” The Federal Trade Act mandates the Commission to identify and proscribe “unfair trade practices.” The Commission needs to identify and proscribe unfair practices existing in the franchise relationship and create valid proscriptions for such practices. Misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a franchise is one practice that should be proscribed, but a franchising company should not be able to escape the glowing (and false) claims of its marketing program solely by writing sobering language in a disclosure statement or an offering circular –even one drafted in plain English.

   Respectfully submitted,

   Robert L. Purvin, Jr.
   Chair, Board of Trustees

   Reply
7. carol cross says:

   September 19, 2008 at 10:56 am

   When you look at Ron’s case and the sworn stastements, etc.. that accompany his sworn statement, you see that WHITE COLLAR CRIME was enabled when the FTC promulgated the FTC Rule in the late 1970’s and took franchisors OUT from under state laws that govern common law fraud.

   I agree! How can the FBI and local law enforcement continue to ignore the FRAUD that has permeated the franchise industry?

   Doesn’t the FBI at least owe Rod an answer to his sworn complaint as a victim of L&W —especially because he lost his $70,000,000 and at least $10,000 more because of his faith in the FBI and their integrity.

   L&W were able to sell this franchise to Rod because he believed and relied upon the fact that two retired FBI officers with excellent credentials were part of L&W. Rod didn’t realize that these FBI officers had “innocently” allowed themselves to be used as shills for L&W’s entrance into the franchise industry.

   Reply
8. carol cross says:

   September 29, 2008 at 3:07 pm

   All of these causes of action against L&W are before an Arbitrator who has authority under the law to make a decision for or against the franchisees.

   These arbitrators don’t have to be attorneys and have absolute power under the status quo of franchising and the law, as promulgated by the FTC Rule, to ignore common law fraud
   TC Rule

   Generally, these franchise arbitrations are not public and for thirty years, I would assume the arbitrators have been supporting federal regulatory policy that was promulgated to protect franchisors.

   Reply
9. carol cross says:

   October 6, 2008 at 3:37 pm

   Rod demonstrates that he is a good and strong man with the courage of his convictions and the great natural desire for justice from his government, that he served in the Army and in the Las Vegas Police Department for 23 years. I understand where he is coming from and why he won’t quit until there is some kind of justice, and his money and his faith in his government is reeturned to him.

   In my opinion, it appears obvious that the primary parties in the L&W organization did perjure themselves to permit their attorney to get a restraining order against Rod, a 23 year veteran of the Las Vegas Police Department, who had to retire early because of MS, for which there is no cure. And these upstanding citizens apparently had no fear of doing this because they knew that the federal regulatory policy took franchise transactions out from under State Law statutes for common fraud and that as long as they had Rod’s signature on the contract, they could do and say anything they wanted to with immunity under local and state law,

   One wonders whether or not L&W’s attorney advised them about laws concerning “restraining orders” and whether he warned them about perjuring themselves before the courts or misusuing law and process, They apparently terminated Rod’s franchise in the same court action, thus violating the contract that they signed. The THREAT to Rod was implicit. Shut up and go away!

   I hope that the Chief Trial Counsel Intake of The State Bar of California will take a good look at Rod’s case but I am not hopeful. Generally, these organizations protect the members of the Bar whenever and wherever possible, just like the Better Business Bureaus!

   Reply
10. sean says:

    October 7, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Read how Cuppy’s Coffee / Elite Manufacturing have taken and spent tens of thousands of dollars from the retirement savings of a disabled Vietnam Veteran and former police officer, David Morgan:

    CUPPY’S COFFEE: An Interview With Franchisee David Morgan

    Reply
11. carol cross says:

    October 10, 2008 at 11:48 am

    It sure looks like L&W is in business to sell franchises. If they are selling $100,000 territories and asking for royalties as well, how much in monthly billings does it take for their franchisees to earn that $100,000 back while at the same time paying high royalties to L&W and all of their operational expenses, as well?

    Does L&W put out any actual UNIT Territory statistics? Of course not! They can continue to spin on the Internet and I imagine none of their franchisees know what the other franchisees are making in terms of the sale of their services in the territories that have been sold to them.

    When they sell a territory, they can’t, of course, protect franchisees from competition from independents and they don’t promise that they can provide accounts for the franchisees.

