Courtroom Strategy – Episode 3 (Oscar Michelen & Matthew Chan)
Oscar Michelen & Matthew Chan discuss the reasons why people hate lawyers.
https://vimeo.com/21860827
Oscar Michelen & Matthew Chan discuss the reasons why people hate lawyers.
https://vimeo.com/21860827
Oscar Michelen and Matthew Chan discuss business challenges Young Lawyers have and how they can improve their credibility and gain professional experience.
https://vimeo.com/21853886
Oscar Michelen and Matthew Chan discuss the legal issues surrounding the court cases of celebrity actress, Lindsay Lohan.
https://vimeo.com/21543308
Because of my personal distaste and dismay of the Stock Photo industry which started with the Getty Images Extortion Demand Letter, I have taken steps to personally boycott the Stock Photo Industry and advocate not using stock photos altogether. The stock photo industry seems to be rapidly consolidating into two companies: Getty Images and Corbis, as they buy their way into near-monopoly status with them setting outrageous rules, policy, and pricing.
This article will not give you all the information necessary to entirely eliminate the need for stock photos in every situation. However, this article will give you some ideas and strategies to wean yourself and perhaps altogether eliminate your need for stock photos. I firmly believe that if you put your intentions behind the idea, you can make huge strides towards eliminating the need for stock photos altogether.
The very first thing you need to think about is whatever media project you are working on is, do you truly need a photo at all? Chances are that you are working on a website, book, magazine, brochure, news story, banner, or some other media project. Alternatives to photos might be diagrams, cartoons, illustrations, and drawings that you or a graphic artist you hire can create. Can you take your own photo to fit the need?
If you hire a graphic artist to create your own artwork, do not hire anyone in China or India where there is very little respect for intellectual property. They may be inexpensive but you can never be assured that their work is original. There is little recourse for their bad behavior because they are so far away. I recommend hiring graphic artists from the U.S. because as a professional community, they have a greater respect for intellectual property than their Chinese or Indian counterparts. They will think twice before using pirated material.
I would avoid hiring any company that outsources their work to graphic artist worker bees. In other words, I always want to deal and negotiate with a graphic artist professional themselves, not some agent or agency that farms out graphics art work.
If you do want to use and take your own photos, I highly recommend investing in a good digital camera so that you can begin taking your own photos. I also recommend getting to know amateur hobbyist photographers who have access to good cameras and enjoy taking photos. Very often, amateur photographers with good cameras are trying to find a way to justify the costs of their hobby. By hiring them inexpensively, you can get some great looking photos but also help the amateur photographer pay for his hobby. Make sure they understand that you are they are working for hire and that you will have full ownership and rights to the photos.
Professional photographers can be expensive depending on what you want and who you use. For these folks, I recommend bartering with them for exchange of services if you have talents in your profession. I find many professional photographers finicky. They will sometimes not give you full ownership or rights of the photo even though you paid them to take a photo. They are quite protective and their thinking is aligned to many in the stock photo industry. Admittedly, this is a broad generalization and based only on my experience. I am simply not optimistic that you will get good value from a professional photographer but it certainly does not hurt to try and negotiate with them.
Another source of quality photos is product photos from product manufacturers. Often, they are happy to have their products publicized and placed in a positive light and will give you free rights to use their photos. Product companies mostly police and control their photos because they don’t want their photos used in a manner they did not intend or in a way that paints their company or products in a negative light. Many will grant you free usage of their photos if you approach them the right way. However, large companies can be a challenge sometimes because of their size. They may be so large that they may not even get back to you. Again, it never hurts to try. Product companies are in the business selling more of their products, not sue people who use their product photos.
If you choose to take your own photos, invest in a digital camera that can take a resolution of 4 megapixel images or higher. You want to take high-resolution photos as your master copy. You can then “downsize”, crop, and enhance the photos for your websites or other uses. I recommend buying an easy-to-use photo editor such as Adobe Photoshop Elements 7 or Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 that allows you to crop and resize photos easily. The photo editor can greatly enhance the quality of the master photos you take. You can also enhance colors and adjust lighting with the software. Special effects such as blurring, stretching, pixelating, framing, adding captions, etc. are included with photo editing software.
