The Robert Paisola MyCollector.com Foundation Blog

It's Rock and Roll Time for Westgate Resorts- CLASS ACTION BOYS, Robert Paisola Reports Live

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:33:00 +0000

This is an Official Western Capital VIP Announcement on

Westgate Resorts and David Siegel

Updated July 19, 2011

Comments from Utah Stories and National Boards

Before you Read this.. See what one VIP Client has to say ...

AND.....

Robert Paisola, CEO of Western Capita

To our friends around the country:

As many of you know, we have been dealing with Westgate Resorts and its CEO, David Siegel, now for over three years. We wanted to let you know that we are having progress, (just Google Western Capital v Westgate Resorts) and you will be able to see all that we have done.

This is the copy of an EMAIL that was sent to one of our VIP clients.

Listen Carefully, Tell them to go to hell and DO NOT PAY THEM. We have many victims in line for a class action lawsuit against this company. This is the kind of email that we receive on a DAILY BASIS:

http://timesharescamsupdate.blogspot.com/2011/06/westgate-resorts-illegal-activity-never.html

From The National Wire Services on Siegel

http://www.zimbio.com/Robert+Paisola/articles/o5H3D-Vn0lv/David+Siegel+Westgate+Resorts+Hit+Dust+Robert

Next, We are Announcing that Western Capital International has formed an Alliance with 500 Westgate Resorts Victims and 47 Employees and Former Employees for the purpose of filing a National Class Action Lawsuit against Westgate Resorts and all of The David Siegel Companies, including Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas.

Special thanks to the Western Capital VIP Staff and our newest VIP CLIENT (Client Data is Always Confidential) , for the extensive legal data that has been done and will be needed to do this. Special thanks to the current employees at Westgate who are also assisting us. Your confidentiality is absolutely assured. If you are a victim of Westgate Resorts, Do your research on this project and then visit www.WesternCapitalVip.com and email us at westgate@mycollector.com .

A National Conference Call will take place in the near future for the 500 New Clients and the Current Western Capital VIP Client Base (You MUST have a valid Client ID and Access Code to be present) to discuss this matter in detail.

Note to the media: The Conference Call is Closed to the Public. We will not be able to officially comment on this matter until the case is filed in Federal Court. Members of Law Enforcement will be present on the call. Our estimation is that there are over 100 Million Dollars in Damages just from what our teams have been able to uncover from (Read about David Siegel's House and Asset Sale Below) Westgate Resorts and David Siegel. (Our legal team will also be discussing this during the call) If you are a Current Westgate Employee who has been assisting us in Florida (Deeding Department and Compliance) or Las Vegas, you will be able to attend, email for details. All parties will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement, and the call will be monitored and regulated by Cisco Systems International

Westgate Resorts Class Action Lawsuit Now In Play

Nevada court might finally deliver timeshare ripoff victims the justice they deserve.

Reported by Utah Stories:

It has been amazing that such a blatantly dishonest company as Westgate Resorts has been able to continue lying to customers and selling timeshare rip-off scams for as long as they have.

It actually appears that Westgate might finally get what they deserve. A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westgate Resorts that apparently has a very good shot of winning in a Nevada court.

Utah Stories has been inundated over the past three years since they wrote their initial story on Westgate: Hollywood Dreams and Timeshare Nightmares about how their salespeople were blatantly lying about the cost, fees and potential value of their timeshares for sale in Las Vegas and Miami.

To get to know Westgate you must know Westgate’s owner.

Mr. David Siegal attends events with celebrities and business moguls such as Dolly Parton, Vanna White, David Hasselhoff and even Bill Gates. All of which have had their photos taken with Mr. Siegal.

Appearing as chum buddies, Mr Siegal attempts to builds his credibility like a parasite does with his host. The Westgate offices are plastered with photos of people who we know and might trust with Mr. Siegal.

Business owners and celebrities don’t realize it might take years to wipe the slime off their hands after they touch or even pose with this guy. Mr. Siegal has the most dishonest sales force I’ve ever encountered.

These people make used car sales people look like angels. They lie, cheat and steal from customers through “gotcha” contracts or contracts they don’t honor because they assume the victim will not go through the trouble of filing an out of state lawsuit. We have found this not only personally but through the hundreds of customer testimonials we have acquired. The flood of testimonials has made me believe this would be a perfect case for a class-action lawsuit.

Robert Paisola has on his blog The TimeShare Chronicles has documents related to the lawsuit filed under Nevada court. Anyone and everyone who has posted their stories on UtahStories.com should visit his site to see how to proceed in bringing justice to Westgate and Mr. Siegal.

To learn about more of Westgate’s deceptive practices. Read about our stay in Westgate’s Miami “Five Star Luxury Resort”. Or any of our other five stories posted on this company.

Ok.. If you think this is a good idea... YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GET... BULLSHIT!
(This was an email that was sent to a CONFIDENTIAL VIP CLIENT) Do you guys REALLY think that this will RATTLE THE DAVID SIEGEL EMPIRE... This is what happens when attorneys think too much. WE DO NOT DO THIS!

Begin Text---

Thank you for your inquiry with regard to “getting rid of your timeshare.” The following information summarizes our main method for relieving prospective clients of personal responsibility for future timeshare payments, with ultimate surrender of your unit as our goal.

We utilize the formation of a limited liability company (LLC) as the vehicle through which you are absolved of liability. The LLC will have its own TIN (there are no tax consequences for this transaction), in order to distance you even further from ownership, and lend the LLC further individual identity. This is a legitimate tool and will pass muster against any claim against you. I cannot emphasize this enough; when the timeshare is transferred to the LLC, you no longer remain liable to the timeshare company, and when the timeshare company transfers the timeshare on its books to the LLC, you no longer have liability. However, we must be assured that the 2011 maintenance/assessment fees are current, and the timeshare unit is owned free and clear.

Your property is deeded and, therefore, the common law rules of real estate apply. Thus, as real estate, unless there is a restriction on the transfer set forth in the original deed, you have the absolute right to transfer the timeshare, and the timeshare operator has no right to reject the transfer. The transaction is absolutely legal. In other words, when the unit is transferred to another legal “entity,” liability ends. In this connection, I can safely state that the deed has no restrictions on transfer.

A private limited liability company (LLC) is created (the LLC may be created in any of the 50 states; however, our choice is based upon ease of filing and costs), before the next timeshare fees are due. We ask for a limited power of attorney allowing us to communicate with the timeshare company regarding the timeshare unit. We then transfer the timeshare by deed to the LLC, and submit the recorded deed to the timeshare company, which then transfers on its records the identification of the new owner. Thus, the entire process results in the LLC becoming the responsible entity, and removes you from liability. At such time as the LLC receives a bill for a future maintenance/assessment fees, we will apprise the timeshare company that the LLC has no funds to pay the fee, the LLC is dissolved, and the timeshare is abandoned, leaving the timeshare operator the only practical option of taking back the timeshare from the LLC.

The LLC incurs an annual state fee for filing a report as to the members and managers, but we anticipate that the LLC will be dissolved and the timeshare unit surrendered or abandoned long before any future state fee is assessed.

Our fee for our comprehensive service is $1,100.00, plus $260 in disbursements (disbursements are an approximation, based upon anticipated recording and filing fees) (the timeshare company may charge an internal transfer fee, which we will pass along to you when we know how much it will be ). Our fee is for comprehensive services, which includes filing fees for the LLC, estoppel letter from timeshare company, designation of registered agent, preparation of limited power of attorney, obtaining of TIN, preparation of transfer deeds, transmittal of deeds to Register of Deeds, notification to timeshare company, preparation of deeds of reconveyance, dissolution of LLC, recording costs, and any miscellaneous effort in connection with removing you from liability for the timeshare unit.

Please let us know if you would like to proceed. It’s important to keep in mind the date due on the next maintenance/assessment fee. A sufficient amount of time (6 weeks to two months) must be allowed to go through the process.

Fees are customarily paid in advance, and for your convenience and in order to expedite the process, we will be pleased to accept your credit card payment by phone. You may also pay by check, payable to ATTORNEY XXXX for $1,360.00.

Just as a matter of information, we have been asked many times: “Why aren’t you a member of BBB?” The reason why many “traditional” professionals like me (doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects, accountants) have chosen not to pay for membership in the BBB, is simply that the standards under which we practice our calling, as prescribed by enforceable codes of professional ethics and State licensing laws, are decidedly more stringent than any standards which BBB may prescribe. Frankly, BBB is often nothing more than a complaint bureau for consumers and a marketing tool for members. It has absolutely no authority to either resolve disputes or enforce standards. “We answer to a higher authority!” Should you wish to confirm my credentials, Florida is available online (MORE BS- DELETED) membership is presently inactive, since I have not practiced in that State for many years.

This is CLASSIC ATTORNEY SPEAK. DO YOU THINK THAT THE FRENCH CLIENT IN THE VIDEO ABOVE WILL GIVE THESE GUYS THE TIME OF DAY? ... RIGHT! GOD I AM GLAD THAT I DID NOT TAKE THE BAR EXAM.... WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO BE A LAWYER WHEN A CEO CAN HIRE THEM BY THE DOZEN FOR 25,000 per year?

From The Orlando Sentinel

Amid the nation's continuing real-estate slump, Orlando's time-share king is attempting to sell $350 million worth of real-estate and noncore assets, including thousands of acres of undeveloped land in Central Florida.

David Siegel, president and chief executive officer of Westgate Resorts, has listed a portfolio of properties with Carlton Advisory Services Inc., an international real-estate investment-banking firm. A total of 60 assets are up for sale, from hotels to mobile homes to airplanes.

"We're selling our non-time-share assets to raise cash for our time-share operations," Siegel said Wednesday. "We're selling anything that we don't currently need for our time-share [business]."

The real estate includes a dude ranch and the once-famous Grenelefe Resort, both in Polk County, as well as land that already has government approvals for time-share construction. Carlton Advisory Services said all reasonable bids will be considered.

"We definitely have a lot of interest," said Scott Stay, an asset manager for Carlton. "These are selling closer to distressed pricing, but they're not distressed assets."

Westgate Resorts, like many time-share developers, has struggled financially since the credit markets froze in late 2008. It has cut more than one-third of its staff since then.

Siegel also slowed construction last year of his planned 90,000-square-foot mansion near Windermere, dubbed Versailles, saying he needed to dedicate more cash to the business.

About three-fourths of the property now up for sale is in Florida, though Siegel is also offering holdings in other states, including Nevada, Missouri and Tennessee, where he has time-share resorts.

The assets listed by Carlton's online-auction service include two private aircraft, a 500-room Ramada hotel in Kissimmee and the rights to develop lodging on land near the entrance to Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif.

The entire portfoliois available for viewing by registered computer users at CarltonExchange.com.

Siegel bought Grenelefe Resort for $12.8 million at a bankruptcy auction in 2002. Residents there have complained for years that Siegel has neglected the golf-and-tennis resort, which once drew celebrities but has now fallen into disrepair.

Also on the listing: River Ranch, a dude ranch on 1,700 acres along the Kissimmee River. Siegel purchased that bankrupt property at auction in 2002, too, for $5.1 million.

Previous list prices for the properties range from $2,000 for some vacant land in Polk County to $50.3 million for the Grenelefe Resort.

I have been in this for awhile and went to FL with the intention of getting out of this once and for all.I have made my maint fees and haven’t used it for awhile.When I went there they stated I had to pay a $50 deposit and agree to a meeting that would take an hour while on my vacation.Well 2 1/2 hours later nothing was resolved by Hideko the sales rep.I told her I just want out of this timeshare she stated there is no way to do that.I told her I just want to sell the week and/or get out of it BY GIVING BACK TO THEM.I had a fixed week.She stated to me well there are 2 ways to get out update to a flex week so it will be easier to sell it and or rent it out or just don’t make the maint fee and it will go into foreclosure and be sent to a collection agency with unbelievable interest and go on my credit record and I would be unable to purchase a home for 2 yrs.Hideko told me if I upgrade to a flex week I would have a better chance of selling it.Hideko also stated to me that there was a man that rented his out for 5 years straight to a family from England for $600 a night.So I went ahead and did it so I had a better chance of getting rid of it.I called her the next day and stated how can someone get $600 each night when your site advertises $125 each night.Then I got another song and dance to the point I was set up with what they stated was a corporate person that would take care of me when I spoke to the closing person.Then I was baited and switched for a location other than what I had originally signed papers for.Also when I went back the first time after signing the next day I stated I wanted back my original week that was fixed and the closing person stated that was not possible that that was already gone which I replied to her it is Sunday and know banks or offices were open.The list of things goes on and on.Like I had my reservations 3 months prior and after making them they called me the next day and stated they would need to charge me another $500 and I stated I will not pay that so the girl on the phone stated I would have to cancel and rebook 45 days prior to my check in and I stated that was fine.She then stated she spoke to her supervisor the next day and we could leave things the way they were.I got to Orlando and they didn’t even have me listed for arriving on that date.The room we got was below par.The decorations were trashed and they obviously didn’t care about the decor.So when I told Hideko about the room she moved us by the end of the day.The accommodations were better but the tile floor was filthy(were is that maint fee going).A night or 2 before we left I found a dead cockroach by the dryer.That same night I went in the spare bedroom and turned on the light to see a live cockroach crawl out of my suitcase.We tried to go to the owner breakfast the second day we were there and went upstairs were everyone was and they had someone at the front of the line ask us were is your rep?I stated we are owners the person said the owners breakfast is downstairs out the back door.So we went outside and they had coffee, fake orange juice, milk 2 kinds of dry cereal croissants and mini muffins.That was the worst breakfast I have encountered. Especially for a so called 5 star resort.I had a better breakfast at Harrisburg PA at a Quality Inn were we stayed before heading to Orlando.I AM SO INTERESTED IN A CLASS ACTION FOR THESE PEOPLE.PLEASE REPLY AND LET ME KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO GET THIS STARTED.THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND HELP ON THIS MATTER.

July 1, 2011 at 9:29 am
We made the mistake of purchasing a timeshare with Westgate and have been forever sorry. It is possibly the worst mistake I have ever made. Our dealings with them after purchase convinced us almost everything the salesman told us was either a lie or a half truth. Two years ago Welk Resorts offered to take our Westgate timeshares as partial payment for points with Welk. Our check to Timeshare Closings, Int. was cashed in November of 2010. What Welk Resorts ended up doing was signing our timeshares back over to Westgate. Now Westgate says they don’t have to accept them back and are demanding we continue to pay maintenance fees. After months of dealing with a collection agency my physical and emotional health is suffering. First of all, AVOID WESTGATE TIMESHARES in every way you can. I am now researching the best agencies with which to file complaints against Westgate. I’m sure it’s a long shot but I’m also searching for a class action lawsuit to join.

June 30, 2011 at 1:12 am
We own in Orlando also. We purchased our timeshare through Ramada back in 2000, which was in turn sold to Leisure and finally Westgate. We lived in Texas at the time but knew we would be transfering to Florida within 5 years. Well, all was well with Ramada and Leisure until we reached Florida and was ready to use. Westgate has never provided an update contract with their name or any documents other than a bill, not even reservation pamphlet. We have gotten to use our week during our open season April to August but only twice. We can’t use another facility in Orlando or any other city in Florida from which we are told. And we can’t switch to another areas peak season. Our last payment is in August but I would still like to be rid of this beast of the ever growing MAINTENANCE FEE and also included in the lawsuit. Please do not hesitate to contact me.

June 27, 2011 at 11:55 am
we attended a time share presentation and were told that even though we did not want to purchase a time share we could get a week at a discounted price. Our lives are too hectic to be gone for a week so we wouldn’t buy it. The sales rep assured us we could split the week in half and loose one day of the vacation. we called today to book a half vacation willing to loose one day and were told what we signed did not fit that option because we are not time share owners. Well we own our own business and work full time jobs, we knew the combination of the two would not allow us to be gone for 8 days at one time no matter how we planned and now we are told we can go for three days and just loose the other days and money we have already paid. Its frustrating!!!!

June 6, 2011 at 6:40 am
I was unemployed for a long time but never missed a payment except the maintenance fee on our Westgate resort in Orlando Florida. April 08, 2011 I told the Westgate rep that I would start paying on it at the end of the month. I called at the end of the month and completed the partial payment via their automated system. May I tried to logging on to my account to make another partial payment and pay the monthly installment, it appeared that I had been logged out and needed to call so I did, after I made the regular installment I told the rep that I wish to make another partial payment towards the maintenance fees however I was told that I could not pay anything towards the maintenance since it had been sent to an outside collection agency. The rep even refuse to verify the prior partial payment, so now they refuse to verify if the payment was made, have increase the total amount due on the maintenance dues and have some agency hounding me for something that was completely unnecessary,
I would like to join in and sue them.

April 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I have stopped the monthly payments on our westgate resort in Orlando Fl. I bought this in June of 2008 and have never used it.Each time i try and use it to exchange they have told me that it would cost $500 plus the exchange fees. When I bought this there was nothing said about the $500. I went to Las Vegas and looked at the planet hollywood towers and while there i had the manager to pull our account up and look. He said that with what i have in Orlando that i will never be abled to exchange for there or nowhere else. But for $7000 he can fix it for us. then dropped the price to $5000. i told him no that we had already been screwed enough. Since I have stopped paying westgate will this end up on my credit report? If there is a class action lawsuit I want to be contacted. I have more info that may be helpful. Thank youWe went to vegas for a friend’s wedding and decided to tour the PH property while there….they gave us he same story. WE weren’t gonna buy at a place we weren’t sure we could get ot easily. Also stayed at the Myrtle Beach peoperty (we oqwn in Orland) and they gave us the same kinda story. And their’s is a refurbished HOTEL! Their property at Colonial Williamsburg sucks too. I want out. Class actions sounds good to me!

March 21, 2011 at 8:36 am
Hi – I am now being hounded by Westgate for ever increasing dues. They are threatening legal action.
What can I do?I would ignore them Robert. It’s pointless to pay a company that lies.

tagged: scams, timeshare

Westgate Resorts Admits Timeshare Advertising Dishonest
Posted by Utah Stories in Media & Culture
A ‘five star luxury resort’ Westgate Resorts executive admits untrue. Our experience in Westgate South Beach and how Westgate’s deceptive practices should refund buyers their money.