    The franchisee has to try to work up the territory and is limited to WC insurance claims? The franchisees have to carry liability insurance and L&W would only be liable vicariously if their training manuals, etc.. were violated. This means that they have to keep it “simple.”

    If the State WC offices do this with contractors, do they put the contract out on bid? How do L&W gain access? If these are government claims, under law, wouldn’t there have to be competetive bids for the government business? Why was the State Fund guy having lunch with Larimer? Is this appropriate? We can see why Larimer wouldn’t want him to think he had made a special trip, can’t we? Did the State Fund guy pay for his own lunch?

    You, Rod, are a professional and you recognized that their operations were not professional and competent. But, they advertise that they will sell this franchise to anyone and TRAIN them. We see that a Beer Distributor (from a Franchise Times Article) is happy with his purchase, and implies that he is making money?

    All of these pyramid type operations appear to be protected from common law fraud as long as they comply with the FTC Rule and the State FDD. Richard Solomon of Franchise Remedies indicates that some franchisors do get rich from the actual franchise fee and I read recently that someone was trying to patent a “securitization” scheme for franchise fees. What does that tell you? Richard Solomon who has been around franchising for 40 years and is an expert has estimated that 70% of the newer franchises are little more than exploitive schemes to make money for the franchisor if not outright frauds.

    We see what lack of regulation has done to our economy and we see what lack of effective regulation produces in franchising.

    Hang in there, Rod. You did tell me that you furnished the FTC with all of your sworn stratements, etc.. didn’t you? Is L&W on the SBA Franchise Registry and eligible for a quickie loan?

    Carol

    Reply
12. carol cross says:

    October 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Yes! Rod! The one thing we taught our kids to do when they first started to drive is to “NEVER TRY TO FOLLOW ANOTHER CAR ON OUR BUSY ROADS.” This is a very dangerous practice for even the best drivers and can result in accidents and serious injuries and death to innocents.

    This is a very dangerous practice and I wonder how much actual WC fraud there is to investigate, anyway. If there is a lot of fraud, the Doctors must be involved in some way because WC claims and awards are generally based on Doctor’s reports. Maybe, it would be cheaper for Insurance Companies just to get another opinion from another Doctor than to hire L&W franchisees to “catch” someone who is trying to defraud the insurance carrier and the employer?

    Of course, the glamor of being a PI and having a L&W franchise also helps to sell this franchise. But, just what does a franchisee get for $100,000. We know what the franchisor is getting but what is the franchisee getting for that kind of money? If L&W don’t actually provide the accounts to service, don’t the franchisees themselves have to develop accounts on their own, and isn’t this disengenuous for L&W to imply that there will be profits and great success but not have to prove it before they get the signature to the boilerplate contract that protects them in the courts from any misrepresentations they have made outside of the contract. Why would anyone buy a franchise if they were not promised success and profits?

    If L&W truly does steal by deceit, as you indicate, because they CAN under current regulation, as I indicate, what can we do but try to expose that government regulation of franchising is a FARCE. If we only prevent one or two prospects a month from buying an unviable franchise that can destroy them, we are doing the right thing.

    Reply
13. carol cross says:

    October 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Yes, Rod! Maybe we are fighting windmills but I think we have helped a few prospective franchisees think about demanding proof from the franchisor himself that the franchise produces success or profits.

    Maybe ALL propspective buyers of franchises should send registurned letters to the franchisor before they sign an agreement asking the franchisor for any and all information that they have in their possession that would indicate the UNIT performance of the franchise system.

    But, as Sean indicated, they would respond that THIS IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY CAN’T MAKE EANINGS CLAIMS OR SUCCESS CLAIMS OUTSIDE OF THE FDD.

    When the government licenses DOLUS BONUS —we have to “ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM” —-from my Law Dictionary. But, always, some days the bastards do get us down.

    Reply
14. DH says:

    December 30, 2008 at 9:48 am

    I would like to make this formal apology to L&W Investigations, Inc. Recently there had been a rather large post regarding this company, its practices, and possible fraudulent acts upon franchisees both past and present. This post was created and maintained by a former franchise owner, who, by use of his own one sided methods and opinions, set out to defame L&W Investigations, Inc for his own personal gain. Within this post were a few damaging and unfair statements which were directed towards L&W Investigations, Inc – the company, its staff, and CEO. Statements which were meant to remain between myself and the above mentioned former franchise owner, but were then modified to fit the needs of the poster and his attack on the company. L&W Investigations, Inc is a growing, reputable company providing superior service and practices to the Insurance Fraud industry. They build and cultivate professional relationships with their clients, and stand by their work in the field of fraud investigations.
    My sincerest apologies to Neal Lyons, Scott Crowell, Vincent Famador, and Edward Fidler of L&W Investigations, Inc Corporate Office for any damages or decrease in productivity that this post and slanderous, unfair statements contained within, may have caused.