I truly believe that with the increasing power and technical capabilities of digital cameras, cell phone cameras, and camcorders, the value of stock photos and stock photo companies will eventually decline. It is going to be a losing business to be in. This whole notion of extorting your way to profitability is distasteful and eventually will fall by the wayside much like what has occurred in the music recording industry. One only has to look to RIAA for that lesson.
Along the “do-it-yourself” philosophy, you should have the mindset that you will fit images or photos you create to your media project, not let your media projects deciding the specific images you need. Stock photo companies are trying to brainwash you the idea that THEY have the perfect photo for your particular needs. If you are creative, imaginative, and resourceful enough, you will almost always find an alternative or work-around solution that does not require the use of stock photos.
If you want to show the stock photo industry you don’t need them, the best way is to simply generate more of your own photos to devalue theirs and then use your own. I have published two books recently and have been able to successfully avoid using stock photos of any kind. I used my own photos as well as authorized product photos. I created my own artwork. If more publishers, graphic artists, and graphic designers started doing this, I truly believe the stock photo industry could be brought down to their financial knees very quickly.
Many years ago, people said that we would run out of .com domains available because all the good ones were taken. It is true it has become more challenging to find a good .com domain name. However, I have made it my policy to not deal with any domain speculators or domain squatters. I won’t be extorted into paying thousands of dollars for an available domain I can register for less than $10. And because I have set that restriction and policy for myself, I have always been able to find many suitable .com domain names for my various websites.
It is the same principle here. Think abundantly. Think creatively. Tap into your imagination. There are many ways to implement a visual concept besides a specific photo you might have in mind. There are many ways to implement a concept visually. Do not let the stock photo companies brainwash you into thinking you have to use their particular photos because there are no other ways of finding an image for your particular website, logo, banner, sign, book, magazine, or other product.
The best kept secret that the stock photo industry hates are government websites and their photo collections. Great public domain photos can be found from U.S. government agency websites. “The people” own the photos, not any one individual or organization. USA.gov is a government-operated website that was launched to help U.S. citizens have better access to various government agencies and resources. Specifically, USA.gov has a page called U.S. Government Photos and Images which contains links to government agency websites that have public domain images. The diversity of images available is quite impressive. An off-shoot of that page is the State Photo & Multimedia Galleries which links to public domain images at the State level.
Some of the more notable ones I like and found impressive are listed below:
Are you impressed with these websites? I was. It is all free and much of it is available in high-resolution. However, you should realize that not all images from government websites are public domain. You will need to seek out the image usage rights notices on each website. As I said USA.gov is a great starting point to a wealth of high-quality public domain photos.
If there are any other great public domain or government photo sites, please let me know and I will add them. If you have any additional tips to stop using stock photos and boycott the stock photo industry, send them to me and I will incorporate them into this article.
This article first appeared on “The TurnKey Publisher’s Blog”
=========
Because of my personal distaste and dismay of the Stock Photo industry which started with the Getty Images Extortion Demand Letter, I have taken steps to personally boycott the Stock Photo Industry and advocate not using stock photos altogether. The stock photo industry seems to be rapidly consolidating into two companies: Getty Images and Corbis, as they buy their way into near-monopoly status with them setting outrageous rules, policy, and pricing.
This article will not give you all the information necessary to entirely eliminate the need for stock photos in every situation. However, this article will give you some ideas and strategies to wean yourself and perhaps altogether eliminate your need for stock photos.I firmly believe that if you put your intentions behind the idea, you can make huge strides towards eliminating the need for stock photos altogether.
The very first thing you need to think about is whatever media project you are working on is, do you truly need a photo at all? Chances are that you are working on a website, book, magazine, brochure, news story, banner, or some other media project.Alternatives to photos might be diagrams, cartoons, illustrations, and drawings that you or a graphic artist you hire can create.Can you take your own photo to fit the need?
If you hire a graphic artist to create your own artwork, do not hire anyone in China or India where there is very little respect for intellectual property.They may be inexpensive but you can never be assured that their work is original. There is little recourse for their bad behavior because they are so far away. I recommend hiring graphic artists from the U.S. because as a professional community, they have a greater respect for intellectual property than their Chinese or Indian counterparts.They will think twice before using pirated material.
I would avoid hiring any company that outsources their work to graphic artist worker bees.In other words, I always want to deal and negotiate with a graphic artist professional themselves, not some agent or agency that farms out graphics art work.