Westgate Resorts Miami, Florida
Last week the time finally came to depart on our Westgate vacation in Miami. As I stated in our previous story, the fine-print in our contract showed that our one-week vacation was actually a three-night vacation for $495. Westgate said in their defense that a “one-week vacation” didn’t necissarily mean that we would spend the entire week at their hotel but they would be providing three nights and four days of a “one-week vacation”. Like many I’ve heard from since writing this story, countless times we have smacked our palms against our heads and said,” What were we thinking!” I don’t remember any hypnosis involved but somehow we were duped in such discpicable fashion. Almost immediatly afterwards I had some bad feelings about what we had just bought. What I remember is we were sold because of my inherent cheapness. I figured we might be able to save some money visiting my brother in Miami, all while having a relaxing stay at a five-star resort on Miami’s South beach. I imagined my family in their cheap little hotel room while we would be living large in our “five star resort.”
Eventually we came to the conclusion that what we believed were errors in our contact, or over-sight on our part,continued until it was obvious that we had been duped by modern-day corporate con-art— selling properties under false facades, using the credibility of business moguls to sell rip-off timeshares to people who don’t automatically consider all salespeople to be lyers. Now I know that if you are outside of Utah– don’t believe a word they say.

Hundreds Ripped of by Westgate

Westgate Resorts "Five Star" Room
As misery likes company I felt some relief in the fact that we weren’t the only dopes who had been roped— we have a lot company in our outrage. Westgate Resorts has ripped off hundreds if not thousands of people, who have complained on forums and blogs about their dishonest sales tactics. Luckily, we never agreed to purchase the complete timeshare agreement when were given the tag-team extreme pressure pitch in Las Vegas. However, we did end up purchasing what they sold us as a one-week stay with the option for three other small vacations at a highly discounted rate; with the additional incentive of discounted airfare (likely half-off, they said). They also assured us that we would be able to book the week we were wanting for my brother’s wedding. However, due to a processing lag of 20 days– there assurances were inaccurate and nearly every part of the pitch was deceptive. Seven nights was actually three nights (which I fought against and received an additional night). Airfare was more expensive through their Vacation Passport service not less. And the following is a report on how accurate we found their claim as a “five star luxury resort” to be.

From Four Star Hotel Heaven to “Five Star” Timeshare Stink
After arriving in Fort Lauderdale, we spent the first night in a four star hotel. We had booked a true “one-week vacation” by paying extra for the added days. Our first room was incredible. It was in a four-star hotel in the Boca Raton Resort Bungalows. With contemporary furnishings, bed with a down comforter and silky sheets; balcony overlooking palm trees we were quite pleased. Keep in mind, this place was only four stars.

Westgate Resorts Miami, Florida dirty showers, is this worth their bargain price of $165 per night?
The next morning we headed South on I-90 to Westgate’s South Beach and checked into room. Our first thought: “on what planet or time era could this room be considered five stars.” The furnishings were completely outdated. The various smells in the hallways were noxious. The couches and chairs would be lucky to fetch $50 at a garage sale. Brand new twenty-years-ago, this room might have been four stars merely for its location, however in 2008, the Westgate could never be ranked higher than two stars. What sort of luxury resort are guests required to plug their noses as they enter the hallway?
Perhaps David Siegel—Westgate CEO, believes by putting enough celebrity photos on the walls makes a vacationer feel special enough to make up for the gross smells, awful free continental breakfast. Mr. Siegel has photographs of himself with the likes of Paris Hilton, Dolly Parton and even Bill Gates on every floor throughout every hallway of the hotel. This was an obvious attempt to try to build credibility for the constant barage of tours going through the first floor. Funny they never offered the tours on the second floor where we were staying among the smells of antisepctic cleaner and food rot.

Westgate Resorts five star room service only makes your bed every-other-day
By our third morning I found Martha Cruz, Wesgate South Florida Manager, who was willing to answer my questions about how Westgate printed on their building several times “A five star luxury resort”. Mrs. Cruz’ response was that they were a “five star location”. However, once their improvements were completed, their resort’s ranking would match their five-star location ranking. I then asked here how it was that they clearly printed “resort” not “location” in terms of the five stars. Mrs. Cruz told me this was a referral to the future not the present. I then confirmed, “so your signage is inaccurate?” Her response was that currently its is inaccurate but in the future, when the add their Tiki Bar lounge and million dollar improvements it will be accurate.
When its it ever okay to produce signage and advertising that is not directed at the present state of affairs and sell and advertise as if it is? It would be fine if they wrote, “someday to be a five star luxury resort, but for now bring some nose plugs.” Westgate Resorts uses this tactic for both their Las Vegas non-existent Planet Hollywood tower, as well as their “five star luxury resort” in sunny South Beach. Certainly, no Best Western motel could get away with hyping their rooms as having balconies, marble and 15 foot ceilings then get away with it by writing on the wall of their tiny 8 x 10 room “in the future”. Customers would complain to the front desk and be refunded their money or face legal action. Yet Westgate, has seemingly found a way to get away with blatant deception. Not being an attorney I’m not aware of the letter of the law, but I think Westgate Resort’s lies are fertile ground for a class action lawsuit that should return millions of dollars back to the buyers they’ve deceived.
Editor’s Note: Our previous Westgate stories to date have been read by thousands of readers. These stories offer advice for selling timeshares and tell the entire story of our timeshare experience begining with the sales pitch in Las Vegas. Begin with the first installment: Hollywood Dreams and Timeshare Nightmares

Tell Us Your Westgate Rip-off Story
If you have been ripped-off by Westgate Resorts, tell us your story (using the form below). We will work on your behalf to organize a petition to begin the necessary legal action to return you your money.

Timeshare Rip-off Stories
Rafael Oliver-Vidaud
West Gate Miami Beach:
They lied to us when they said we would lock in the price of vacationing. They have turned the Miami Beach resort back into a cheap hotel that now costs less than our maintenance fees and they increase them every year; they are unable to deliver the flexibility that was promised.
Viviana R
honey moon nightmare
My husband and I had gone to Vegas around the same time last year (june), we were tolled of a 30 min talk about how we could be owners of a time share that would save us a lot of money on vacations, at first we thought why not listen we would at least get the free romantic package since it was our honey moon. The first few times I recall telling the lady that we could not offered it, and she continued to lower the price, until she tolled use that 174 dollars a month was the lowest price they would go only for us.. we felt pressured, but also excited about owning something. It’s been a year and I am now pregnant and about to lose my job from calling out to much due to morning sickness, i have contacted them hoping i can cancel since i will no longer be able to offered it, and what i got as a response was that I am not able to cancel~! and should fax a request to some account service department. I’m going to try and do that but I would like to get some help with anyone who has managed to cancel after a year.. pleas.. any money i can make now will go to medical bills and the baby.. but i would need to solve this problem first
David Smith
West Gate ownerships is a joke….. My room that I was shown to be purchasing was nothing like the out dated ran down room actually sold. During our stay our room was ram sacked by house keeping and items were missing. Managment never returned my calls and I wish I never bought the BS package. David Segiel is a comin con.
michelle jones
me and my sister was scam to by westgate resort they told us that we could sale own timeshare back to them at a profit that’s not ture,a five star hotel not,we pay 152.00 a month that 1,831 a year.the whole thing was a scam i told they i couldn’t afford it they said that they would buy it back if we couldn’t pay for it 4 years later im still stunk with this junk! THEY ALL LIE TO YOU AT WESTGATE RESORT.please can any one help me .
Minerva
Hello, My husband and I just bought astudio time share yesterday for 22,000 they told me I was getting a good deal becuase they were giving me prices from 2006. They did tell us we can carry over the week and that we would not ne liable for any damages if we rent it out…when I returned today my co-work told me they got a timeshare there for half the price and a bigger room. After that I decided to contact Westigate and complain about my purchase price…the rep ended up convincing me again that I still got a great deal…once a got home i decided to google up westgates pros and cons and found this website…thank you. I will get started today and send my certified letter tommorrow. Do I just fill in the blanks in the revocation form and sign and date or do I have to sent a explaination letter along as well?
re: Minerva
I don’t know the exact details, but they are required by law to allow you to revoke in a simple easy manner. Please let me know what the exact process is so that I can fill readers in. I’m So glad you found our sight and are preventing yourself from years of painful payments on a piece of sh** deal.
Kenyetta Kelly
I brought a 2 bedroom at Westgate Palace in Orlando Florida and they told me a lie too. They told me that I could not cancel my timeshare. I brought it on a Saturday in 2008 and when I got home that Monday I tried to call and cancel to see what steps I need to take to cancel it. I was told I coild not cancel it. But reading the article about the public offering statement it does say you have five days to cancel and they told me when I brought it that I could not cancel it because I asked the question what if I get home and want to cancel. They lie dto me and I have been stucked in this timeshare. And they lied to me about a whole list of other things in my contract. The same things they lied to Mondy Nelson about they told me which was not true. Page 17: Statute 119A: that Nevada law allows us to cancel (they didn’t want us to know about 5 days and tried to confuse us and spin around the facts until after 5th day)
Page 9.3d (after table of contents): Accural and carryover of timeshare weeks. You CANNOT carryover your timeshare weeks. We were told that if we didn’t use one week, we could move it over to the next year up to three years. THIS WAS A LIE
Page 10.8. It again states there is no carryover from one year to another. Like many timeshare victims, buyers often don’t use their week or days year-after-year, resulting in paying maintenance fees even without any usage.
Page 11 10.f: We bought a 2 bedroom suite every other year, which could be broken up into two separate weeks. One week in the one bedroom suite and one in the studio. We ONLY bought this because they said we could break it up and use the studio in one year and the one bedroom in the other year. This states that you MUST use both studio and one bedroom in that year. You can’t split in your off year.
Page 11 10i: We were told we could book up to a year in advance for our every other year timeshare. This says only book up to 120 days in advance.
Page 16 6: We were told that if the place was rented out and it became damaged by the renters we would not be responsible. That there would be HOAs (Home Ownership Association fees) to cover. This states that we would be solely liable for any damage incurred. Therefore their promise of the ease of switching weeks with someone in Miami for ours in Las Vegas was also a lie)
Page 2 of Exhibit 8: We were not told that the I.I program (the travel exchange) was voluntary. They told us it was part of the westgate program and that all dues were required each year.
Karen Cavalier
We bought into Westgate in Gatlinburg about 5 years ago through high pressure sales. We told them with my husbans’s job that we could not book vacations ahead of time. Oh-you own-not a problem. They showed us a beautiful deluxe room and we signed just that everyone else. Well, 2 months later, we tried to book and said there was no way we were going to get in that year. They sold it to us in August and had the nerve to tell us we couldn’t go. Through many phone calls, my husband got them to give us a reservation. When we got there, the room was horrible. It was not what was shown to us. We found out that they did a bait and switch. We went back to the sales management and threatened to see an attorney because my husband heard one of the salesman say they do bait and switch all the time. Well, they ended up giving us a fixed week with the ability to float, but that was a joke. Like many of you, we have also been scammed from agencies to try to sell them. Maintenance fees have gone up horrible. I think consumers should be protected from crooks like this. If they were made to give us our money back, they wouldn’t be filthy rich and continue to scam people. I wish you could get some help out there.
Brad Nelson
We bought a studio timeshare from Westgate Park City in 2006. They had renderings and info about the golf course all over the place. We were told that if we bought that we would get discounted golf and basically be treated like a country club member because we were owners. This was why we bought. The golf course has never been built, never even had an approval to be built, and today they don’t even bring it up. Of course the contract states that only the amenities listed are applicable. But come on! If any real estate agent in the country misrepresented facts like that on any transaction, then said “read your contract, tough luck, they would be sued, license revoked, and possibly thrown in jail. I would love to start a class action law suit here in Utah for the time period they represented the golf course. Anyone else get this pitch and would like to join in?
Help us gather 100 timeshare rip-off stories against Westgate so we may proceed with a class-action lawsuite against their dishonest business.
from John Smith
I am a timeshare sales agent, for the most part you are all right, but be very selective about thie timeshare you buy talk to other people and see if there happy with it timeshare is a good thing if you buy the right one. but under no sercumstances trust no one in the business they are all pathalogical liars
Follow-up from Michael
Richard:
We are currently pursuing a personal lawsuit, however the more information that I gather, it appears that a class action case could go forward, especially if there are more people who can come forward such as you with claims that what was in the contract was not what they delivered. For example your situation where in the written contract the difference between how a week is defined, providing 3 nights versus 4; although 4 was specificed and etc. Our dispute revolves aournd what was written in the contract versus what they are delivering regarding the timeshare purchase (deed issues).
According to my attorney this is classic “Bait and Switch” tactics that are employed and what they are doing is fraud.
If you have any other contacts who have experienced simlar experiences it would be great if you could provide me their details.
from Michael Bogenreif
I find your article interesting. We are in the process of litigating our issues with Westgate and would appreciate any other people who have experienced deceptive and fraudulant practices with Westgate – Planet Hollywood.
from D Baker
The 2008 Florida State Statutes are located at this link
You may find this to be very useful. We did… We beleive that we will receive our down-payment refund in full and according to information in the stautes, they must provide the refund within 20 days.
from Ginger D
I want to file a class action lawsuit against westgate resorts in Orlando Florida for misleading practices. It is a typical timeshare nightmare story. Basically, I have a timeshare that is paid off and I have outrageous maintenance and tax fees. I can’t even give this timeshare away. It costed us about 16 grand. They gave the impression that we could resell through them and that our maintenance fees would be around $400 dollars per year. The maintenance fee has gone up to about 800 dollars a year or so. I am worried it is going to keep going up. They won’t buy it back, resell it for us or even take it back for free. It is a monkey on my back. I have read story after story about these timeshare industry scams. I have tried to list it through a timeshare listing company only to find out it is a scam too. Those companies who listed them have already had a class action lawsuit against them or have closed shop and left town. I would venture to say I have blown at least a thousand dollars on listing. I am learning how not to get scammed the hard way. I want to sue westgate resorts for misleading practices. If not for that, then for whatever I can do to them to shed a spot light on them. If not a class action lawsuit then perhaps passing of a bill to protect consumers from these misleading practices of the timeshare industry. It isn’t so much money I am after but setting a presendence. I would like to get back my 16 grand at best though.
from D Baker
It happened yesterday, being sucked into the absolute worst decision I have ever made financially… We accepted the tour for discount, initially declined, later accepted (bought/agreed) and today on the way home, realized what an idiotic stupid move it was… We’re in the process of cancellation tonight. It “IS POSSIBLE” as long as it’s accomplished within ten (10) days of signature “OR” delivery by the developer to provide all required documents (which may include the actual deed for property depending on the state). The FL state statues explain 10 days as the day you send notice, so get confirmation of delivery (apparently that’s all that’s required legally)…. Also stated; you may “CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITHOUT ANY PENALTY OR OBLIGATION” which we have requested and expect a full and immediate refund of the down-payment. We noted this information in our request.
Not certain this will help anyone, but we’re trying and the information was there in paperwork provided.
I assure you that it’s most likely in the document with font so small you can’t see/read it. That’s where we fond it.
Last week if anyone asked what the stupidest thing was I had ever done, I wouldn’t know what to say. At least now, I have the answer…. At least I may be able to recover…
Best of luck to all!…
-From Ken H
We took a trip to Las Vegas and was booked at the hotel now called Planet Hollywood. After checking an on our way our room. We were approached by a couple of guys asking us if we would like a free meal and a couple of show tickets, they stated all we had to do was listen to a 30 minute talk. So we agreed and went the next day. No where in this conversation did they mention timeshare if they had I would of said no thank you. The next day we went it was more like a 3 hour and when we told them we could not afford it they magically came up with another one. We still said no and they said we will let you talk it over this went on for 4 conversations and finally just to get out we signed on. When they finally took us back to the hotel we went through the papers but found nothing in there to cancel. So after a year of arguing with them they sent me a paper I had signed showing we were suppose to cancel within 5 days. No where in my packet was that paper. Had it been I would of went the next day to cancel by way of the Post Office sending it Express to the address listed with a return receipt for proof. Then I get a phone call from them tell me my tax are late. I tell them I don’t nothing about taxes they said it was in my contract I told her that contract is useless as your company gives selective parts to people. A couple months ago they started bugging me to give them names of friends or workers so they could try and sell them a timeshare. I went off on them saying I would not even do that to people I dislike. I told the girl that her company screwed us, her reply was I am sorry you feel that way. Yeah right. I have yet to use the timeshare and don’t plan to. I do plan to go back to Las Vegas though and wear a T-shirt with something to the effect if you buy a Timeshare remember you have only 5 days or you are screwed for life.
Response
Thanks for the story Ken. It sounds like your experience very similar to ours. What amazes me is that Westgate Resorts employees seem so naive in the deception they are engaging in. We bought our week in the end, because the final woman we spoke to seemed so nice and down to earth. She was foreign, telling us about her new baby. In the end, we came to find out nearly everything- not just a few things-but everything that came out of her mouth was a lie. I’ve come to think I can trust certain types of people. Don’t trust anyone in a timeshare sales office.
From Tammy Sullivan
Tammy writes that now in addition to selling timeshare rip-offs, Westgate is also overbooking or double booking their incentive package
Its this incentive package they use to lure people into their sales area at Westgate Hollywood Planet Resort. Tammy says that she and her husband booked 3 days and 2 nights for $199.00 and have already made plans to travel to Las Vegas. Now Westgate can’t confirm they will have a place to stay.
Tammy writes -
NO where on the papers does it have a room confirmation for the date we requested. Just a confirmation for a Westgate Vacation package for 3 days 2 nights. Typed on it it says to call for vacation. Well tonight he has spent two hours and spoke with over eight different people and have gotten no where. Never, ever gained access to speak with a supervisor. Last person he spoke with said he would look into it and call within one hour. Well after 90 minutes my husband called him back and he sent my husband to an other guy who said we are on standby in case anyone cancelled. NOT ACCEPTABLE. Not what we have set out to do nor travel over 2000 miles to MAYBE have a room or not. As it stands right at this moment the last guys we spoke with will get back with us tomorrow. Will keep you posted…
PS By the way we are timeshare holders in Orlando but have yet to use our timeshare. We have bought into it 1 year ago and have purchased it for every other year.
Response
I’m sorry to hear about your problems with Westgate. If you do end up going and finding a room I think you will find, as we did, that what they promise as a delux room will be quite a disappointment. There are now some very good specials going on at Luxor and other very nice casinos for close to what you will be paying for your Westgate room, I would try to get your money back and book at another casino. If you would like to read about what our room was like in the “new” Planet Hollywood Resort you can read about it in my first story here:
Hollywood Dreams and Timeshare Nightmares
Good luck, and keep us posted on what happens.
Update From Tammy Sullivan
My husband has now requested they just refund us our money back ($199.00) and forget it. She put him back on hold …she came back she said the refund will take about three to five days to go through. Cannot send us a confirmation to verify they will refund our money. I am TRUELY ashamed to say we have the timeshare with them. (Have yet to use it) In the meantime I am about to call American Express (how we paid for this) and see if they may be of assistance.
Related Posts
- Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts
- Vegas Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts
Share This Post
18 Comments so far:
1. Carmela Ho says:
  July 11, 2011 at 11:14 am
  Hi, I couldn’t find a contact form and it’s really important that I reach you so I hope you don’t mind me posting here. WOW, what an interesting little blog you have here :)! I also run one similar to Utah Stories » Blog Archive » Westgate Resorts Admits Timeshare Advertising Dishonest, I guess great haha. I’ve been following your site for a while now and I’ve got some bad news – you’re wasting your time if you’re only making a couple hundred bucks or even a few thousand a month. You can be doing SO much more. There are a lot of tips and tricks that will help you improve your google and yahoo ranking, just some stuff I’ve learned over the ages. It’s easy! It shouldn’t take you more than 5-10 minutes. Please reach me today at BigBloggerJake [at] gmail.com. I’ll check my spam folder and you should too, I know email filters are crazy these days. Looking forward to boucing ideas with you!
  