    Regards,

    DH

    Reply
15. carol cross says:

    December 31, 2008 at 9:54 am

    DH —I don’t think that either you or the ex-franchisee of L&W set out to “defame” L&W. If this ex-franchisee published your comments without your consent, I’m sure that he has apologized. He probably feels bad that you have been put at risk of a SLAPP lawsuit and probably understands why you would write the apology that Franchise Pick has posted, because a SLAPP suit has been filed against him.

    Rather, I think that Ron wanted to get the truth out to the public and wanted to invite L&W to refute the truth, if they could, in a public forum that is open to that portion of the public that is interested in franchising. L&W had full opportunity to refute Rod’s comments on both Franchise Pick and the website The Bad Business Bureau Rip Off site but they chose to file a SLAPP suit against him instead.

    There is NO defamation when the “truth” is told and it is the intent of the person to tell the truth and invite public discussion.

    L&W uses the Internet to hype and advertise the value of the franchise that they sell to the public. There are hundreds of positive PR pieces, etc.. to be found in a Google Search of L&W Franchise.

    Since mediations and arbitrations are confidential, and not open to public view, very often due process of law for franchisees is sacrificed to the expediency of upholding federal regulatory policy that appears to indicate that there is no fraud or misrepresentation unless there is some substantive violation of the FTC Rule –but the Rule does not provide a private right of action even when there is a violation of disclosure by the franchisor, unless, of course, an Appeals Court gets involved. But this is a RARE event because almost always arbitrations are final judgments that cannot be appealed. (Read the history of the Coffee Beanery Litigation on Blue Mau Mau)

    It is not “defamation” to speak publically about what you believe to be the truth. The courts are supposed to be open to the public to protect the integrity of the hearing that determines the truth and the facts bearing on the dispute, but mediations and arbitrations are not open to the public and are not a public record. Franchisors are favored by the AAA, according to Public Citizen, who has a Bill in Committee in the Congress that would prevent franchisors from mandating arbitration in their boilerplate non-negotiable contracts.

    I, personally, believe the Federal Arbitration Act and its origiinal intent has been perverted by the Franchise Industry, the IFA, and the other special interests to maintain an unfair advantage in arbitration over franchisees.

    Rod didn’t say anything on the Internet that he wouldn’t have said in a court of law under oath, in my opinion — And his right to speak the truth would have been protected!

    Is it you, DH, who are defaming Rod in your effort to protect yourself from a SLAPP suit?

    Reply
16. Sean Kelly says:

    December 31, 2008 at 10:15 am

    Carol wrote: He probably feels bad that you have been put at risk of a SLAPP lawsuit…

    Carol: Could you explain what SLAPP stands for and what it is?

    Reply
17. carol cross says:

    December 31, 2008 at 11:28 am

    A SLAPP LAWSUIT is defined on Google, The University of the People, as being a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Partricipation.”

    That is, a lawsuit that is brought to stem and prevent public debate about matters that should be brought to the attention of the public because the matters do bear on the human, civil, and legal rights of great numbers of the consumer public. This, of course, is my definition, Sean!

    I’m sure that you, who are better educated, and more articulate than I am, can come up with a better definition.

    I know you must be interested in the subject matter because of your need and desire to protect yourself from SLAPP lawsuits from franchisors, as well. You know that the franchisors will try to remove your “Unhappy Franchisees” Site if they have any legal justification to do so because it obviously does warn off some of those prospective franchisees who are searching for “negatives” in their due diligence endeavors.

    In my mind, you provide a public service by providing a public forum to franchisees and franchnisors –but especially to franchisees who have no public forum in which to try disputes, generally. because most franchise disputes are heard in confidential and secret arbitrations (a kind of private justice) where the deck is stacked against them because of their signature on the non-negotiable franchise agreement.

    Reply