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.

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

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?

Regards,

DH

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.

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.

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

CUPPY’S COFFEE: An Interview With Franchisee David Morgan

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!

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.