  Reply
2. Marie says:
  June 15, 2011 at 9:15 pm
  It’s a long story and too many to write. To make it short, we upgraded our westgate flamingo vegas timeshare to Planet hollywood but learned it was a down grade but was ripped off $10k out the door.I am interested in class action.
  
  Reply
3. Cassandra E says:
  June 14, 2011 at 8:30 pm
  I purchased Planet Hollywood Westgate with an every other year option, being told I could trade it in for any other property in the world with a phone call because Vegas was the most popular timeshare and with Interval International, all I had to do was call and reserve from any of their properties. It is so much more difficult than that.
  But the big things was maintenance fees every other year starting in 2009 then continuing in 2011, 2013, etc. The property was not ready for occupancy until 2010 and I was still charged 2009 maintenance fees and told I could use the property in 2010. I asked how they could charge maintenance on a building that was not opened and required no maintenance, telling them to waive the maintenance fee and I would resume in 2011. They would not allow this quoting the legal problems I would get into by not paying and making the timeshare impossible to sell. I paid the $750 to “maintain a property that was still under construction.
  Now, Jan.2, they are billing me again for 2011 maintenance fees, $850 this time. I could get a week at the Bellagio for that. And I already paid over $20,000 for a every other year timeshare. If I am only suppose to pay every other year, and they have only been open a year and a half, how can I be billed twice.
  Any help would be greatly appreciated.
  
  Reply
4. David CHERNESKI says:
  May 3, 2011 at 6:53 am
  We just want out of our westgate timeshare,We tried to get them to buy it back but they wouldn’t even listen. The maintenance and taxes are out of control.PLEASE HELP!
  
  Reply
5. Wesley says:
  April 15, 2011 at 3:26 am
  My family and I went to Westgate Park City in February, 2011. When we arrived we noticed we were given the wrong room and asked to be moved. It took mgmt 30 hours to move us to the correct room! We have been owners at Westgate since 2008, and had two great years in the correct room. Mgmt is now telling us that it was a fluke that we were in those rooms! I have documentation that shows exactly what we bought! Simply put, they are trying to do a bait and switch on me!
  The treatment my family and I received at Westgate Park City, was disgusting! I am currently working with David Siegals office to try and correct this issue.
  There is more to this issue then I can write and it is very disturbing. I feel I have been deceived.
  
  Reply
6. Stan d man says:
  March 9, 2011 at 6:06 am
  people i just found another website, actually a blogsite that may lead us to our answers regarding westgate and d seigel. and here it is. http://timesharescamsupdate.blogspot.com/2009/02/westgate-resorts-david-siegel-class.html. just highlight copy and paste on to your browsers address field this should load the page and there you can add your blog or plea. good luck, i have done the same on their end to come here and post any info we could all use.
  i think there are more sites out there that we can all go and state our frustrations about westgate hope we can all help each other
  
  Reply
7. Mike M says:
  February 25, 2011 at 2:33 pm
  reply to dane white
  Why can’t you get a week? If you try and book a week within like 1-2 weeks before you want to stay, then you probably won’t get that week. I book mine 10 months in advance..don’t have any issues. I have no problem with my timeshare…except the HOA fees…somewhere during the sale that went over my head. The HOA fees are a big rip-off. 700-1000 a year depending on what you own is outrages for only being there 1 week out the year.
  
  Reply
8. Mike M says:
  February 25, 2011 at 2:24 pm
  Easiest way to get out, stop paying on it. be just like not making a car payment, it gets repoe’d. You credit will get affected, but bad credit is not like it used to be. Now you can file bankrupsty today, but a new car tomarrow.
  
  Reply
9. Patricia Jones says:
  February 22, 2011 at 1:53 pm
  Like so many of you on this blog, we have been ripped off by Westgate. We bought Westgate Planet Hollywood and now I just discovered that they don’t own it anymore. Actually Worldmark by Wyndham bought it a few months ago.
  If there’s a class action in the works, please let me know.
  
  Reply
  - Cassandra E says:
    June 14, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    If you hear of anything, please let me know. I will do the same.
    Thank you
    
    Reply
10. Dana White says:
  February 14, 2011 at 9:51 am
  Multiple lies and pressure convienced me and my husband to purchase timeshare in gatlinburg around 2 years ago. Today is 2-14-11, we still have not been allowed to stay our 1 week in the cabin they deeded me. Please is there anything we can do to get out of this nightmare? Please include my name if a law suit is filed…
  
  Reply
11. EVE M says:
  February 13, 2011 at 11:58 am
  i purchased in 2007, and was told that i would get a week every other year. However, most weeks are normally booked months in advance and i ended up having to deposit my weeks so i would use them. Then i was told that their may be a fee for using the weeks. This is a rip off and it seems i will never pay it off. Also i used i think it was time share by owners to try and sell i paid and then they kept asking for 1000′s more dollars to list the property and sell it. I would not advise any one to purchase from Westgate.
  If a class action suit is going to be filled i would like to be involved.
  
  Reply
12. brenda says:
  January 25, 2011 at 3:41 pm
  I am a very mad owner we purchased a timeshare with westgate resorts in 2008. We asked the sales guy if we split our time and dont use it all at once is there any other fees to pay to do that and he said no. We asked the sales manager the same question and he said no so we agreed that helped us make our choice we wouldnt have bought if there was we then asked the closing officer the same question she also said no fees. Well later on we found out that there is some stupid fee for us to split our time and no use the whole weeks or rooms at one time that was not what we were told. That is lies and fraud to get people to buy that is deceptive and isnt it illegal. Please can anyone give me any ideas on what to do. Noone at westgate wants to honor what we were told they have no customer service skills and dont care about owners as long as they are getting money. I filed with the BBB what a waste that is they dont do anything.
  
  Reply
13. Sue Stone says:
  January 15, 2011 at 6:28 pm
  I too have a Westgate Timeshare, my was purchased in Gatlinburg. I was mislead in every direction during a sales presentation that went on and on for hours. Sales personal were all over you during the presentation switching off during the conversation if it looked like they were losing you. I tried so many time telling the lady I cannot afford this. They continued to change the deal around until finally coming up with something I thought maybe I could afford. They did not even check my credit before approving the deal. I couldn’t afford it then and I am struggling to keep it current now. I fell behind in the maintenance fees and they turned it to a collection agency and the man talked to me horribly I ended up charging the fees to a credit card to get him from calling me again. I will not do that again. The mortgage is current by the maintenance fees are now over 1200.00 and I make 25.00 payment monthly. I wish I had had the courage to get up and walk out on that sales woman and not looked back. I hate the timeshare and wish it was illegal for companies to prey on people in such manner.
  
  Reply
14. Zackery says:
  January 14, 2011 at 11:53 am
  PURCHASE DATE WAS 7/28/07. PROBLEM WITH FINANCE AGREEMENT. WAS LEAD TO BELIEVE ONE CHARGE AND HAVE RECENTLY DISCOVERED A DIFFERENT AMOUNT. OWNER RELATIONS VERY UNCOOPERATIVE. MAKES EXCESSIVE CALLS EVEN AFTER PAYMENTS WERE MADE DEMANDING PAYMENT. NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY CAN WE COULD NOT STAY IN UNIT THAT WAS RESERVED ONCE ARRIVED ON PROPERTY. CONTINUE TO PRACTICE HIGH PRESSURE SALES EVEN THOUGH ON VACATION ALTHOUGH INDICATING NOT INTEREST AND DISSATISFACTION WITH COMPANY. HOUSEKEEPING JUST HANDED US A BAG OF TOWELS,SOAP,AND TOILET PAPER, THEN ASKED US TO SIGN THAT THE WORK WAS DONE. AGREED TO REFINANCE AT ZERO PERCENT IF ANOTHER DOWN PAYMENT WAS MADE AND NOT CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN FOR THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID. ONLY ABOUT $30 OF THE $140 PAYMENT EACH MONTH WAS ACTUALLY GOING TOWARDS THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PROPERTY. CAN NEVER GIVE AN ANSWER WHEN ASKED HOW CAN THEIR PRACTICES BE LAWFUL. RESPONSE IS ALWAYS RUDE AND DEFENSIVE. WANT OUT OF THIS CONTRACT. WOULD LIKE ANY INFORMATION ON JOINING CLASS ACTION SUIT.
  
  Reply
15. Mary L says:
  January 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm
  My husband and I have been married for 8yrs. He bought a Westgate time share from a friends sister and her husband before we were married. It’s For every other year and it has gone from $600 to $800 (every other year) maintanance fee. It’s paid for but I want out. I do not want to go to Disney every other year and it’s $140.00 to exchange for another resort w/i westgate and $200 to join interval international for exchanges elsewhere. We have done the latter twice (once for the Dominican Republic and once for Miami) they were both DUMPS. We attempted to add my name to the deed. We were told to send a copy of our marriage certificate and a notarized letter and it would be taken care of. Once we did this we were told that we needed to pay a fee and go to the courthouse in Florida. I am so SICK of Westgate. We just want OUT!! PLEASE HELP!!!
  
  tagged: scams, timeshare, vegas
  
  Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts
  Posted by Utah Stories in Media & Culture
  Part III in the ongoing story of attempting to fight back against Westgate Resorts rip-off time share scam. See our previous story on Vegas time share scams.
  In the previous installment I described how Westgate Resorts in Las Vegas used dishonest practices to sell us a time share single-week package for Miami Beach, Florida. We bought the package with the assurance that we could easily book the week we wanted (for my brother’s wedding in March). Previously, I described how things went wrong. For the past two weeks I’ve made an attempt to fight back against Westgate, and do all in my power to get them to own up to their lies and blatant deceit and give us the vacation we purchased.
  Fortunately, we never purchased the $30,000 time share in Las Vegas Planet Hollywood Resort (which is now selling for just under $10,000 here). We did however, buy a one week package for $495. We assumed this compromise was indeed a good deal, used to entice customers to upgrade to the full package. We were assured by our sales representative Sonia that this was the case. She was a nice lady and didn’t for a moment appear be a con-artist. In hind-sight she was so effective in her lies because she appeared innocent and kind. Where the previous sales efforts of Hikoo and Melissa failed, Sonia succeeded perhaps because as a unique foreigner from South Africa she in now way appeared deceptive.
  
  Miami Beach, Florida
  We had completely digested the lies Sonia had fed us had, when we finally discovered them (nearly one month after our purchase). Not until after the 30 day processing lag when we first attempted to book our vacation, did we discover innocent sweet dark eyed, dark hair and foreign Sonia, was in fact a bold-face-liar. Sonia had told us we were buying 8 days and 7 nights. The contract, however, sated “4 nights.” I do blame myself besides Sonia for this oversight. Anyone spending any amount of money, based on an agreement, should read a contract in its entirety. If anything is unclear in a contract, don’t ask for an explanation, instead simply don’t buy. Everything in a well written contract should be crystal clear. Contracts for purchasing agreements should never be confusing, (my dad is a realtor and he has told us this). If there is nothing confusing about the agreement (buying a one-week vacation) there should be nothing confusing in the contract. The contract should be brief and easy. Westgate’s contract for purchasing a (supposedly) one-week vacation is four pages. Sonia was talking to us about South Africa as we were signing the agreement. She never bothered to point out what the contract actually stated. This was lesson number two: don’t be friendly while signing a contract.
  With this said, I wasn’t about to complain to Westgate about Sonia’s sales tactics. Yes, I was lied to, but everyone living in the United States (especially me) should well know that what is in black and white is what matters, not what verbally agreed upon. We (believed) we had bought four nights five days for $495, I could still live with this. My relief in not purchasing the entire time share package helped me to forgive Sonia and realize my own ignorance.
  
  So why have I been fighting Westgate for the past month? Because our contract states in two places that the arrangement is for “4 nights”, yet they keep telling us they don’t offer a four night package only a three night and seven night package. So because there is no such thing as a four night package, we need to understand that we only have three nights, despite what the contract states. Unbelievable? Its true, I spoke to three different Westgate representatives, we have booked our vacation for August, yet each representative has told us the carbon-copy ink impression on our contract is inaccurate and we only have 3 nights. I spoke to two Hispanic women when I called the first two times. I didn’t want to raise hell to these women, so I asked to speak to their manager. The second lady told me I should fax them my contract, and if it does say “4″ nights I will get my four nights. I did one better than this and scanned two pages of the contract where the number “4″ is so clearly written.
  Finally, I sent the e-mail along with links to my previous stories. This was still not enough. I then spoke to a gentleman named Louis, who told me, despite the evidence, it didn’t matter. They don’t offer a 4 night package. I was begining to wonder if this was a common routine. I asked to speak to his manager, Louis said he would have his manager Freddy call me. I said to Louis, “They have told me before they will call and they never did. So I don’t believe you.” I was angry, the entire time on the phone with Louis. “Freddy will call you. I’m sure he will when he gets off the phone.”
  Nearly a week went by before I was contacted by Freddie (Manager of the Wesgate Resorts call center). When I finally got a hold of Freddie he again repeated what the others had told me, “I’m sorry sir, but what the contract means is 4 days and 3 nights.”
  “My contract reads ’4 nights’, there is no ’3′ anywhere. The number “4″ and after that it reads “nights”. Pull up my scanned copy of the contract if you don’t believe me.”
  I then spouted off the entire story about how we had been completely lied to, believing we had bought seven nights. Telling me now that my contract is wrong is unacceptable. I’m not going to accept being lied to then blatantly deceived.”
  I was yelling at Freddie. Freddie wanted to calm me down.
  “So what do you want me to do about it sir?”
  “How about I either get what’s in my contract or you give me my money back?”
  Freddie agreed to generously give us the fourth night, as written in the contract. He said we should receive a confirmation letter in the mail soon. One week later we still haven’t seen a letter. Who knows if he really added the night or if he is just betting that I wont call back again and wait on hold for an hour just to fight over getting our fourth night.
  The entire saga has made me consider the nature of big corporate power. I’m not an anti-corporate activist. However, I have come to understand a new fact of life in dealing with dishonest corporations. This lesson has made me understand how and why our courts are so filled with class-action law suites; where greedy lawyers line up for the opportunity to go up at bat against a big corporate powers.
  Westgate Resorts is one of the largest timeshare companies in the world. With every person you deal with, there are 100s of others who could also be speaking to you. I imagine the span of cubicles and offices must be vast. The representative speaking to you might offer their first name, but in dealing with such a giant as Westgate, its clear that employees believe that there is almost no accountability for their actions or words. I don’t believe that all timeshare companies are evil, or that even Westgate has evil intentions as a corporation to rip-off as many people as they possibly can. However, Westgate functions under a giant bureaucracy where every person, office and resort is an additional layer of padding for real accountability. There is always another rung in the ladder. No doubt, Westgate Executives believe that very few will be willing to make the climb to where the buck stops. Few have the money and few want to hire a lawyer to hold their feet to the fire.
  My final words to Freddy were, “You have my contract in hand. Would you please go back to Sonia, or her boss, and ask her why she is lying to her customers to get the sale?”
  “Yes sir, I will, that is not how we want to operate here.” I’m sure Sonia got an earful from Freddy.
  Related Posts
  Westgate Resorts Admits Timeshare Advertising Dishonest
  
  Vegas Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts
  Share This Post
  Share on
  Facebook
  
  Digg
  This
  
  Share on
  Twitter
  4 Comments so far:
  1. ICB Butter says:
    July 3, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    New Plant Hollywood by Westgate Resort. Timeshare are dishonest and they have stole more than $17,775. I had no clue they were scamming me since 2009 Every time I tried to book a week they it were you have to pay for an exchange week are some other fees and I never used it nor seen the resort, I were paying on it since 2008.They were misleading and lying as they go alone. Using high pressure and making us think we were getting a real deal. This is in the center of the Vegas strip and everyone want to buy this Resort and it worth a lot of money. It will pay for it self. and at anytime you do not want it we will buy it back. I have learned if it sounded to good to be true and they still scammed me. Each man came to our table were better then the other one.
    I want every penny they stole plus Tax and the one’s involved in these scammed should be put in jail.
    