If you do want to use and take your own photos, I highly recommend investing in a good digital camera so that you can begin taking your own photos.I also recommend getting to know amateur hobbyist photographers who have access to good cameras and enjoy taking photos.Very often, amateur photographers with good cameras are trying to find a way to justify the costs of their hobby. By hiring them inexpensively, you can get some great looking photos but also help the amateur photographer pay for his hobby.Make sure they understand that you are they are working for hire and that you will have full ownership and rights to the photos.
Professional photographers can be expensive depending on what you want and who you use. For these folks, I recommend bartering with them for exchange of services if you have talents in your profession. I find many professional photographers finicky. They will sometimes not give you full ownership or rights of the photo even though you paid them to take a photo. They are quite protective and their thinking is aligned to many in the stock photo industry. Admittedly, this is a broad generalization and based only on my experience. I am simply not optimistic that you will get good value from a professional photographer but it certainly does not hurt to try and negotiate with them.
Another source of quality photos is product photos from product manufacturers. Often, they are happy to have their products publicized and placed in a positive light and will give you free rights to use their photos. Product companies mostly police and control their photos because they don’t want their photos used in a manner they did not intend or in a way that paints their company or products in a negative light. Many will grant you free usage of their photos if you approach them the right way. However, large companies can be a challenge sometimes because of their size. They may be so large that they may not even get back to you.Again, it never hurts to try. Product companies are in the business selling more of their products, not sue people who use their product photos.
If you choose to take your own photos, invest in a digital camera that can take a resolution of 4 megapixel images or higher. You want to take high-resolution photos as your master copy.You can then “downsize”, crop, and enhance the photos for your websites or other uses.I recommend buying an easy-to-use photo editor such as Adobe Photoshop Elements 7 or Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 that allows you to crop and resize photos easily. The photo editor can greatly enhance the quality of the master photos you take. You can also enhance colors and adjust lighting with the software.Special effects such as blurring, stretching, pixelating, framing, adding captions, etc. are included with photo editing software.
I truly believe that with the increasing power and technical capabilities of digital cameras, cell phone cameras, and camcorders, the value of stock photos and stock photo companies will eventually decline. It is going to be a losing business to be in. This whole notion of extorting your way to profitability is distasteful and eventually will fall by the wayside much like what has occurred in the music recording industry. One only has to look to RIAA for that lesson.
Along the “do-it-yourself” philosophy, you should have the mindset that you will fit images or photos you create to your media project, not let your media projects deciding the specific images you need.Stock photo companies are trying to brainwash you the idea that THEY have the “perfect photo” for your particular needs. If you are creative, imaginative, and resourceful enough, you will almost always find an alternative or work-around solution that does not require the use of stock photos.
If you want to show the stock photo industry you don’t need them, the best way is to simply generate more of your own photos to devalue theirs and then use your own.I have published two books recently and have been able to successfully avoid using stock photos of any kind.I used my own photos as well as authorized product photos.I created my own artwork.If more publishers, graphic artists, and graphic designers started doing this, I truly believe the stock photo industry could be brought down to their financial knees very quickly.
Many years ago, people said that we would run out of .com domains available because all the good ones were taken. It is true it has become more challenging to find a good .com domain name. However, I have made it my policy to not deal with any domain speculators or domain squatters. I won’t be extorted into paying thousands of dollars for an available domain I can register for less than $10. And because I have set that restriction and policy for myself, I have always been able to find many suitable .com domain names for my various websites.
It is the same principle here. Think abundantly. Think creatively. Tap into your imagination. There are many ways to implement a visual concept besides a specific photo you might have in mind. There are many ways to implement a concept visually. Do not let the stock photo companies brainwash you into thinking you have to use their particular photos because there are no other ways of finding an image for your particular website, logo, banner, sign, book, magazine, or other product.
The best kept secret that the stock photo industry hates are government websites and their photo collections.Great public domain photos can be found from U.S. government agency websites. “The people” own the photos, not any one individual or organization.USA.gov is a government-operated website that was launched to help U.S. citizens have better access to various government agencies and resources.Specifically, USA.gov has a page called U.S. Government Photos and Images which contains links to government agency websites that have public domain images.The diversity of images available is quite impressive.An off-shoot of that page is the State Photo & Multimedia Galleries which links to public domain images at the State level.