    Reply
    
    ICB Butter says:
    July 3, 2011 at 9:24 pm
    Corrections above every time I tried to book a week the would tell me about exchange fee’ and are they had no rooms at that time.
    Westgate tell all kind of lies. I want to put my name on a class action suite. Are there on out their?? I’m so MAD at Plant Hollywood in Las Vega. They stole my money
    
    Reply
  2. Leah says:
    June 6, 2011 at 3:55 pm
    I don’t normally comment on blogs.. But nice post! I just bookmarked your site
    
    Reply
  3. Linda says:
    February 3, 2011 at 10:59 am
    We are really idiots, we have been fighting with Westgate since 2002 and we continue to purchase from them, in hopes that we will get to go somewhere else, instead of only Florida. That is the only place we have goneand every yeare we fight to tears trying to go to other Westgate properties.
  tagged: scams, timeshare, utah, vegas
  
  Vegas Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts
  Posted by Utah Stories in Media & Culture
  How one-week single usage timeshare options are misleading and dishonest. The second of four installments beginning with our previous story on timeshare nightmares.
  It’s very fitting when you consider that Las Vegas is the number one place for timeshare sales in the United States. I now completely understand why timeshare companies are so willing to offer free vacations worth a few hundred dollars, just to get you into their presentation. Just as most gamblers (including myself) don’t consider the long-term statistics or relevant facts of the situation, timeshare buyers share this mentality. The difference is gamblers have close to a 50 percent chance of winning at some games like blackjack. Winning from buying a timeshare in Vegas, however, is impossible.
  In the previous installment I described how Westgate Resorts in Las Vegas used dishonest practices and emotional appeal to attempt to sell my wife and I into, what we later found out, was a big-time ripoff timeshare.
  Westgate and Grandview both tell potential buyers that they need to enjoy life, take a break from hectic American society. They sell the notion that there is no better way to vacation then by owning a timeshare. However, just as our presentation was wrapping up, a timeshare salesperson was being carted off on a stretcher to a waiting ambulance. The $40,000 commitment doesn’t offer relief but stress. The borrower is slave to the lender, and Westgate Resorts is selling rip-off time shares that the open market offers for nearly half of their asking price.
  
  I wrote my last piece in hopes of helping people from making the mistake of burdening their lives with a rip-off. As I noted in the previous piece, we did end up purchasing the $450 dollar option for one week in any Westgate resort, for attending my brother’s wedding in Florida. The salesperson assured me that we would have no problem booking the room we would want in Florida if we acted right away. What we later found was that a 20 day processing lag prevented us from “acting right away”, and by the time we were able to book our week, the rooms were already sold out in Florida.
  I don’t blame the saleslady as I do myself for being duped. Its clear that these salespeople can say nearly anything and get away with it, and they are likely trained to lie. It is only the words in writing or legalese that matter. In the fine-print, we also later learned that Florida (Miami Beach) is also excluded from the one-week purchase agreement. I don’t believe our salesperson intentionally lied to us, I think, more likely the sales agents don’t know any of the fine print and they are free to sale as they wish.
  The second lesson I can share is, before considering buying a timeshare be sure to research the deals available on the open market. Buyers should never trust these sales agents, they try to convince you that you are buying an investment that will go up in value when the truth is after you have signed the paper work and walked out the door, most buyers have immediately been suckered into a huge rip-off that is worth thousands less on the open market. Timeshare sales agents have almost no accountability to be honest with their customers. They aren’t real estate agents, therefore they need not worry about losing any type of license, if they are dishonest. The fine print of the contracts absolves them from any liability. The distance people travel to attend these timeshare presentations is another way they can get away with their lies. Very few people from Salt Lake will return to Vegas to find the lyer and beat down their door. Trust these people even less then you would a used car sales person. Save your self the lies. If you want to purchase a timeshare, buy your timeshare on the open-market, at places like sellmytimeshernow.com. The thousands you save will apply to many more free trips or false incentives then they can ever offer.
  I’m still not a fan of timeshares over traditional real-estate that you own outright, however, there are timeshare bargains to be found, especially in an economic down-turn. If you have already bought your timeshare from Westgate and you want to get out of it, my recommendation is to wait a year (if you can) until the economy picks up again, then list your timeshare on one of the sites listed on the side-panel.
  Story Update: We have now completed our timeshare battle against Westgate in Miami, Florida. In this installment we gain access to one Westgate executive who admits that thier advertising is dishonest. Read the final installment of our popular series released September 10th, 2008 here
  
  Reader Comments
  Doug Klein
  My wife and I purchased a unit at Flamingo Bay in Las Vegas in December 2005. Due to an extended illness, we used the unit for the first time , Feb. 2009.
  When we purchased, we were shown only one unit, a deluxe two-bedroom. There was no mention during the presentation of other unit types, sizes or styles.
  When we arrived for our vacation, we were given a much smaller, and much more poorly appointed unit, a standard two-bedroom. We immediately complained and were told that was what we owned, and there was nothing that would be done for us.
  Our contract apparently was switched to a different unit which we had no idea existed.
  There are two points that are especially interesting: The sales person who told me that I was stuck told me that switching a contract was “standard operating procedure”. When I met with the property’s GM, he told me that he “hadn’t heard of the issue with the two bedrooms, but had with one-bedroom units”. There was a witness to the meeting with the GM.
  At this point, I’d really like to get out of the contract with these people. They are dishonest, know it, and don’t care.
  Related Posts
  Westgate Resorts Admits Timeshare Advertising Dishonest
  
  Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts
  Share This Post
  Share on
  Facebook
  
  Digg
  This
  
  Share on
  Twitter
  2 Comments so far:
  1. ICB Butter says:
    June 13, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    Who handling the class Action suite for Plant Hollywood WestGate.
    Please forward me info so I can fight and get my money back, We have been ripped Off and I’m pissed off.
    
    Reply
  2. ICB Butter says:
    June 13, 2011 at 3:43 pm
    I My husband and I have scam, We bought a timeshare from Plant Hollywood, Westgate Resorts. And we have not used it one day. We have been ripped off and they lied too us
    For the past several months We have tried to get rite afterward we are unable to make money on it as they promise we could. They lied to us and I want my money back, I want to join the Class Action Law suits. Please send me info on how to put my name on the list.
    I want the Lawer the Angry French woman is using?
    
    America.. She is NOT USING A LAWYER! It is Western Capital and its CEO, Robert Paisola... join the fun.. robert@robertpaisola.com

David Siegel , Jacqueline Siegel, .The Robert Paisola Foundation 09-22035-lbr 20/20 20/20 robert paisola 2010 in Reflection a and e television abc abc radio network Adrian McKnight al mustafa Al Mustafa v Crane Albert M. Wilson allexperts.com Angel Nieva ANSY Corporation ARTHUR AND TODD SPECTOR Arthur Spector Artie Spector Artie Spector Fraud ASNY ASNY Companies Sued ASNY Financial Atlantic City timeshare attorney Patrick Reilly attorney randy richards Attorney Randy Richards Tahiti Village Attorney Scott Boyd Bankruptcy 321 Hearing Bankruptcy Fraud Bluegreen Timeshare Brain Desrochers Brett Olsen Bruce Poon Tip cancun hotel cancun hotel rating Carlos Mondavi cay club resorts cbs Charleston SC Chicago Title Company Christine A Gibbs Nevada Clark County District Court Clark County Recorders Office cnn cnn i report reuters associated press cnn ireport coldwell banker Concord Servicing consolidated resorts Consolidated Resorts Arthur Spector Goldman Sachs Whitehall Fund ANSY Documentary Political robert paisola Consolidated Resorts Bankruptcy consolidated resorts class action CONSOLIDATED RESORTS FRAUD Consolidated Resorts Tahiti Village Consumer Protection Group court tv cribankruptcy.com daniel chaffetz moran daniel chavez moran daniel omar chafez dateline david a David S. Taylor and Frank M. Perry david siegel David Siegel FBI Indictment david siegel house David Siegel Scam david siegel westgate Davis Siegal Davis Siegel Desert Club timeshare Dianne Gayle do not pay tahiti village Documentary Political robert paisola don burnham El Grupo Mayan Palace Fabrice Tourre Fairfield fairfield scam Fairfield Winsgate false appraisals fayetteville georgia Federal Class Action Suit federal prison Federal Trade Commission First Title FL Flagship/Fanta Florida Fraud Fourth District Court fox news france fred and connie rose FREDERICK BROWN frederick rose french citizen abuse French Woman Mad get even Glen T Stockton GMAC COMMERCIAL LEASING Goldman Sachs Fraud Goldman Sachs Group Goldman Sachs Indictment grand mayan grupo mayan HSBC BANK IGS Nevada Interval International JAMES MONDOYUDIAS Jamie and Joe Castagna JIM MONOYUDIAS Jr Judge Bruce Guyton ken molinaro Kristen Facer Krystal Cancun Krystal International Vacation Club ktnv lakebutlermansion.com las vegas timeshare LasVegasNights.com Letter to Cancel Timeshare Contract LIBERTY BANK Lorraine Barrett M. Aaron Yashouafar Mark McDaniel mayan cabo mayan cancun Mayan Palace Fraud mayan resort fraud mayan resort scam mayan resorts mayan resorts class action mexico timeshare fraud Michael Smith MOMDOYUDIAS INDICTMENT Mondavi Resort Mondavi Resort Mexico Mondavi Resort Scam money talks Morgan Stanley mortgage fraud mycollector.com nbc NCO Financial Abuse NCO FINANCIAL LAWSUIT 2011 Nevada AP Nevada Association Services Inc Nevada Department of Real Estate Nevada FBI Nevada Hoa Lawsuit owners advocate Paul Gustafson Planet Hollywood planet hollywood las vegas planet hollywood towers playa del sol playa del sol scam Politics Politics Consolidated Resorts Arthur Spector Goldman Sachs Whitehall Fund ANSY Documentary Political robert paisola Politics Consolidated Resorts Arthur Spector Goldman Sachs Whitehall Fund ANSY robert paisola Politics robert paisola christmas message Consolidated Resorts Arthur Spector Documentary Political robert paisola Politics robert paisola christmas message Consolidated Resorts Arthur Spector Goldman Sachs Whitehall Fund ANSY Documentary Political robert paisola profeco scam. Travel Escapes Club Provo Puerta Valliarta Real estate Puerto Vallarta Puerto Vallarta timeshare scam Rafael Septien Randy Richards RCI Richard McDaniel and Kevin Allin rick koerber rip off report robert paisola robert paisola david siegel bankrupt robert paisola 4th of july message Robert Paisola Message Robert Paisola Reports Robert Paisola Reports Live Robert Paisola VIP Robert Paisola. Robert Paisola. Judge Peggy Leon Robert Paisola. The Robert Paisola Robert Paisola. The Robert Paisola Foundation robertpaisola.com Robety Paisola Roger L. and Catherine A. Cole Royal Holiday Club Scam.com. Robert Paisola. Judge Peggy Leon Nevada Scam.com. Robert Paisola. TimeShareChronicles.com Scam.com. RobertPaisola.com scott r. erickson Shoppes at the Palazzo Silverstate Trustee Services Sky Las Vegas Sonya Yirkiw spector federal indictment St. Petersburg Stephen A. Rudnitsky Stephen P. Holmes Stephen P. Holmes. western capital streettalkblog.com Summer Bay Sun City Summerlin sunset resort cancun tahiti resort scam tahiti Resorts tahiti village tahiti village bankruptcy Tahiti Village Bankruptcy Scam TAHITI VILLAGE FRAUD tahiti village murder tahiti village scam tahiti village shut down tahitilawsuit.com TEXTRON FINANCIAL The Consolidated Resorts the me the me hotel cancun THE MESSAGE The Palazzo The Robert Paisola Foundation the time share chronicles the westerncapital foundation THOMAS DAVIS v WESTGATE PLANET HOLLYWOOD LAS VEGAS Thomas Q. Keefe timeshare chronicles timeshare chronicles david siegel timeshare class action Timeshare Fraud Timeshare Industry timeshare scam timesharechronicles.com Todd Spector Todd Spector Fraud Towers by Westgate Travel Escapes Club trendwest trendwest resorts scam Utah VegasNightsLive.com Versailles w Watson et al v. Westgate Resorts western capital western capital class action western capital vip westgate resort westgate resort lawsuit westgate resort scam westgate resorts westgate resorts bankruptcy Westgate Resorts Class Action Westgate Resorts Florida Westgate Resorts Fraud westgate resorts layoff Westgate travel vouchers Whitehall Street Global Real Estate LP Whitehall Street Real Estate Funds William A. Leonard www.whatswrongwithwyndham.com wyndham condos wyndham desert grand Wyndham Hotels Wyndham Lawsuit wyndham orlando wyndham resorts Wyndham Resorts ChexSystems Wyndham customer sick Wyndham Resorts Class Action wyndham resorts lawsuit wyndham resorts scam wyndham resports scam Wyndham time-share...Harbour Lights in San Diego Wyndham Vacation Resorts wyndham vacations Wyndham. Wyndham Fraud david siegel westgate, Planet Hollywood, Robert Paisola, Westgate Resorts Class Action, Westgate Resorts Fraud, BBC, ABC News, Zimbio.com, Allen Harkleroad, Allen Harkleroad Georgia, AllenHarkleroadLawsuit.com, BBC,

Stand By Me Playing For Change Song Around the World PAISOLA

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:49:00 +0000

"Music is the language of the Universe" Even for Prisoners

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:54:00 +0000

What more can we say... Congratulations for Treating your Inmates with dignity, respect and providing them a way to GIVE BACK

Thank You
Robert Paisola
CEO
The Prison Partners Foundation USA

ABC News Confirms Tahiti Village Closed Down. Robert Paisola Reports Live

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:44:00 +0000

After nearly 2 years of following Tahiti Village and Consolidated Resorts for WesternCapitalVIP.com , Tahiti Village is being shut down. Who will be indicted? How was Goldman Sachs Involved? Who is Arthur Spector? Who is Todd Spector? Will the FBI Close the company? Will a Bankruptcy be filed for Consolidated Resorts and Tahiti Village? Does the FBI have enough data to indict Attorney Randy Richards and pals? Watch www.TimeShareChronicles.com for Live Updates. Congratulations America YOU DID IT!

Protect Yourself from Abusive Bill Collectors With the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , Posted by Robert Paisola

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:18:00 +0000

We have watched with dismay as report after report rolls in with bad financial news. Just like other Americans, many individuals and families here in the Chicago area are having more trouble making ends meet right now and may be at risk of losing their homes. Because our consumer rights and debt collection abuse prevention lawyers handle consumer litigation in Chicago, Oak Brook, Naperville and other parts of Illinois, we are particularly concerned about unfair and abusive practices by bill collectors, who many people may be hearing from more and more these days. Many consumers don't realize it, but we are actually protected under federal law from some of the worst excesses of collection agencies by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The FDCPA prohibits abusive and deceptive conduct by companies that collect debts. This covers a wide variety of practices, including misleading statements and outright lies, threats, abusive or foul language, attempts to embarrass the consumer publicly, bypassing the consumer's lawyer and tacking on fees or interest the consumer never agreed to. Under the law, debt collectors may not harass you with repeated unnecessary phone calls, call you names, use a raised voice or curse words, or call you at work after you've explained in writing that your employer does not allow it. If they threaten lawsuits, wage garnishments or other legal actions, those actions must be possible and they must follow through.

In addition, the law requires debt collectors to follow certain rules, including:
• Identifying themselves as debt collectors.
• Explaining that anything you say to them may be used to collect the debt.
• Limit contact with you to between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., your time, unless you agree to more
• Providing information about the original debt, including the name and address of the company you originally owed and a written validation of the debt if you request one.
• Notifying you of your right to dispute the debt within 30 days of receiving written information on it.
• Suing you only in the proper court -- usually, this is either the court where you live or in the area where you originally incurred the debt.

As anyone who has ever interacted with one of these companies knows, violations of these rules and other despicable conduct by debt collectors is sadly common. As consumer lawyers, we have witnessed some outrageous conduct by these companies and their representatives. Fortunately, consumers have the right to sue debt collectors who break the FDCPA outright. Furthermore, the FDCPA is a "strict liability" law, which means you need not prove that the bill collector was careless or had a bad intent in order to collect financial compensation; you only need to prove that it broke the law.

About How Robert Paisola Can Assist You if You are a Victim of a Rogue Creditor:

Robert Paisola is driven by a passion for people--motivating them to reach for the highest standards of success. As founder and president of many International Corporations including Western Capital and The Success Training Network, Robert trains sales and marketing professionals who want to strive to get to the top...and stay there.

He is a Nationally Recognized Criminal Rights Activist and is very involved with assisting inmates and their families who have been abused by the justice system. See www.PrisonPartners.com and www.westerncapitalfoundation.com

His innovative, no-nonsense approach is based on applying what he has observed in his fifteen-plus years in sales, motivational speaking and debt collection training, thus revealing the common business habits of the top 20% of sales performers in all organizations.

While in Mexico, he uncovered a large time share "fractional sales" scam at the Playa Del Sol Grand Hotel. His report is located at:

http://www.mycollector.com/news_playadelsolscam.html

Robert's approach works...that's why New York-based Success Magazine has rated Robert Paisola as one of the top-five most effective sales-training professional in the market today.

Robert Paisola's newest book was just released and is available on Amazon.com. Simply type PAISOLA in the main search field on Amazon.com. CONVERSATIONS ON SUCCESS was co-authored with famed author Dr. John Gray and Mr. Tom Hopkins.

Robert Paisola speaks on an International Basis to support his foundation, The Western Capital Foundation. He is also a noted speaker on the topic of Group Dynamics, Change Management, Investing, Real Estate, Asset Protection and Stock Investments.

Dealing with Investment Scams like Franklin Squires and C. Rick Koerber, Robert Paisola assisted State Regulators to shut down a multi million dollar fraud ring, lead by Rick Koerber

see www.FranklinSquiresLawsuit.com

Routinely Distinguished by The National Speakers Forum, Robert is also a regular contributor to Business Week Magazine, CNN, CNNFN, XM Satellite Radio, The Wall Street Journal, Telemundo International, National Public Radio and many other organizations. Robert Paisola is also an International Travel Writer and Certified Expert for magazines such as Conde Nast Publications and The National Geographic Society. His award winning investigative reporting articles have gained him worldwide recognition.

He continues to look deep into the world of his 78 year old nemesis Bill Bauer AKA CreditWrench or Billie (Bill) Bauer in Oklahoma at www.BillBauerFacts.com . Read this report for yourself and you decide.