Some of the more notable ones I like and found impressive are listed below:
Are you impressed with these websites? I was. It is all free and much of it is available in high-resolution.However, you should realize that not all images from government websites are public domain. You will need to seek out the image usage rights notices on each website. As I said USA.gov is a great starting point to a wealth of high-quality public domain photos.
If there are any other great public domain or government photo sites, please let me know and I will add them. If you have any additional tips to stop using stock photos and boycott the stock photo industry, send them to me and I will incorporate them into this article.
I want to keep this post as brief as possible because this announcement is not one I consider “good news” but it was necessary given the amount of inquiries and information I have been getting regarding the infomercial company, “Incredible Discoveries”.
As a brief recap, “Incredible Discoveries” came into my life around June 20, 2007 when they wanted to talk to me about marketing my books with infomercials. The conversations ultimately led to a $75,000 fee they wanted me to pay. I was immediate suspicious and I declined the offer.
A disgruntled, ex-employee, Robert Danoff, and another individual made contact with me feeding me insights. With my suspicions and their suggestions, I followed up on their insights. I made a few more blog postings regarding Incredible Discoveries updates as it related to Robert Danoff. I posted them because Robert Danoff gave me information that I thought might be of public interest.
To make a long story shorter, I eventually put an end to discussing “Incredible Discoveries” because I did not want my blog to become overrun with this story that really had little to do with me or my business. If you want to know more, go visit these posts.
However, since these posts last year, this blog persistently gets traffic on “Incredible Discoveries” which means many people are interested and someone is reading. But I also continue to get emails and phone calls from people wanting my opinion on “Incredible Discoveries“. I also get a few complaints. But I am not the Better Business Bureau. Nevertheless, I keep my ears open to what people tell me.
The straw that broke the camel’s back is when yet another person called asking me my opinion. I told them it was up to them and it was their money. It was like they wanted me to prove or disprove that “Incredible Discoveries” was a “bad” company. Quite frankly, it isn’t my job to be responsible for others.
As a public service, I shared my opinions on the blog already and if you think you can part with $50,000 to $75,000 and take the risk, fine with me. It is your money. But I keep telling everyone that my internal radar says to spend your money elsewhere. You can do a lot with $75,000 on your own plus I think a lot of the infomercial business is one that offends my sensibilities. That is why there are so many complaints.
In any case, I did get curious enough to do more fact-checking on “Incredible Discoveries“. After all, why does this blog get so much interest because of “Incredible Discoveries”? Obviously, a lot of people are searching for information on them which led me to do some searching on my own.
And so, I am trying to put this issue to bed. I dug out more interesting information. I had some interesting phone conversations from various past plaintiffs and defendants against “Incredible Discoveries”. I found information from the Florida Attorney General’s Office and Florida Division of Corporations.
With all of this, I compiled my findings into “The Incredible Discoveries Information Page“. I have tried to be fair and I am upfront of my biases. I give commentary and information but it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions whether anyone should do business with them.
If you have additional meaningful information or corrections, I will accept them. But I am resistant to taking any more phone calls on Incredible Discoveries. I got better things to do than discuss them.
To those who care, “The Incredible Discoveries Information Page” is a free resource. The direct link is: https://matthewchan.commastersiteincrediblediscoveries-info.htm. To those who don’t care, you aren’t missing much.
This was first posted on The TurnKey Publishing Blog.
=======
When I first received my Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter on Monday, June 16, I took prompt measures to be proactive. One of those proactive steps was to face this issue head-on. I called the phone number 800-272-4170 twice and left one message. My voice message was professional and courteous. I was letting them know I acknowledged their letter and was quickly taking corrective measures. I also told them I welcomed a call to discuss the situation.
Chloe Surdyk called late Wed. afternoon. It was actually a cordial conversation. I did my best to find common ground. I understand their need to protect their copyrights and go after people but I did not agree with their tactics.
I told her I especially did not agree with her rationale that victims of Indian web designers should have to pay Getty Images especially when I contracted for a web banner, not specific images. I also had little or no say in the selection of any images, only whether I liked a web banner or not.
She offered me a lower settlement (from the original $1,300) of $800-something. I told her I did not agree with her and it was likely we would have to agree to disagree. In the conversation, I told her I was not ignorant of the law and due legal process. I have been to court many times to be a plaintiff and occasionally a defendant. I was not simply going to “roll over”. I told her I did my research on the Internet on Getty Images and I was informed of their upcoming tactics. I told her I was not going to sit still and that I would likely publicize my interactions with her and her company.
My sense of embarrassment over this is substantially lower than my sense of outrage at their attitude. Surprisingly, during most of the conversation, Chloe was cordial. Even towards the end of the conversation, she said she would put into her notes to give me another 14-days to consider her offer. Chloe even gave me her direct phone office line: 206-925-6779.
In my mind, there was no way I was going to “settle” with them. I mentioned to her that she would likely have to sue my company if she wanted anything. For now, I told her we would simply agree to disagree.
My next move is to get my “official reply” sent out by Certified Mail within the next couple of days. I am biding my time as I continue to do more research.
===========
Cold calls are NOT welcome on this matter. Please do not cold call me because I will not accept phone calls from phone numbers I don’t recognize.
Get Help with your Extortion Letter. If you want to learn more about my case, visit ExtortionLetterInfo.com.
Today, I received a Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter basically trying to extort from me a payment of $1,300 for a bird image that was used on theintrepidway.com website. If I pay that amount, basically they agree not to sue me or my company. However, suing and winning are two entirely different issues.
TheIntrepidWay.com currently looks bare because I immediately took down all the web banner graphics to comply with the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter.
For most of you reading this, you will be like me earlier today. I had no clue what this was all about. It would be many hours later until I discovered this extortionistic practice by Getty Images. But, believe it or not, this issue is relevant to anyone who wants to put up their own website and intend to hire someone to design their graphics and images.
The “short version” of all this is that “Getty Images”, a photo-licensing company, actively sends out Settlement Demand Letters in the U.S., U.K., and Australia to unsuspecting website owners that have intentionally or unintentionally infringed on their copyrighted images. ON the surface, this sound fine.
In my research, so many website owners are small-business people or companies that contracted web site templates and graphics from graphic artists/designers in India. Well, apparently, the folks in India have a terrible reputation of stealing U.S. images and incorporating them in their web graphics and template design.
Unsuspecting U.S. website owners who want to improve the appear of their websites buy these web templates and graphics and use them on their websites. However, months and years later, Getty Images sends this very nasty and threatening letter out essentially holding you fully responsible even if someone else did the crime. I understand that employers are held responsible for many issues, however, what comes is on the verge of insanity and certainly not even close to reasonable.
If you are legally uninformed, I will tell you, it is a very intimidating letter unless you think this through carefully. After I calmed down, I took the time to do a Google and Yahoo search on “Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter”. I think if you do the same, you will get a very interesting education. It is actually devious because Getty Images do not do anyone the courtesy of a Cease and Desist Letter. Basically, let people know that they did the wrong thing and allow them to correct the situation before you get nasty.
However, in one mailing, they ask you to remove all the infringing images AND ask you to pay this extortionistic amount so they won’t sue you. What a great scam. Start sending letters to anyone who made a mistake to correct the mistake but also demand a huge cash payment while you are at it in exchange for you to NOT sue them. What a great way to make money. Why bother going to court when you can simply instill the fear of a lawsuit into people?
And even if you have to go to court, there is this small matter of preparing and proving your case. Is Getty Images (based in Seattle) really going to hire an attorney and sue me in Columbus, Georgia over $1,300? Perhaps they will sue for more. But for what damages? Punitive damages? You want to punish someone for doing something they did not intend to do or know it was even occurring? Those attorney fees might get expensive trying to sue a corporation over state lines.
I have been to court many times as a plaintiff. It is not easy to simply make stuff or puff your case up. The judge is usually smart enough to temper a case and not let a ruling get too ridiculous especially in a small claims case.
If it sounds like I am being cavalier, I am not. I am treating this seriously. However, I am not simply going to roll over. I also have a few tricks up my sleeve if they truly decide to push the matter into the court system. I won’t get into specifics but let’s just say the word will get out very quickly and wide to people, companies, and agencies I have never communicated to before.
I felt the need to post this warning message to warn others. There are many, many angry people who have received similar letters from Getty’s Images. I suspect they will want one more web source to consult and discuss this situation.