If you are looking for personalized service, Robert now has a reduced fee schedule for readers:

http://www.ReputationMD.com and
http://www.WesternCapitalVIP.com

Do you want to see Live Video Results? Click Here!
http://kdka.com/video/?id=17721@kdka.dayport.com

For more information on Robert Paisola's unique training programs, contact Robert at Western Capital at robert@mycollector.com or at 1-877-517-9555 or visit

http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38419 http://www.allexperts.com/expert.cgi?m=1&catID=916&expID=74749
or visit www.RobertPaisola.net, www.RobertPaisola.org and www.RobertPaisola.com

Robert Paisola: From Sexual Abuse Survivor to CNN Advocate

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Sat, 17 May 2008 02:00:00 +0000

Why we Support Criminal Offender Reform- The Robert Paisola Story, by Patti Pacifico

A Letter to our Readers,

My name is Patti Pacifico and I am the Media Liaison and Publicist for Mr. Robert Paisola. The Story you are about to read is truly inspirational and educational.

Our purpose is to flood the world with Robert's Message that Prison and Offender Reform is Possible. He is one of the most amazing people that I have ever represented. His pure vision and tenacity to overcome his past is the most inspirational part of who he is.

Truly, had Robert not gone through the experiences you are about to read, he would not be helping the thousands of people around the world, nor would he do it in a public forum.

If you are a member of the media, please contact my office at patti@pattipacifico.com for a press kit. You can also visit www.MyCollector.com/media.html for additional information on Robert Paisola.

We wish you the very best and Robert's next book will be out shortly, just watch Amazon.com , where his current book is being sold.

Respectfully,

Patti Pacifico
Owner/CEO
Pacifico House, LLC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ROBERT PAISOLA PUBLICIST STATEMENT
Mr. ROBERT PAISOLA, FROM LOMPOC TO CEO, TO OFFENDER REFORM ADVOCATE

Mr. Paisola (hereafter referred to as Robert) grew up in a small, middle-class Ohio town. His father was a school teacher, then elementary school principle; the occupation from which he retired. His mother was a real estate agent. As a child his family joined and was bound by the ideals of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon). These ideals instilled the values that began his journey of structure, self-discovery, self-knowledge and “thinking for his own self.”

At the age of thirteen he began his first business- Paisola’s Lawn Care. He quickly learned that he could earn his own money beyond the common allowance provided by his parents and the parents of his friends. At fourteen, he enlisted friends who were of legal age to do lawn maintenance work for residential and business customers while he attended high-school during the day. From this first entrepreneurial experience, he also discovered his passion for journalism and delving into the minds of individuals who had something worthy of saying.

In Newark High School’s television studio, he created a local show entitled SCHOOLS IN ACTION. He interviewed school officials and teachers. He learned the value and importance of broadcast journalism and the impact of news on a community. From this effort, he was offered a scholarship to the Broadcast Journalism Department at Brigham Young University where he studied broadcast journalism and business administration.

After a couple years at Brigham Young University, Robert discovered social hypocrisy. This hypocrisy enlightened Robert- dressing, looking and appearing they way one is told whether that is defined by an individual’s parents, the church or society as a whole was an intolerable way for him to live. Robert then decided to leave university to pursue his ideals of entrepreneurial discovery, expression and strategy.

Forming Credit Control Corporation with friends from B.Y.U., Robert led the organization by the soft touch approach- people pay their friends, not their enemies. As a twenty-something year old, Robert learned the hard lesson of not being a watch dog over his employees. Credit Control Corporation was involved in legal issues surrounding insurance fraud. Knowing that his original ideal was to live a life as an open-minded, accountable individual, Robert accepted his responsibility as the CEO of Credit Control Corporation and pleaded guilty to the fraudulent actions of his actions and those who worked under Robert and the behaviours that he overlooked or was unaware. He believed he could trust other individuals to run his business and played as most twenty-something year olds do- fast, expensive cars, a vast home and all the materialism that most individuals believe is the essential ingredient to a happy life.

After taking accountability for his company, Robert found himself in Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex. While at Lompoc, Robert worked and spent 90% of his time in the law library, studied the process and ideals of justice, met with some of the most brilliant minds in the world, who, like Robert, used their talents erroneously, including Kevin Mitnick, and here world-renowned computer hacker now working as a computer security consultant, and Michael Milken, American financier influential in developing the junk bond market and an institutional philanthropic genius. Milken now donates copious amounts of time and money to charitable causes. His estimated worth as of 2007 is $2.1 billion.

Voraciously reading, studying and learning not only law, he examined the uniqueness and learned from the varied individuals with whom he spent his time. Robert was a model inmate. He earned respect from his new found friends- fellow inmates and employees of Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex.

Released early for exceptional behaviour, Robert was given five dollars, a plane ticket to return home and wished, “Good luck!” Robert realized that he had to begin again with nothing. From his experiences and relationships at Lompoc, Robert began his understanding of the lack of promise and hope from “prison rehabilitation.” Depressed and confused and not knowing which direction to turn, Robert, with nothing but the hope of luck, attempted to begin his life anew by misinforming loan applications- just until he could get ahead. “If I could have just got one break, I would have paid every dime back. I had nothing but the new view of life without rose-colored glasses.”

Robert didn’t get a lucky break, instead he returned to Lompoc. Again, Robert was the model inmate and returned to work in the law library. This time there were no typewriters; there were computers and a new phenomenon known as the Internet. With Robert’s prodigious appetite for learning, he began his new educational endeavour- surfing the Internet, learning about people, places and things from all over the world.

The mid 90’s through 2003, very few protective measures were in place by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium). Thousands of people were misrepresented, including Robert, by the content that was included in photo sharing programs www.photosucker.com as well as the overly invasive pop-up windows even more prominent in the late 1990’s than now. An investigation of his computer’s hard-drive included hundreds of pictures sent to him by friends, but also included pictures bundled from photosucker.com and uncontrollable pop-up ad history which were defined, at that time, as child-pornography.

Robert, again taking accountability, plead guilty to possession of child pornography. He was and is bold in his plea that, “Yes, this is my computer on an unsecured network. I am therefore ultimately responsible for my property although this property contains images which were not viewed, used, passed along nor satisfied any concept of personal sexual fulfilment or deviation.”

Robert was evaluated by the Federal Psychological Committee and was unanimously determined to be an individual that does not conform to any definition of a sexual deviant, pedophile, or threat to society or children.

Handed a plane ticket for the second time, Robert returned home to Utah. This time he realized that “prison reform” is a guise for a process that is realistically adult baby-sitting. He knew that he could not take chances anymore. He knew that to move forward in life he had to define his values, pay his debt to those who were misled by his employees at Credit Control Corporation, realize and forgive himself for his mistakes and accept that he had paid his debt to society.

Robert’s second term at Lompoc began his journey of redefining the self-discovery of his college years and realizing that the road he followed, with all its twists and turns, assisted his awareness of the importance of accountability, but more importantly he began wrapping his mind around the façade of approval-based living. Materialism and wealth at any cost was not his true desire and certainly not his true mission and talent in life.

Obtaining knowledge through self-study and graduating from The University of Life, Robert began working with friends from college and utilized his remaining legal resources and connections to assist consumers with debt consolidation and harassment issues. In a decision to distance himself from the false earnestness of consumer debt collection and licensing, Robert refused $750 million dollars worth of consumer debt collection contracts from various companies. Robert holds steadfast to his principle of working for those who want to understand the process of debt collection and those individuals who work for debt collection agencies. Robert has acted as a liaison for collection agencies. He, being the one who would have to work on behalf of contracted companies to pursue those who were delinquent on their debts, Robert renumerated on the mistakes of his company, Credit Control Corporation. After months of analyzing and learning from his personal past, he made the conscious decision to refuse to work with organizations that insist upon collecting debt from individuals with no regard personal circumstances or well-being.

Understanding the condition of “moral bankruptcy” and cause and effect of distorted morality, Robert now works as a liaison with associates and executives from various sectors of private and public businesses who are in need of debt consolidation or collection assistance and business restructuring. Robert educates those who contact him regarding their business to business debt collection issues, speaks on their behalf and connects them with the appropriate legal representatives and attorneys who work for the clients Robert sends them.

Robert Paisola is recognized as one of the most inspiring and sought after success and motivational professional speakers from The United States of America. He focuses the majority of his professional work speaking at seminars and conferences. Recently appearing on MSNBC, his reputation is growing exponentially as a corrections and offender reform advocate. Robert speaks to inmates on the strategies and possibilities they can attain once released from prison and is working diligently to reduce the social stigma, bias and lack of opportunity placed on released inmates.

Robert has his critics. William Spain owed $2000 in sales commission to a personal friend of Mr. Paisola. Robert attempted to gently bring forth the good will of Mr. Spain only to find resistance and deception of legal representation. Mr. Spain alleged legal representation and Mr. Paisola contacted said legal representation only to discover that Mr. Spain was in fact not under retainer for any legal representation and used an attorney’s name and stated representation falsely. Knowing the value of accountability, Robert legally posted Mr. Spain’s corrupt behavior on the Internet.

“Uncle Normie” and Bill Bauer AKA Creditwrench, are other individuals who attempt to discredit Mr. Paisola. They take a piece of truth and spin a fabricated, convoluted web of distortions of the truth and lies. These individuals, using methods described, have attempted on several occasions to discredit everything that Robert Paisola does, including sending over thirty emails to Insight Publishing, Robert's Publishing Agent. Insight Publishing retorted “Uncle Normie’s” accusations and provided credibility and proof of Mr. Paisola’ s current author contract. Insight Publishing was harassed to the point that their legal representatives had to warn “Uncle Normie” that any further allegations or attempted communication with their company would result in further legal action.

Robert uses the Internet as a tool to foster accountability, as well as promote inspiration, appreciation and hope.

Robert’s newest book “Conversations On Success” is co-authored with several successful entrepreneurs and inspiring individuals including: Dr. John Gray, famed author of Men Are Mars, Women Are From Venus, and Mr. Tom Hopkins. His newest book is now endorsed by Amazon.com and Insight Publishing.

Mr. Paisola has proven his credibility again and again, approval and acceptance by his peers, as well as associative representation opportunities with, but not limited to, IPA (International Profit Associates), which at one time was also a detractor of Mr. Paisola. After they met with Robert and discovered his amazing talents and character they offered him an employment opportunity, as well as friendship.

Mr. Paisola holds steadfast to his convictions, continues to grow intellectually, emotionally and spiritually and is a full-time father to his five year old daughter. He shares his knowledge and growth processes through his writing, speaking and avocation. He is proof that offenders can be reformed- although initially no one believed in him, he found a way to succeed and garner unprecedented trust and respect from many of the nations business leaders.

Robert rarely drops names. This leads his critics to allege his validity. However, Robert’s success has come and continues to grow from the trust and respect he has earned from those in high position. He is bound to his integrity and respect for those many who accept and trust him.

Robert is steadily paving his way to a positive future. A few speak of their dislike and attempt to discredit Robert. However, isn’t it more fascinating that 5,000 people (last week alone) were captivated by Robert, his teaching and message? What about the men and women who cry and ask Robert to tell them more, inspire them to overcome their past or thank him for his non-judgemental attitude towards them?

Robert Paisola is quickly becoming one of America’s eminent citizens, motivational speakers and success-training leaders. His vision, endorsements, awards, invitations (including a meeting with President George W. Bush and various congressmen) are detailed on his corporate website: http://www.mycollector.com

Western Capital VIP Client Takes on Nationwide Credit, Listen Live! Robert Paisola Investigates

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:48:00 +0000

Note From Robert Paisola- This is one of the best phone calls that we at Western Capital have EVER received from a client. This goes to show how much effect that WESTERN CAPITAL is having on the American Credit System. Again, NEVER EVER EVER pay a debt collection agency. Also, EVERY SINGLE READER MUST LISTEN TO THE CALL made by our client. This is how YOU should handle any call with a debt collector. Absolutely amazing job sir!

Here is the recording of the call

Mr. Robert Paisola,

I was contacted by Nationwide Credit on Friday April 4, 2008 about a delinquent American Express account. They tried very hard to get me to pay the debt in full or make a large down payment and payment arrangements. I offered to pay them $8500.00 within 5 days to settle the account and that was unacceptable. When I asked for them to send me something in writing, they refused and told me I had to take advantage of their offer that day or my account would “go to audit”. They wanted my bank account information and a date when they could electronically transfer funds from my account. I refused and told them that I needed to research this further and they needed to contact me via phone today, April 7, 2008.

While doing research, I found your website with the recording and transcripts from past dealings with Nationwide Credit.

I am attaching a recording of the phone call I had today with Tim Rushing, a Supervisor in the Sacramento office. If you would like to contact me please use my personal email, zoominternet.net or call 724-XXX-XXXX

Earl

Ex-jail inmate sues over medical care, Robert Paisola Investigates

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:12:00 +0000

A Utah County man has filed suit in U.S. District Court against a nurse at the Utah County Jail for failure to give him the proper medical care while he was an inmate at the facility. He contends that as a result, he may have been rendered sterile.

The suit, filed in behalf of the claimant by Salt Lake civil rights attorney Brian Barnard, claims negligence on the part of the nurse as well as violation of the claimant's constitutional rights. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages but does state that the ongoing medical requirements of the claimant will be in excess of $500,000.

The incident described in court filings occurred on Dec. 23, 2006 when the claimant complained to jail staff that he had severe pain and swelling in his genitalia. At that time, the only medical staff at the facility was a nurse who visited the man in response to the complaint. The suit claims that the man was not properly examined and did not receive medical treatment or further examination until the jail physician returned from the Christmas holiday on Dec. 26. Documents go on to state that the delay in treatment resulted in permanent damage requiring hormone replacement therapy that will be required for the rest of his life, and that the claimant has "probably been rendered sterile and incapable of fathering children."

Barnard said in an e-mail that a medical malpractice claim will be added to the suit and that, in reference to the claimant's medical problem while at the jail, "one would hope that a jail nurse would know the need for immediate attention."

Barnard added that, "one would hope that an inmate with a major medical emergency would not be dismissed because it was the Christmas weekend."

Asset Acceptance LLC Crosses the Line...Again, Robert Paisola Responds

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:03:00 +0000

Hi,

I got your information from allexperts.com. I am dealing with issues and lies from Asset Acceptance LLC.

I was taken to court over some credit card debt. I got a stipulation to make payments but unfortunately I got into a financial bind and missed a payment which forced a judgement.

Friday I called and spoke with a Maurice wade and he told me they would do another stipulation for 250 down and 50 a month there after. He then transferred me to Duane W. and he set everything up and is mailing me the paperwork..

Then yesterday afternoon I get another call from them so I called back and got a lady on the phone by the name of Sherika I think and she told me they can not put in another stipulation and the judgement is stuck on there and the reason they were calling is to garnish my wages..

So I advsd her what I was told that morning and on Friday and she told me that was incorrect and could not be done.. She said they were sending me a promise to pay letter and the judgement was not going anywhere.. I live in Florida and am the head of household taking care of a roommate that has a brain tumor..

Only one income as of right now.. I said I was going to call back and talk to a manager because I did not appreciate being lied to.. I want to know what you think I should do or if you can help me any way..

They have my banking information to start with the 250 on the 29th so if I should cancel it I need to give them at least a 5 day notice so please if you can help me please I could use some assistance or advice..

Thank you.. If you want to contact me you can use my cell phone at

God Bless You Robert Paisola. United Recovery and American Express

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:45:00 +0000

Hi Rob,

Just wanted to take the time to THANK YOU! You are a big gun and I appreciate you taking the time to get UNITED RECOVERY off my back.

As you know, My name is Denise Rogers-Babin and I spoke to you yesterday while I was frantic. You stated I was pretty lucky to have gotten you on the phone since you aren't taking any new clients. Let me say thank you.

I appreciate you taking me on. I acquired the American Express Gold Card in 2004 and paid this bill like clockwork since about 5 months ago. You can see my payment history with them was excellent. 5 months ago I began going through a divorce and things got a little tough. I recently contacted american express and tried to make arrangements with them to pay the balance and they stated if I didn't have $1775.00 that day there was nothing they could do.

They told me it was going to go to an outside agency and then they could do nothing more. I told AMEX that I would have the money in a day or two but they told me to borrow it from someone and then pay that person back when I got the money. This didn't happen.

Exactly 2 days later I receive a phone call from a Christian Santos of United Recovery he leaves his number for me to call him back at 800-250-3128 ext 3127. I call him back and he proceeds to tell me he WORKS on behalf of AMEX and I also notice I am being recorded but he never tells me I am being recorded. He tells me he sees things on my credit report like the loan I just took out from BOA to pay off Amex, etc. He tells me that he has access to AMEX computer system and can see my payment history etc.

Not knowing who he was or anything I told him that I do have the money to pay the 18,368.10 to AMEX and he told me where I needed to send it and how to send it. He said I needed to send it overnight mail and call him with a tracking number. I told him I would.

Well, I couldn't do it that day. The next day he burns up my phone with at least 10 calls. When I didn't call him back he proceeds to call my soon to be ex-husband (we are in the process of a divorce) and tell him what is going on. My husband was NEVER a signer on the account, only an authorized user. Well, then he proceeds to call my corporate office and gets ahold of one of our Asst. Relationship Mgr. and this ARM emails me and tells me that Christian wants a call back by 4;00.

I AM TOTALLY EMBARRASSED. I work for Capital One Auto Finance and am a Area Sales Manager (I work from my home in the field. I am not located in any corporate office) you can imagine my embarrassment when I get an email from an ARM in the corporate office. I finally call him back and he transfers me to a Joseph Petri who is his supervisor, Christian tells me it's no longer in his hands and Joseph lays into me like I am some deadbeat who never pays her bills. If you could see my credit I have EXCELLENT credit except for this AMEX account which only recently begun to have problem in the past 5 mths.

I have received no letters from this United Recovery only phone calls. I begun to panic yesterday when I got on the internet and googled United Recovery and AMEX and your website came up so I called and I got you on the phone. Thank goodness you will help me Robert. I don't want to have my credit affected by this. You graciously contacted United Recovery and as soon as they heard who you were they terminated the call. After several calls from me, you and my ex-husband (all of which they terminated)

I am FREE.

What I would like to know is how can I get this off my credit report? I know that AMEX will put this on my credit and call it a charge off which will affect my credit scores (all of which were 762, 778 and 726. How can I fix that?

Rob, I just want to thank you and I would love the opportunity to meet you in person and shake your hand.