=========
Cold calls are NOT welcome on this matter. Please do not cold call me because I will not accept phone calls from phone numbers I don’t recognize.
Get Help with your Extortion Letter. If you want to learn more about my case, visit ExtortionLetterInfo.com.
A public relations representative contacted my office today and claimed to have a written retraction by Robert Danoff. Since I have never seen Bob’s signature, I cannot verify if it is actually his or not. I am happy to post the letter if I can verify from Bob himself that he did willingly sign this letter and the conditions in which he is signing it.
The letter is direct and plain. Having spoken to Bob in the past, it appears to be inconsistent with his writing style. It looks like someone wrote a letter and, at best, told him to sign it.
After all the time and energy Bob has given, why a retraction now? From my understanding, neither party is allowed to discuss it.
Having dealt with the court system myself as a plaintiff, it sounds like a settlement was reached. The “only” thing Bob has to do is agree to sign to the contents of the letter which says he was a disgruntled employee and other descriptions and Incredible Discoveries would drop all lawsuits against him. That is only an educated guess on my part and I had thought this might eventually happen.
Having learned a little bit about his personal situation over the past few months, I suppose it was inevitable this would happen. After all, why would he want to continue to fight this? He had very little to gain monetarily. It is way easier to simply stop fighting. And if that is the case, so be it.
To be clear, I have no dog in this fight at all. What I dislike is having my time wasted and having someone or some company solicit my business and asking $75,000 from me with little more than an attractive website. Are you kidding me? It takes nerve to do so. I also find it very suspicious that I have seen in Florida public records a variety of lawsuits filed against or by the parent company of Incredible Discoveries vs. various individuals. Basically, I tend to think “where there is smoke, there is fire”.
Having spoken to an employee within a direct response publication, a fellow entrepreneur friend who was also approached by Incredible Discoveries, and a couple of other entrepreneurs whom I do not know that complained, other people clearly share a similar distrust and suspicion of the Incredible Discoveries operation.
In the interest of fairness, from my singular perspective, this is mostly my opinion. However, it is not entirely unfounded. I have found enough information in the Florida public records that would make me say to people “let the buyer beware” or “go find another company and listen to their pitch”. I have also kept all the communications of those who have complained or communicated with me regarding Incredible Discoveries.
It also does not help when I ask the public relations person about whether other people were unhappy, she was in denial of it. Clearly, she did not want to talk about it and basically I could care less because I don’t want to waste time digging. So I let it go. My antenna is up and my gut instincts screams loudly regarding them.
I have no interest whatsoever to dig or find any more information within the public records. There is no reason for me to do so. I did find the public relations woman I spoke to to be relatively professional, polite, pleasant, and respectful. Good thing because I was expecting some ugliness. I was happy I was wrong. I must admit I did ask her, “Are you going to threaten to sue me now?” I told her I half expected it. She said they were not that way.
And so, I hope I do not have to write any more about Incredible Discoveries. I know those folks have communicated to me that they would be quite happy for me to delete all postings relating to them. But, they did contact me first even when I told them I wasn’t interested. And I do document interesting business interactions. They certainly qualify.
I may eventually remove my opinions of Incredible Discoveries and their disputes with others if things stay quiet long enough.
=========================
The latest information can be found on The Incredible Discoveries Information Page.
This is Part 2 of my commentary of the case of Immediate Capital Group Inc. dba Incredible Discoveries vs. Robert Danoff (filed in the District Court of Palm Beach County, Florida.
===========================
In looking over the Plaintiff’s Petition, I tried to keep an objective eye and see it from Immediate Capital Group dba Incredible Discoveries (ICG) point of view but it is difficult because I have such differing opinions and philosophy of doing business.
And I have to say, if ICG is a legitimate business as they claim, it strikes to me they are being a bit paranoid and pointing out things that, in my opinion, are very weak.
In reviewing the points ICG made, these are my impressions.
Point 2 – ICG appears to be playing the sympathy card by phrasing their employees as “50 Florida residents…. with their families.” Well, how are they different from any other company that have layoffs, downsizes, or goes out of business? Very few people talk about the family situations and it is not really relevant to the case. It is a sympathy play.
Point 3 – There is probably some truth to Bob Danoff being a disgruntled, former employee that happens to know how to use the Internet. However, it is a bit melodramatic to believe that any one disgruntled employee can bring down an entire company and business. If that is in fact the case, you have to wonder about how strong and solid the business was to begin with.
Having dealt first-hand with the Cobra Collection Scam, people give me credit for helping them shut down. And yet, it really wasn’t me alone. It was the waves of angry, disgusted, and frustrated ex-employees, ex-clients, and ex-debtors that came out and rallied around the website I had created. Likewise, I don’t think Bob is that “powerful” by himself. There has to be a lot of negative karma going on for Bob to have any real power as was the case with the Cobra Collection Scam. There was so much negative karma going on, it hit a boiling point. Is there negative karma going on with ICG / Incredible Discoveries? I simply don’t know.
Point 4 – There are negative comments for almost every established company and product in the Google search engine. There are also disgruntled employees in every company that has been in business any number of years. I have negative reviews on my books but that does not put my publishing company out of business. I have unhappy ex-tenants whom I evicted, sued, and garnished for non-payment. I also have some people who I have fired who might be unhappy with me.
Fundamentally, no one can please 100% of the people but I strive to run my business well. That goodwill and success more than offsets the small number of complaints I get from customers or ex-employees. I also issue credit or refunds if I need to unhappy customers. What I do is no different than what most reputable businesses do. But most companies will not be brought down by this small amount of negative karma. How can Bob’s lone comments (if any) on Google bring any one company down? Give me a break. If ICG has truly been damaged, they need to look elsewhere and not a scapegoat.
Point 5 – ICG is upset with Bob for asking for legal assistance on the Internet. So what? Asking does not mean he will get it. And if he does get the help he wants, we have to assume that Bob and the attorney agreed to it. If ICG is afraid of being perceived as litigious, then maybe they should stop suing so much.
Personally, I don’t mind having the reputation of being a bit litigious. It tells people I am not goofing around when I do business. If you do wrong by me, I will not sit back and be silent. I have sued and will continue to sue if it is absolutely necessary. I also do not like going to court but I do what is necessary to protect our interests.
In browsing through the Broward County Courthouse records searching “Incredible Discoveries” and “Immediate Capital Group”, ICG does seem to indicate they do sue a fair amount of people. But then again, so do we. We have successfully sued lots of deadbeat tenants and we win all our cases. It does not hurt our feelings that if it our newer tenants know we will sue anyone who does not pay. It keeps the deadbeat types away and the others in line.
Last thing, ICG wants to go after Bob because he does not want to list his home phone or cell phone publicly on the Internet? How ridiculous is that? If I was a private citizen and did not have a business, the only way I would want incoming communication is email. Giving out your personal phone number is too risky today. Too many kooks on the Internet. And who wants strangers to burn up their cell phone minutes or fill up their voicemails with junk? Certainly, not me.
Point 6 – I have nothing to say on that as I cannot even find Bob’s Myspace page. I am a pretty good Google user and I couldn’t find it. Again, I think ICG is being a bit paranoid here. Besides, who would seriously pay attention to the content on most Myspace pages? I have seen many Myspace pages. They are either goofy personal stuff or blatant advertisements.
Point 7 – This is the one most relevant to me as parts of my blog are being used as a court Exhibit. I do take exception to this as ICG never asked my permission to reprint the contents of my blog for use besides personal reading. Do they not know that the contents of my blog is copyrighted?
ICG is most focused on the comment by “AndJusticeForSome”. ICG has clearly made the wrong assumption on the true identity of “AndJusticeForSome”. I know for a fact it is not Bob. It is a woman who contacted me through private email. And if it is Bob, he is one hell of an actor capable of a gender change. I have also compared the writing styles of Bob’s public articles and “Justice”. “Justice” writes very well. Bob simply writes adequately on the articles I have seen.
Points 8 to 11 – I have no specific comments on these items.
Bottom line: I think that ICG just needs to let this case go. They are spending way too much time and energy over one ex-employee that I believe has marginal impact on the world at large. If ICG is supposedly as successful as they claim, one disgruntled employee should not be able to bring them down. They are being paranoid. And if one disgruntled employee can bring their business down, they need to see what is wrong with their business model and operations that is so vulnerable to a “few” customer complaints and negative comments.
====================================
The latest information can be found on The Incredible Discoveries Information Page.