Sincerely,

Denise Rogers-Babin
Corpus Christi, TX

Note from Western Capital to Federal Regulators:

This call was fully recorded and is avaliable for investigative purposes only in pursual of American Express or United Recovery ie: The FBI, US Customs, District Attorney, The Media, CNN, ABC, Dateline, 20/20, NBC See www.RobertPaisola.com for further details on our agent Max Marston.

United Recovery Services Nails Client for American Express, Robert Paisola Investigates

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 01:36:00 +0000

Hello,

I am a small business owner, and things have not gone well for us and I have an outstanding debt to AMEX. The problem is, they are now calling 3 of my former employees and threatening them with legal and collection action saying they were responsible for all charges on this account. The collectors have been told the employees are no long with the company, and that the company is going out of business.

These employees were authorized users, but have not worked for the company in over 8 months, and the account went delinquent 60 days ago. So with AMEX, that means the bill was current months after they were not in my employ.

I feel bad and don't know what to do, but this is a tactic that is embarrassing and also confusing and harassing for the employees and are worried about their personal credit. These calls are being made from United Recovery, and they call MULTIPLE times per day.

I just thought your readers should know this is another tactic. I would be more than happy to elaborate if you feel it would help others.

Randy, San Diego, CA

WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK vs, XCENTRIC VENTURES Court Decision Posted for the Media, Posted by Robert Paisola

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:57:00 +0000

Watch the Video On CNN
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/02/14/hunter.millionaire.university.cnn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK,
INC., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
-vs- Case No. 2:04-cv-47-FtM-34SPC
XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC., an Arizona
limited liability company;
BADBUSINESSBUREAU.ORG, an Arizona
limited liability company and ED
MAGEDSON, an individual,
Defendants.
______________________________________
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and,
Alternatively, Motion for Reconsideration Re: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 115; Motion),
which was filed on June 21, 2007. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to the Motion.
See Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and, Alternatively, Motion for
Reconsideration Re: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and Motion for Sanctions and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt.
1 On February 6, 2008, the Court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion for leave to file a reply.
See Order (Dkt. No. 177). Defendants filed their reply on February 12, 2008. See Defendants’ Reply in Support
of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 185; Reply). While the Court permitted Defendants
leave to file a reply, it determined that reference to the reply was not necessary in ruling on the Motion.
2 While the Initial Complaint refers to the postings on the website as “complaints”, the parties later refer
to the postings as reports. For consistency purposes, the Court will refer to the postings at issue as reports.
2
No. 141; Response), filed on September 10, 2007.1 Accordingly, the Motion is ripe for
review.
I. Procedural History
Plaintiffs Whitney Information Network, Inc.(“WIN”) and Russ Whitney, the CEO of
WIN, filed an initial complaint (Dkt. No. 1; Initial Complaint) on January 27, 2004, asserting
four claims against Defendants Xcentric Ventures, LLC (“Xcentric”), badbusinessbureau.org,
and Ed Magedson (“Magedson”) (collectively “Defendants”): (1) federal trademark
infringement (Count I); (2) false designation of origin, false description and false
representation under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count II); (3) common law trademark infringement
(Count III); and (4) defamation per se of business reputation (Count IV). See generally Initial
Complaint. With respect to Count IV, Plaintiffs alleged the following: (1) Defendants
published more than a dozen consumer reports2 regarding Plaintiffs on their website,
“www.ripoffreport.com”; (2) these consumer reports contain false information regarding
Plaintiffs’ products and services; (3) Defendants failed to verify the truth or accuracy of these
reports prior to publishing them; and (4) by publishing the defamatory reports, Defendants
have damaged Plaintiffs’ business and reputation. See Initial Complaint at ¶¶ 38, 44, 65-72.
On June 28, 2004, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them for
lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that their activities in Florida did not satisfy Florida’s
3 According to the Initial Complaint, a consumer accessing “www.ripoffreport.com” can click on a link
to a second website published by Defendants entitled “www.ripoffrevenge.com.” See Initial Complaint at ¶¶ 35,
40.
4 On September 27, 2004, Defendants filed a Notice of Errata (Dkt. No. 27), stating that they incorrectly
titled their Second Motion to Dismiss.
3
long-arm statute, Florida Statutes section 48.193, and that the exercise of jurisdiction over
them would offend due process. See generally Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction with Supporting Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 6; First
Motion to Dismiss). The Court entered an order denying the First Motion to Dismiss on
September 8, 2004. See Opinion and Order (Dkt. No. 24; September 8, 2004 Order). In the
September 8, 2004 Order, the Court found that the undisputed facts alleged in the Initial
Complaint, namely, that Defendants published and continue to publish infringing marks in
Florida on their websites3, which are directed at Florida and cause injury in Florida, were
sufficient to subject Defendants to the Court’s jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(b) of
Florida’s long-arm statute. See September 8, 2004 Order at 5-7. The Court also concluded
that Plaintiffs had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy the due process
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 8-9.
On September 21, 2004, Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss. See
Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction with
Supporting Memorandum of Law (Dkt. No. 26; Second Motion to Dismiss).4 In the Second
Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argued that Count IV of the Initial Complaint was barred by
the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230. See Second Motion to Dismiss
at 2-5. They also asserted that Counts I, II, and III failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. See id. at 6-17. On July 14, 2005, the Court entered an order granting
5 The Court dismissed Counts I, II, and III for failure to state a claim. See July 14, 2005 Order at 8, 11-
12.
4
the Second Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Initial Complaint without prejudice.5 See
Order (Dkt. No. 49; July 14, 2005 Order). With respect to Count IV, the Court noted that,
based on the allegations in the Initial Complaint, Defendants merely published messages
written by consumers about companies or products that they believed had defrauded them.
See July 14, 2005 Order at 6. As Plaintiffs did not allege that Defendants had written the
messages contained on their websites, the Court found that Defendants were immune from
liability under the CDA which protects an interactive computer service provider from liability
for information developed by a third party that is published on the Internet. See id. at 6-7.
On July 28, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion, asking the Court to reconsider its July 14,
2005 Order or, alternatively, grant Plaintiffs an extension of time to file an amended
complaint. See generally Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Clarification of Order and Unopposed
Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Amended (Dkt. No. 51). On August 3, 2005, the
Court entered an Order (Dkt. No. 52) denying Plaintiffs’ request to reconsider the July 14,
2005 Order but granting Plaintiffs an extension of time to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 56; Amended Complaint) was filed on
September 27, 2005. The Amended Complaint names WIN as the sole Plaintiff and
reasserts only the defamation claim. See generally Amended Complaint. In addition, the
Amended Complaint adds several new factual allegations. See generally id. Specifically,
the Amended Complaint alleges that, in addition to failing to verify the accuracy of the
6 WIN also alleges that Defendants published the reports as part of an attempted extortion scheme.
See Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 34-43. However, WIN notes that they commenced this action before Defendants
had an opportunity to seek any money from WIN, and, in any event, WIN would have refused to pay
Defendants. See id. at ¶ 43. As noted above, WIN only asserts a defamation claim in the Amended Complaint.
5
reports, Defendants add additional language to the reports in order to give the appearance
that the company named in the report is “ripping off” consumers. See id. at ¶ 38.
Moreover, the Amended Complaint asserts that Defendants often tailor and rewrite the
consumer reports, by adding words such as “ripoff,” “dishonest,” and “scam”, and, that after
making these changes, Defendants asks the “client” to anonymously post the report on the
website. See id. at ¶ 39. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Defendants created
fictional reports, “which were then attributed to people with false names or ‘anonymous’ titles
from fictional locations around the United States . . . and were false and slanderous.” See
id. at ¶ 40.6
Defendants filed a third motion to dismiss on October 21, 2005, arguing again that the
Court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and that the grounds the Court previously relied
upon for finding jurisdiction were not present in the Amended Complaint. See generally
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 58; Third Motion to Dismiss). Noting that Russell Whitney, a resident
of Florida, was no longer a party to the action, Defendants argued that “[t]he remaining claim
for defamation [was] brought by a Colorado corporation that does business all over the
country and did not suffer the brunt of the harm in Florida.” See id. at 3. In addition,
Defendants maintained that Florida’s long-arm statute was not satisfied in the instant case.
See id. at 4-5. Specifically, Defendants argued that they did not author or publish the reports
7 Smith described an IP address as “a unique address that identifies the computer that the submission
came from.” See Third Motion to Dismiss, Exh. E at 2.
8 The same e-mail address was later used to file rebuttal postings from which Smith was able to
capture an IP address. See Third Motion to Dismiss, Exh. E at 3.
6
regarding WIN, and, therefore, they were immune from WIN’s defamation claim under the
CDA. See id. In support of this assertion, Defendants submitted declarations from
Magedson and Ben Smith (“Smith”), an individual who had provided technology services to
the operator of “www.ripoffreport.com” for over six years. See id. at Exhs. A, E. Magedson
declared that “neither [he] nor any agent of Xcentric authored the statements that are the
subject of this lawsuit.” See id., Exh. A at 4. Moreover, Magedson asserted that, before a
report is posted, Xcentric agents review the report solely to redact profanity, obscenity, and
personal contact information. See id. Magedson also stated that “Xcentric agents are
instructed to never add content to a report.” See id. In his declaration, Smith declared that
he captured IP addresses7 for all but three of the postings submitted on the website about
WIN or Russell Whitney. See id., Exh. E at 3. According to Smith, the IP addresses that he
was able to capture did not match the IP address of any computer used by Xcentric or its
agents. See id. In regard to the three remaining postings, Smith stated that two of the
postings contained what appeared to be valid names, e-mail addresses, mailing addresses,
and telephone numbers. See id. The third posting did not provide a name, address, or
telephone number and the e-mail address provided was invalid.8 See id.
The Court entered an order granting the Third Motion to Dismiss on February 15,
2006. See Order (Dkt. No. 69; February 15, 2006 Order) at 13. In the February 15, 2006
Order, the Court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants because WIN
7
failed to satisfy the requirements of Florida’s long-arm statute. See February 15, 2006 Order
at 12. The Court noted that WIN’s allegations in the Amended Complaint that Defendants
had authored some of the reports on their website are essential to the survival of its
argument that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, because, if Defendants
did not author any reports, then they are immune from liability under the CDA and did not
commit a tortious act in Florida. See id. at 9. Upon review of the declarations submitted in
support of the Third Motion to Dismiss, the Court determined that Defendants had rebutted
WIN’s allegations that they had authored some of the reports on the website and the burden
had shifted to WIN to demonstrate a sufficient basis for jurisdiction by affidavit or other sworn
statement. See id. at 9-11. As WIN failed to provide any affidavit or sworn statement, the
Court found that WIN failed to carry its burden. See id. at 11. After determining that WIN
failed to satisfy the requirements of Florida’s long-arm statute, the Court declined to conduct
a due process analysis and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. See id. at 12-
13. Final Judgment (Dkt. No. 70; Final Judgment) was entered on February 16, 2006.
After WIN appealed the Court’s February 15, 2006 Order and Final Judgment, see
Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 72), filed on March 16, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals vacated the Final Judgment and remanded the case to this Court for further
proceedings. See Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Venture, LLC, 199 Fed.
Appx. 738 (11th Cir. 2006). In its Order and Opinion, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the
Court erred by finding that WIN failed to satisfy section 48.193(1)(b) of Florida’s long-arm
statute. See id. at 744. Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit found that the declarations
submitted by Defendants did not adequately rebut WIN’s allegations in the Amended
8
Complaint. See id. In regard to Magedson’s declaration, the Court noted that, while
Magedson stated that the agents of Xcentric are instructed not to add content to a report and
that they solely review the reports before they are posted to remove profanity, obscenity, and
personal contact information, Magedson failed to make any representations about what
actually occurred with respect to the website postings about WIN. See id. at 743.
Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit observed that Magedson did not explain the basis for his
knowledge regarding actions taken by Xcentric’s agents. See id. With respect to Smith’s
declaration, the Eleventh Circuit noted that Smith admitted that he was unable to capture IP
addresses for three of the reports about WIN. See id. at 743-44. In addition, the Eleventh
Circuit observed that “it is not clear that the IP addresses of computers used by Xcentric’s
agents would have even appeared during Smith’s search if those computers were used
merely to revise consumer reports submitted by others, rather than to submit a fabricated
complaint.” See id. at 744. Based on the above omissions, the Eleventh Circuit found that
Defendants had failed to establish that they were entitled to immunity under the CDA and
remanded the case to this Court for consideration of whether the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over Defendants would violate the due process requirements of the Fourth
Amendment. See id.
Following remand, the Court denied the Third Motion to Dismiss, finding that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants comported with due process. See
generally Order (Dkt. No. 82; February 23, 2007 Order). In the February 23, 2007 Order,
the Court found that WIN demonstrated that Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts
with Florida. See February 23, 2007 Order at 6-7. With respect to this finding, the Court
9
noted that Defendants’ website published information on Florida companies, such as WIN,
and allowed consumers to target or search for companies in a specific state, including
Florida. See id. at 7. The Court further observed that Defendants solicited donations from
Florida consumers and that Defendants had accepted at least one donation from a Florida
resident. See id. In addition, the Court noted that, based on WIN’s unrebutted allegations,
the reports published on Defendants’ website about WIN caused substantial harm to WIN’s
business and reputation and most of this harm had occurred in Florida. See id. Turning to
the second step of its due process analysis, the Court found that its exercise of personal
jurisdiction did not offend the ideals of fair play and substantial justice because “Florida has
an interest in resolving disputes arising from the publication or dissemination of defamatory
information in Florida or about a Florida company” and many of the witnesses in the case
were located in Florida. See id. Following entry of the February 23, 2007 Order, the parties
were directed to submit a new Case Management Report. See Order (Dkt. No. 96). They
did so, and on April 16, 2007, the Court entered an Amended Case Management and
Scheduling Order setting October 1, 2007, as the discovery deadline and November 5, 2007,
as the deadline for submission of dispositive motions. See Amended Case Management
and Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 105; Amended CMSO). The parties have proceeded in
accordance with the Amended CMSO.
9 As discussed above, because this case is before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, the facts recited herein and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been viewed by the Court in
a light most favorable to WIN.
10 WIN filed Magedson’s deposition as well as the exhibits referenced in it as 29 separate attachments
to the Notice of Filing. The attachments are referenced herein as “Deposition of Magedson, Exh. ___.”
11 The ROR website contained almost 220,000 individual reports as of December 13, 2006. See MSJ
Facts at ¶ 6.
10
II. Background Facts9
WIN, a Colorado corporation, provides “post-secondary educational and training
products and services in the areas of real estate investing, business development, financial
investment and asset protection real estate.” See Amended Complaint at ¶ 19. In addition
to advertising its products and services through infomercials, WIN conducts approximately
150 free real estate seminars each month. See id. at ¶¶ 20-21; see also Separate
Statement of Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 116;
MSJ Facts) at ¶ 1.
Xcentric, is an Arizona limited liability company that operates a website known as
“The Rip-Off Report” (“ROR”) which is located at “www.ripoffreport.com” and
“badbusinessbureau.com.” See MSJ Facts, Exh. 1 at ¶ 2; Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing
Deposition of Ed Magedson in Support of its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. No. 153; Deposition of Magedson)10, Exh. 1 at 27. Magedson is the founder
and managing member of Xcentric. See MSJ Facts, Exh. 1 at ¶ 2; Deposition of Magedson,
Exh. 1 at 24. The ROR website allows its visitors to post and view reports about a wide
variety of companies that have purportedly “ripped off” consumers,11 see MSJ Facts at ¶¶ 3,
4; Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 1 at 27, Exh. 10 at 1, and informs its visitors that “[f]iling a
12 At his deposition, Magedson testified that, upon request, he provides government authorities and
attorneys with posters’ contact information. See Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 2 at 8-9. Magedson also
acknowledged that, on a few occasions, he submitted unsolicited materials to the government regarding a
particular business or industry. See id. at 9-11.
11
Rip-Off Report is important because you are helping us to help you, and others like you,
achieve justice,” see Deposition of Magedson, Exh 2 at 5-6, Exh. 10 at 2. In this regard, the
ROR website explains that it works with government authorities and attorneys to help
organize lawsuits and that it may contact posters if a lawsuit is being considered or has been
filed to which they may wish to be named as a party. See id., Exh. 2 at 6-13, Exh. 10 at 2-
3.12 The ROR also notifies its visitors that it regularly works with the media and will put
posters in contact with the media if the media is interested in their reports. See id., Exh. 2
at 22-23, Exh. 10 at 3.
In order to submit a report on the ROR website, a poster must first sign up for a free
account with the ROR website. See MSJ Facts at ¶ 7, Exh. 1 at ¶ 6. While Xcentric asks
posters to provide truthful and accurate information, it is possible for individuals to sign up
for an account using forged or fraudulent names, phone numbers, etc., and, given the high
volume of traffic to the ROR website, Xcentric does not verify the authenticity of the personal
information provided by each poster. See id. After signing up for an account, the poster
must, inter alia, categorize his or her report by selecting a “topic” and a “category” from a
drop-down menu. See Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 4 at 7-8, Exh. 16 at 5. The topics from
which a poster must select include “outrageous & popular rip-off” and “unusual-rip off”, as
well as more generic topics such as “automotive”, “dining”, and “travel.” See id., Exh. 4 at
16-17, Exh. 16 at 5. Similarly, the categories provided by Xcentric include “con artist”,
“corrupt companies,” and “false TV advertisements”, as well as “seminar programs”, “multi
13 At his deposition, Magedson testified that the ROR website provides posters with approximately 500
category choices. See Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 6 at 33-35.
14 In another section of the ROR website, Defendants advise its posters as to “[w]hat makes a good
Rip-Off Report.” See Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 15 at 7. Defendants state that “[t]he report should be
relating an honest, factual, and impartial story.” See id. They also direct posters to “[u]se any details such as
names, times, places, tape recorded evidence (where legal), pictures, and witnesses statements, that will reveal
the facts and support your Report.” See id.
15 The home page of the ROR website features “Top Rip Off Reports.” See Deposition of Magedson,
Exh. 11 at 1. These reports are selected by Defendants after posters e-mail them to a special e-mail address.
See id., Exh. 2 at 1-4, Exh. 15 at 7. The ROR website advises posters that, in order to be featured on the home
page, their stories need to be especially convincing and must include “[a] clear photo, drawing, or cartoon”
related to the report. See id., Exh. 15 at 7. Defendant Magedson testified that he did not believe that WIN was
ever featured on the home page, see id., Exh. 2 at 5, and WIN has not provided any evidence to dispute this
statement.
12
level marketing”, “financial services”, and “business consulting.” See id., Exh. 4 at 21-27,
Exh. 6 at 34-35, Exh. 16 at 5.13 As part of the submission process, a poster must also create
a title for his or her report. See id., Exh. 16 at 2-3; MSJ Facts at ¶ 10, Exh. 1 at ¶ 9. The
ROR website advises a poster to “[b]e creative” when selecting descriptive words for his or
her title because “it will make [his or her] report more interesting.” See Deposition of
Magedson, Exh. 16 at 3.14 In addition, prior to submitting his or her report, a user must
check a box to attest that the report is valid. See id., Exh. 6 at 36, Exh. 16 at 6.15
Once a user submits a report, the report is held until it can be reviewed by Xcentric’s
staff of content monitors. See MSJ Facts at ¶ 11, Exh. 1 at ¶ 10. The content monitors
review the report to confirm that it does not contain “blatantly illegal, inappropriate, or
offensive materials”, such as pornographic images, social security numbers, credit card
numbers, or physical threats, and they have the discretion to delete or redact any report that
contains this type of material. See id. However, the content monitors do not verify the
13
accuracy of the reports submitted to the ROR website, and they are not permitted, as a
matter of policy, to add to or rewrite the reports that are posted. See id.
Xcentric permits a company against whom a report has been filed or another
consumer who has had a positive experience with such a company to file a rebuttal to a
report. See Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 5 at 7, Exh. 19; MSJ Facts at ¶ 8, Exh. 1 at ¶ 7.
Rebuttals are not automatically posted on the ROR website. See Magedson Deposition,
Exh. 5 at 14. Instead, a rebuttal will only be posted if an Xcentric employee determines that
the rebuttal is “acceptable.” See id.
In addition to providing a forum in which visitors may post reports or rebuttals
regarding companies , the ROR website provides a link to another website that sells a “Do-it-
Yourself Guide: How to get Rip-Off Revenge,” which was prepared by Magedson. See id.,
Exh. 3 at 2-4, 10, Exh. 12. The ROR website also solicits donations from its visitors and has
sold advertising on a few occasions. See id., Exh. 3 at 11-13, Exh. 14. In addition, the ROR
website offers a Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Consumer Satisfaction
Program (“CAP Program”) to companies which have had reports posted against them. See
id., Exh. 4 at 27-31, Exh. 18. In order to participate in the CAP Program, a company must
pay a fee and fulfill other requirements. See id., Exh. 4 at 29-30. In the future, when a
poster submits a report to the ROR website regarding this company, the report is not
automatically posted on the ROR website. See id. at 40-41. Instead, the ROR website
sends an e-mail to the poster who submitted the report to let him or her know about the
company’s participation in the program. See id. at 34. The company is then given the
opportunity to address the report with the poster. See id. at 40. If the poster is satisfied with
16 WIN has not alleged that it participated in the CAP Program.
17 Defendants have attached a complete print out of every reported posted on the ROR website
regarding WIN to their MSJ Facts. See MSJ Facts at Exh. 2.
18 Once a report or rebuttal is submitted to the ROR website, only individuals with administrative access
have the ability to make any changes to the report or rebuttal. See MSJ Facts at ¶ 12, Exh. 1 at ¶ 14.
19 At times, Defendants mistakenly refer to Paulette Griffith as “Paulette Craven” and Heather Dorton
as “Heather Norton.” See MSJ Facts at ¶ 13, Exh. 1 at ¶ 15.
14
the response provided by the company, then the report is not published on the ROR website.
See id. at 40-41.16
The ROR website contains several reports that refer to WIN in a derogatory manner.
See MSJ Facts at ¶ 14, Exh. 1 at ¶ 16, Exh 2.17 In support of the Motion, Magedson has
provided a sworn declaration stating that he has not authored, altered, or modified any of
these reports. See MSJ Facts, Exh. 1 at ¶¶ 17-21. Magedson also provides a complete list
of those individuals who have had administrative access18 to the ROR website since the
beginning of 1993: (1) Ed Magedson; (2) Amy Thompson; (3) G. Young; (4) Heather Dorton;
(5) Kim Jordan; (6) Jackie Wynne; (7) Kim Smith; (8) Lynda Craven; (9) Mary Jo Baker;
(10) C.S. Bowen; (11) Paulette Griffith; and (12) Ben Smith. See MSJ Facts at ¶ 13, Exh.
1 at ¶ 15.19 All of these individuals have provided declarations attesting that they did not
author or submit any of the postings regarding WIN. See MSJ Facts, Exhs. 1 at ¶ 19, Exh.
3 at ¶ 6, Exh. 4 at ¶ 6, Exh. 5 at ¶ 6, Exh. 6 at ¶ 6, Exh. 7 at ¶ 6, Exh. 8 at ¶ 6, Exh. 9 at ¶
6, Exh. 10 at ¶ 6, Exh. 11 at ¶ 18, Exh. 12 at ¶ 6, and Exh. 13 at ¶ 6. In addition, these
individuals aver that they did not add any content to any of the postings regarding WIN or
add content to the titles or headings of these postings. See id., Exhs. 1 at ¶ 21, Exh. 3 at
¶ 7, Exh. 4 at ¶ 7, Exh. 5 at ¶ 7, Exh. 6 at ¶ 7, Exh. 7 at ¶ 7, Exh. 8 at ¶ 7, Exh. 9 at ¶ 7, Exh.
20 Specifically, these individuals declare that they “did not add the words ‘rip-off’, ‘dishonest,’ or ‘scam’
or any other words to the title or to the content of any report” regarding WIN. See MSJ Facts, Exhs. 1 at ¶ 19,
Exh. 3 at ¶ 6, Exh. 4 at ¶ 6, Exh. 5 at ¶ 6, Exh. 6 at ¶ 6, Exh. 7 at ¶ 6, Exh. 8 at ¶ 6, Exh. 9 at ¶ 6, Exh. 10 at
¶ 6, Exh. 11 at ¶ 19, Exh. 12 at ¶ 6, and Exh. 13 at ¶ 6.
15
10 at ¶ 7, Exh. 11 at ¶ 19, Exh. 12 at ¶ 7, and Exh. 13 at ¶ 7.20 However, WIN argues that
evidence exists that Magedson prepares the reports posted on the ROR website. See
Response at 12-13. In support of this argument, WIN has provided the deposition of Dickson
Earl Woodard (“Woodard”) in the matter of GW Equity, LLC v. Dixon Woodard, which was
an action filed in the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. See Response at
Exh. 2. During his May 8, 2007 deposition, Woodard answered affirmatively when asked
whether Magedson writes reports and the headings on the reports on the ROR website. See
id. at 3-4. He also testified that Magedson indirectly told him that he is responsible for
making posts about companies on the ROR website. See id. at 6.
III. Discussion
In the Motion, Defendants ask the Court to enter an Order granting summary
judgment in the instant case. See Motion at 4-11. In addition, Defendants request that the
Court reconsider its prior rulings on personal jurisdiction and issue an order requiring WIN
and WIN’s counsel to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against
them pursuant to Rule 11(c). See Motion at 11-13. The Court will address each request in
turn.
A. Motion for Summary Judgment
Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
16
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is genuine when the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmovant. See Mize v.
Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hairston v.
Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993)).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating to the
court, by reference to the record, that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be
determined at trial. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991).
Substantive law determines the materiality of facts, and “[o]nly disputes over facts that might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of
summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In
determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court “must view all evidence and
make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Haves
v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995).
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that the CDA bars WIN’s
defamation claim. See Motion at 4-11. They maintain that they are immune from liability
under the CDA because the ROR website is a provider of an interactive computer service,
the defamation claim treats them as publishers of the reports posted about WIN, and all of
the reports that were posted about WIN were created by third parties. See id. at 7-11.
WIN responds that Magedson does not qualify for immunity under the CDA because
he is not a provider or user of an interactive computer service. See Response at 4-5. In
addition, WIN argues that Defendants are not protected by the CDA because the undisputed
21 The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that “[t]he majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA
to establish broad ‘federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for
information originating with a third-party user of a service.’” Almeida, 456 F.3d at 1321 (quoting Zeran v.
American Online, Inc.,129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997)).
17
facts establish that they are responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development
of the defamatory postings on the ROR website. See id. at 5-11. Alternatively, WIN argues
that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to Defendants’ activities based upon the
testimony of Woodard. See id. at 12-13.
Pursuant to the CDA, “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall
be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information
content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The CDA further preempts state law that is
inconsistent with this subsection. See id. § 230(e)(3) (stating that “[n]o cause of action may
be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent
with this section.”); Almeida v. Amazon.com, Inc., 456 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006).21
In accordance with these provisions, Defendants will be entitled to immunity from WIN’s state
law defamation claim under the CDA if they are able to establish that: (1) they are
“provider[s] or user[s] of an interactive computer service”; (2) the claim treats them “as the
publisher or speaker” of information; and (3) the claim against them is based on “information
provided by another information content provider”. See Universal Communications Systems,
Inc. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413, 418 (1st Cir. 2007); F.T.C. v. Accusearch, Inc., No. 6:CV-
105-D, 2007 WL 4356786, at * 3 (D. Wyo. Sept. 28, 2007).
The Court will first address whether Defendants are providers or users of an
“interactive computer service.” The CDA defines an “interactive computer service” as “any
information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer
22 Defendant badbusinessbureau.org, is a provider of an “interactive computer service” because it
“enables computer access by multiple users” to its computer server. See Universal Communications Systems,
Inc., 478 F.3d at 419; see also Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1030 n.16 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that
several courts have concluded that a website meets the definition of an “interactive computer service”.).
Moreover, Xcentric, as the operator of the ROR website, is also a provider of an “interactive computer service.”
See Roskowski v. Corvallis Police Officers’ Ass’n, No. Civ. 03-474-AS, 2005 WL 555398, at *11 (D. Or. March
9, 2005) (holding that a defendant acted as an “interactive computer service” by creating, providing, and
maintaining a website); Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, Inc., 461
F.Supp.2d 681, 698 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (finding, in an Order on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair
Housing Act action, that Craigslist is a provider of an interactive computer service because Craigslist “operates
a website that multiple users have accessed to create allegedly discriminatory housing notices.”).
18
access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that
provides access to the Internet . . .” Id. § 230(f)(2). While WIN does not dispute that
Xcentric and badbusinessbureau.org are providers or users of an interactive computer
service22, WIN argues that Magedson is not a provider or user of an interactive computer
service because he does not own or operate the ROR website. See Response at 4-5. In
support of its argument, WIN relies on MCW, Inc. v. Badbusinessbureau.com, LLC, No.
Civ.A. 3:02-CV-2727-G, 2004 WL 833595 (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004), which is another
defamation action involving the ROR website in which Magedson and
badbusinessbureau.com were named as defendants. In that case, Magedson argued, in a
motion to dismiss, that he qualified for immunity under the CDA as a provider of an
interactive computer service because he operated the ROR website. See id. at *9. The
court found that Magedson was not a provider or user of an interactive computer service.
See id. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the defendants failed to provide any
evidence establishing that Magedson was a provider or user of an interactive computer
service, and that “more importantly”, Defendants had “consistently portrayed Magedson as
an individual who neither own[ed] nor operate[d]” the ROR website. See id. As these
23 When WIN appealed the February 15, 2006 Order to the Eleventh Circuit, it argued in its reply brief
that Defendant Magedson did not qualify for CDA immunity because he failed to submit any evidence
establishing that he is an “interactive computer service.” See Whitney Information Network, Inc., 199 Fed. Appx.
at 742 n.3. In its Opinion and Order, the Eleventh Circuit recognized that it did not need to address this issue
as WIN raised this argument for the first time in its reply brief but nevertheless noted that “§ 230(c)(1) requires
only that Magedson have been a ‘provider or user’ of an interactive computer service, not the service itself.”
See id.
19
circumstances are factually distinct from those before the Court, the MCW Inc. decision is
not determinative.
The Court previously found Defendants to be providers of an interactive computer
service, see July 14, 2005 Order at 7, February 15, 2006 Order at 6-9, and WIN failed to
properly dispute this finding on appeal.23 Nevertheless, as the matter is now before the
Court on a motion for summary judgment, the Court again considers the issue. Upon review
of the undisputed facts, the Court finds that, unlike in MCW, Inc. where the defendants failed
to produce evidence that Magedson was a provider or user and affirmatively maintained that
he was not an owner or operator, here, Magedson has produced evidence supporting his
claim that he is a provider of an interactive computer service. In the declaration Magedson
submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment, he avers that he is the founder
and managing member of Xcentric, the operator of the ROR website. See MSJ Facts, Exh.
1 at ¶ 2; see also Roskowski, 2005 WL 555398, at *11. In addition, the declaration
establishes that even if Magedson did not qualify as a provider of an interactive computer
service, Magedson, himself and as the managing member of Xcentric, is certainly a user of
an interactive computer service, namely, the ROR website. See also Batzel, 333 F.3d at
1030 (noting that “§ 230(c)(1) confers immunity not just on ‘providers’ of [interactive
computer] services, but also on ‘users’ of such services.”). Plaintiff has failed to identify any
20
genuine issue of fact as to this determination, thus, the Court finds that Magedson is a
provider or user of an interactive computer service as that term is defined by the CDA.
Next, the Court will consider whether WIN’s claim treats Defendants as the publisher
or speaker of the information at issue. WIN does not challenge Defendants’ assertion that
this element of CDA immunity has been established. See generally Response.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the defamation claim treats Defendants as the publisher
of the allegedly defamatory statements made against WIN on the ROR website. See Ben
Ezra Weinstein, and Company, Inc. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 983, 986 (10th Cir.
2000) (holding that American Online, Inc. (“AOL”) was immune under the CDA from a
defamation action in which the plaintiff, a publicly owned company, claimed that AOL
defamed it by publishing incorrect information regarding its stock price); Whitney Information
Network, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 2:04CV462FTM29SPC, 2006 WL 66724, at * 3 (M.D. Fla. Jan.
11, 2006) (finding that the CDA barred the plaintiffs’ defamation claim which attempted to
treat the defendant as the publisher of allegedly defamatory statements against plaintiffs).
Finally, the Court turns to the question of whether the defamation claim is based on
“information provided by another information content provider”. The CDA defines an
“information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part,
for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other
interactive computer service.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). Thus, in the instant case, the critical
issue for the Court to resolve, based upon a review of the evidence that the parties submitted
in support or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, is whether the individuals
submitting posts to the ROR website were the sole information content providers of the
24 While not argued by WIN, the Court finds that Defendants should not be treated as information
content providers of the defamatory posts about WIN based on the content monitors having the discretion to
delete or redact reports that contain “blatantly illegal, inappropriate, or offensive materials”. As noted by the
Tenth Circuit in Ben Ezra,“Congress clearly enacted [the CDA] to forbid the imposition of publisher liability on
a service provider for the exercise of its editorial and self-regulatory functions. Ben Ezra, 206 F.3d 980; see
also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1031 (finding that a defendant was not an information content provider of an e-mail
even though he made minor alterations to the e-mail before it was posted on a website and made the choice
to publish the e-mail).
21
postings about WIN, or whether Defendants were responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development of the information contained in these postings. See Batzel v. Smith,
333 F.3d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.,339 F.3d
1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that the CDA would operate to bar the plaintiff’s claim
unless the defendant “created or developed the particular information at issue.”). In the
response, WIN contends that Defendants are responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation
or development of the allegedly defamatory postings because Defendants created the “con
artists”, “corrupt companies,” and “false TV advertisements” categories that were used on
some of the postings regarding WIN. See Response at 5-11. WIN further asserts that
Defendants have engaged in activities that preclude them from utilizing the immunity
afforded by the CDA. See id. Alternatively, WIN contends that the deposition of Woodard,
at a minimum, creates an issue of fact as to whether Magedson authors reports posted on
the ROR website. See id. at 12-13.24 The Court finds WIN’s arguments to be without merit.
Defendants presented evidence establishing that Xcentric created categories, such
as “con artists”, “corrupt companies” and “false TV advertisements”, from which a poster
must make a selection to categorize his or her report as part of the submission process. A
review of the evidence demonstrates that some of the reports about WIN contain the “con
artists”, “corrupt companies” and “false TV advertisements” categories. See MSJ Facts at
25 WIN cites to MCW, Inc. and Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roomates.com, LLC,
489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007), reh’g granted, 506 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2007), to support its argument that
Defendants should be treated as information content providers due to their provision of categories from which
a poster must make a selection in order to submit a report on the ROR website. See Response at 5-6.
However, the Court finds WIN’s reliance on these cases to be misplaced. Since entry of the decision upon
which WIN relies, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando
Valley case be reheard by the en banc court and that the opinion by the three judge panel shall not serve as
precedent except to the extent adopted by the en banc court. See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley
v. Roommates.com, LLC, 506 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition, the Court finds WIN’s reliance on the MCW,
Inc. decision to be unpersuasive. In MCW, Inc., in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the district court for the
Northern District of Texas rejected the defendants’ argument that they were entitled to immunity under the CDA.
See MCW, Inc., 2004 WL 833595, at * 9-10. There the court found that defendants were information content
providers of the defamatory postings at issue because they created report titles such as “Con Artists,” “Scam”,
and “Ripoff”. In doing so, however, the court noted that defendants failed to dispute the plaintiff’s “allegations
that they personally write and create numerous disparaging and defamatory messages about [plaintiff] in the
(continued...)
22
Exh. 2. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Defendants cannot be considered to be
information content providers of the reports about WIN that include these categories. WIN
has not presented any evidence demonstrating that Defendants participated in any way in
the selection of these categories to describe WIN. Indeed, WIN simply contends that
Defendants supplied a list of categories from which some users selected the phrases “con
artists”, “corrupt companies,” and “false TV advertisements” to categorize their reports. See
Response at 5-6. However, the Court finds that the mere fact that Xcentric provides
categories from which a poster must make a selection in order to submit a report on the
ROR website is not sufficient to treat Defendants as information content providers of the
reports about WIN that contain the “con artists”, “corrupt companies”, and “false TV
advertisements” categories. See Global Royalties, Ltd. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, No. 07-
956-PHX-FJM, 2007 WL 2949002, at * 3 (D. Ariz. Oct. 10, 2007); see also Carafano, 339
F.3d at 1124; Prickett v. InfoUSA, Inc., No. 4:05-CV-10, 2006 WL 887431, at *5 (E.D. Tex.
March 30, 2006). Rather, the authors of the postings made the decision to select these
categories to describe WIN. See Carafano, 339 F.3d at 1124.25 Moreover, Xcentric did not
25(...continued)
form of report titles and various headings.” See id. (emphasis added). Thus, it appears that, in MCW, Inc., the
plaintiff asserted, in its complaint, that the defendants independently created these titles and/or headings in the
defamatory posts at issue. See id. at *9. Moreover, it appears that the court also based its decision on plaintiff’s
allegation that the defendants created and posted disparaging editorial messages about plaintiff and
encouraged a consumer to include particular photos in his report about plaintiff on the ROR website. See id.
at *10.
26 Indeed some posters did use the“seminar programs”, “multi level marketing”, and “business
consulting” categories to categorize their reports about WIN. See MSJ Facts at Exh. 2.
23
solely provide posters with a selection of categories that were negative and/or defamatory
in nature. See Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 6 at 34-35, Exh. 16 at 5. As noted above,
the categories from which a poster must select include “seminar programs”, “multi level
marketing”, “financial services”, and “business consulting”, as well as hundreds of other
choices. See Deposition of Magedson, Exh. 4 at 21-27, Exh. 6 at 33-35, Exh. 16 at 5. Thus,
the posters who submitted the reports about WIN that were categorized within the “con
artists”, “corrupt companies,” and “false TV advertisements” categories could have chosen
another category to describe their reports about WIN but decided not to do so.26 In light of
the foregoing, the Court declines to deny the motion for summary judgment based on WIN’s
argument that Defendants are information content providers of the reports about WIN that
contain the “con artists”, “corrupt companies”, and “false TV advertisements” categories.
As noted above, WIN also argues that Defendants have engaged in activities that
deprive them of the benefit of the immunity afforded by the CDA. Specifically, WIN contends
that the following activities foreclose Defendants from being immune from liability in the
instant action: (1) on the ROR website, Defendants actively solicit visitors to post reports
about companies that rip-off consumers; (2) Defendants take an active role in shaping the
content of the postings on the ROR website by providing guidance to users regarding what
24
to think about in preparing their reports and what type of reports are selected as “Top Rip
Off Reports”; (3) Magedson sells a “Revenge Guide” on the ROR website; (4) Defendants
sell advertising and solicit donations on the ROR website; and (5) Defendants offer the CAP
Program to companies who wish to avoid having reports posted about them on the ROR
website. See Response at 7-12. In support of its contention, WIN relies extensively on the
Ninth Circuit’s decision in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. See id. However,
as previously noted, the Ninth Circuit has ordered that Fair Housing Council of San Fernando
Valley be reheard by the court en banc and that the opinion by the three judge panel shall
not serve as precedent except to the extent adopted by the en banc court. See Fair Housing
Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 506 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2007). In
addition, the portion of Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley upon which WIN relies
is dicta about a hypothetical website:
Imagine, for example www.harrassthem.com with the slogan ‘Don’t Get
Mad, Get Even.’ A visitor to this website would be encouraged to provide
private, sensitive and/or defamatory information about others-all to be posted
online for a fee. To post the information, the individual would be invited to
answer questions about the target’s name, addresses, phone numbers, social
security number, credit cards, bank accounts, mother’s maiden name, sexual
orientation, drinking habits and the like. In addition, the website would
encourage the poster to provide dirt on the victim, with instructions that the
information need not be confirmed, but could be based on rumor, conjecture
or fabrication.
It is not clear to us that the operator of this hypothetical website would
be protected by the logic of Carafano . . . By providing a forum designed to
publish sensitive and defamatory information, and suggesting the type of
information that might be disclosed to best harass and endanger the targets,
this website operator might well be held responsible for creating and
developing the tortious information.
27 WIN also relies on MCW, Inc. in arguing that the defendants are information content providers
because they actively solicit visitors to post reports about companies on the ROR website. See Response at
10. However, as noted above, the Court finds WIN’s reliance on MCW, Inc. to be misplaced. Indeed, this case
is in stark contrast to MCW, Inc. where the plaintiff alleged that the defendants encouraged a poster to take
particular photos related to the plaintiff and post them on the ROR website. See MCW, Inc., 2004 WL 833595,
at * 10.
25
See Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, 489 F.3d at 928. Contrary to WIN’s
suggestion, the dicta in the opinion does not even resolve the question of whether the
hypothetical website should be treated as an information content provider. Moreover, the
website described by the Ninth Circuit bears little resemblance to the ROR website. The
undisputed facts establish that, while Defendants do encourage users of the ROR website
to post reports about companies that rip-off consumers, they require a user, as part of the
submission process, to acknowledge that a report is valid. See Deposition of Magedson,
Exh. 6 at 36, Exh. 16 at 6. Defendants also advise users that reports should be honest,
factual, and impartial. See id., Exh. 15 at 7. Moreover, Defendants do not charge users a
fee to post a report. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds WIN’s reliance on Fair Housing
Council of San Fernando Valley to be without merit.
The Court recognizes WIN’s assertion that Defendants provide users with guidance
as to what makes a good report and what to include in a report. See Response at 10.
However, WIN simply has not provided the Court with any evidence to create a genuine
issue of fact as to whether Defendants played a role in creating or developing the postings
regarding WIN that are the subject of the instant action.27 The Court finds the absence of
such a conflict in the record to be fatal to WIN’s defamation claim.
Lastly, the Court considers WIN’s contention that the testimony given by Woodard
demonstrates that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether Magedson
26
prepared any of the reports at issue in the instant case. As noted above, Magedson and all
of the individuals who had administrative access to the ROR website provided declarations
attesting that they did not author or submit any of the postings regarding WIN and did not
add any content to these postings. See MSJ Facts, Exhs. 1 at ¶¶ 19, 21, Exh. 3 at ¶¶ 6-7,
Exh. 4 at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 5 at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 6 at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 7 at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 8 at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh.
9 at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 10 at ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. 11 at ¶¶ 18-19, Exh. 12 at ¶¶ 6-7, and Exh. 13 at ¶¶ 6-7.
In doing so, Defendants discharged their burden of demonstrating to the Court, by reference
to the record, that they did not author or add content to the postings about WIN on the ROR
website that are the subject of the instant action. Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64
F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, WIN, as the party opposing summary
judgment, must go beyond its pleadings and designate specific facts showing that a genuine
issue of fact remains for trial regarding whether Defendants authored or added content to
the postings about WIN on the ROR website. See id. While WIN presented evidence from
an unrelated action, in which Woodard testified that Magedson writes reports and headings
on reports posted on the ROR website, this testimony does not rebut Magedson’s affirmative
testimony that he did not author or add content to any of the postings about WIN.
As noted above, the issue in the instant case is whether Defendants are responsible,
in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the particular postings relating to WIN
that are the subject of this lawsuit. Even if Woodard’s testimony creates an issue of fact as
to the question of whether Magedson was an information content provider of some other
postings on the ROR website, this conflict would be insufficient to forestall summary
28 While in no way necessary to this decision given WIN’s failure to bring forth any evidence to rebut
Magedson’s statement that he did not author any of the reports that are the subject of this lawsuit, the Court
notes that Woodard has provided an affidavit verifying that he has no information which would create a genuine
issue of material fact. See Reply, Exh. A at ¶ 7.
27
judgment in this case on the basis of CDA immunity.28 See Carafano, 339 F.3d at 1125
(stating that, even assuming that the defendant could be considered an information content
provider, the CDA would still bar the plaintiff’s claims as long as the defendant did not create
or develop the information for which plaintiff seeks to hold the defendant liable); Ben Ezra,
206 F.3d at 986 (holding that plaintiff’s defamation claim was barred by the CDA where the
plaintiff failed to present any evidence to contradict the evidence submitted by the defendant
which demonstrated that a third party alone created the inaccurate stock information at
issue). In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the deposition of Woodard does not
create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to warrant the denial of the motion for
summary judgment.
In light of the foregoing, the Court determines that Defendants have demonstrated
that they are entitled to immunity under the CDA from the instant action, and Defendants’
motion for summary judgment is due to be granted.
B. Motion for Reconsideration
Defendants also ask the Court to reconsider its prior rulings regarding personal
jurisdiction. See Motion at 11-12. Defendants contend that, because the evidence in the
instant case demonstrates that they are not the authors of any defamatory statements about
WIN on the ROR website, they have not committed a tort in Florida merely by publishing
these statements. See id. at 12. WIN responds that the Court should deny the Motion for
28
Reconsideration because Defendants have failed to offer any basis for this Court to
reconsider its and the Eleventh Circuit’s prior decisions regarding personal jurisdiction. See
Response at 13-17. As the Court has already determined that Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is due to be granted in the instant action, the Court declines to address
this issue.
C. Request for Order to Show Cause
Finally, Defendants ask the Court to enter an Order requiring WIN and WIN’s counsel
to appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for knowingly making false statements of fact to the Court,
namely, that Defendants created the defamatory postings about WIN. See Motion at 13.
WIN responds that the Court should deny the motion for sanctions because it is procedurally
deficient under Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and no basis exists for the
imposition of sanctions. See id. at 17.
Notably, Rule 11(c) provides that, “[o]n its own, [a] court may order an attorney, law
firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated
Rule 11(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(3) (emphasis added). Thus, Defendants acted improperly
in asking the Court to enter an order to show cause as Rule 11 clearly provides that this
measure should be taken by a court on its own initiative. Moreover, to the extent that
Defendants’ request is a motion for sanctions, the Court notes that Defendants have failed
to comply with the requirements of Rule 11. First, it is improper for a party to file a motion
for sanctions together with any other motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2) (stating that “[a]
motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion . . .”). Second,
29
Defendants have failed to suggest that they provided WIN with the requisite notice before
submitting the request. See Response at 17; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2). Accordingly,
the Court finds that the motion for sanctions is due to be denied.
IV. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and, Alternatively, Motion for
Reconsideration Re: Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction and Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 115) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND
DENIED, IN PART.
a. To the extent that Defendants seek summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s
defamation claim, the Motion is GRANTED.
b. To the extent that Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its prior
rulings on personal jurisdiction, the Motion is DENIED.
c. To the extent that the Defendants seek Rule 11 sanctions against
Plaintiff, the Motion is DENIED.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants,
Xcentric Ventures, LLC, badbusinessbureau.org, and Ed Magedson, and against Plaintiff,
Whitney Information Network, Inc.
30
3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close the file and terminate any
remaining motions and deadlines as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 15th day of February, 2008.
lc3
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

Free Lessons On The Secret Today! Posted By Robert Paisola

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:03:00 +0000

Cavalry Portfolio Abuse on Active Military, Posted by Robert Paisola

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:03:00 +0000

I am a Soldier in the U.S. Army, my wife also serves and is currently in Iraq. I have a general power of attorney to deal with all her matters. Yesterday I was contated by Cavalry Portfolio claiming that my wife had a 10 year old outstanding debt on a leased vehicle that they were collecting on. I was also told that if I didn't pay that it would become a legal matter. I checked my wifes records and of course the vehicle was paid in full and returned. And I am pretty sure that even if she did owe that it is way out of Statue. He said that he would cut me a deal by 50% of the original debt if it was paid off by christmas. Wow sounds crooked. So I have no intentions of intertaining his claim, but what should I do now about this agency contacting me?

Roberts Reply:

First of all, I want to thank you for serving our country in Iraq. You should not have to deal with this kind of stuff as an active member of the military. I want you to send me all the details and we will assist you.

Regards,

Robert Paisola
CEO
Western Capital

Playa Del Sol Timeshare Scam, By Robert Paisola

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:16:00 +0000

Hello,

I just read your piece on Playa Del Sol, in Nuevo Vallarta, and we could not agree more. It was a terrible experience and we would neither return nor recommend that hotel to anyone, in fact the opposite.

This morning we had the equally terrible experience of joining in on one
of the timeshare talks, which we unsuspectingly signed up for without really understanding what we were in for. Our original salesman, Steve Henline, was actually great, but after we told him we would need to think about it and would not buy anything on the spot after an hour presentation, we were joined also by a closer. This man, Leif, who lives in Bucerias, and is an ex-state trooper, has absolutely, for lack of a better word, a terrible vibe, or rather demeanor. He insulted us twice, remarking the reason we would not buy is obviously we did not have the money, and after asking how long my husband and I had been together, saying he obviously had trouble committing. Shortly after our interrogation, we were led upstairs, where we were supposedly waiting for our gifts, which was a lie. Instead, we were accosted by another man, trying to sell us, "Trading Places", some competition to the former offer we were just presented downstairs. After reiterating that we would not be buying anything on the spot, we had another closer, Blake, who after scribbling a bunch eligible figures on a piece of paper, waved us off, and told us, "we do not get it, let them go." Upon that insult, we left.

I am not sure if this has any relevance, but we were told that the owner of the hotel is Ken Molinaro, of Napa, CA, who is also an investor of White Oak Vineyard and Winery. Perhaps he is an ethical business man and cares, perhaps he promotes this kind of activity. Anyhow, I called the winery, and was given his address, and we will be sending a complaint today as well. The following is his address we were given: 173 St. James Drive Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Feel free to contact us at any time.

Reagrds,
Lisa Kerth-Zittel

If you are in a similar situation, please email investigations@mycollector.com

UNIFUND Credit card debt dispute - a motion to vacate a judgment, Posted by Robert Paisola

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:17:00 +0000

Hello. My name is Jaik Kim. I have a judgment that was placed against me about 10 years ago in Washington County circuit court in Hillsboro, OR.
At that time, I did not know what the debt was and I did not know what to do.

I do faintly remember signing a certified letter of court summon but was afraid to show up.

Unifund record shows that the original debt is dated 04/17/1995 and the last payment was made 02/28/1997. The original debt is $2170 but with the interest, they are asking now $5,000. Last winter, I made a numerous attempt to contact the representing lawyer for Unifund in Oregon but he NEVER responses. I even went to his house, which is a home office, and caught him as he was walking out. He promised to contact Unifund for me to come up with a settlement amount but never heard back from UNIFUND.

Now, I have grown stronger and ready to fight them.

THis is what I have done

1) I wrote a letter to credit report bereau agencies to demand the validation of debt or remove the record from my credit report back in Jan 2007. They have promptly removed the record as of Feb. 2007

2) I wrote a certified letter to Unifund general counsel demanding a proof that the debt belongs to me; they never responded.

3) I filed for a motion to vacate the judgment in Washington county court and the hearing is set for Jan. 7th, Monday, 2008.

4) I have copies of all letters and papers, including the credit report showing the record has been removed.

5) My question: is there anything else that I need to do better prepare. I was not able to find contact info for the original credit card company to contact that the debt was never mine or that I have paid it off. I am not sure but I believe I did pay it off. Unifund somehow got a "distressed" debt and pursued after my ignorance.

6) I found a lot of info online about dishonest business practices of Unifund CCR Co. But I just want a lawyer's advice before going to the hearing.

Thank you for your time and help,

Sincerely,

Jaik Kim

Boudreau & Associates Scam

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:42:00 +0000

Gentlemen,

Boudreau and Associates from Salem, NH has been collecting credit card debt claiming to represent TRI-CAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC.

Lately they have gotten very aggressive and unpleasant to deal with which has made us very suspicious about their claims.

When researching their claims, we “googled” TRI-CAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS in utilizing several internet engines and all pointed to you.

We would very much appreciate if you would give us any feedback on the legitimacy and legality of this organization.

Thank you very much in advance,

Gustavo Warnholtz

480 515 0545

Lisa Paisola, US Citizen, on MS Explorer

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:41:00 +0000

This is Robert Paisola, The Director and CEO, The Western Capital Foundation.

My sister Lisa L. Paisola and Aunt, Kay Vanhorne, are both Us Citizens that are among the 100 passengers evacuated

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ROBERT PAISOLA
THE WESTERN CAPITAL FOUNDATION
801-671-7843

April 03, 2007, Harvard Adds Program to Train Nonprofit Leaders, Posted By Robert Paisola

noreply@blogger.com (RobertPaisola.com) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 04:51:00 +0000

April 03, 2007

Harvard Adds Program to Train Nonprofit Leaders

Harvard Business School plans to announce today that it will offer a new joint-degree program with Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government to prepare students for leadership posts in the nonprofit world, as well as in business and government, reports The Boston Globe.

The three-year program will start next fall. Its aim is to give students a broader view of the issues and challenges they will face in their working lives and try to lessen the mutual antagonism between business and government leaders, the newspaper said.

The new program will offer two joint degrees: a master’s in business administration/master’s in public policy, or a master’s in business administration/master’s in public administration-international development. To pursue either degree, students must be accepted by both schools.

The Robert Paisola MyCollector.com Foundation Blog

It's Rock and Roll Time for Westgate Resorts- CLASS ACTION BOYS, Robert Paisola Reports Live

Westgate Resorts Class Action Lawsuit Now In Play

Nevada court might finally deliver timeshare ripoff victims the justice they deserve.

Westgate Resorts Admits Timeshare Advertising Dishonest

A ‘five star luxury resort’ Westgate Resorts executive admits untrue. Our experience in Westgate South Beach and how Westgate’s deceptive practices should refund buyers their money.

Hundreds Ripped of by Westgate

From Four Star Hotel Heaven to “Five Star” Timeshare Stink

Tell Us Your Westgate Rip-off Story

Timeshare Rip-off Stories

Related Posts

Share This Post

18 Comments so far:

Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts

Part III in the ongoing story of attempting to fight back against Westgate Resorts rip-off time share scam. See our previous story on Vegas time share scams.

Related Posts

Share This Post

4 Comments so far:

Vegas Timeshare Scam from Westgate Resorts

How one-week single usage timeshare options are misleading and dishonest. The second of four installments beginning with our previous story on timeshare nightmares.

Reader Comments

Related Posts

Share This Post

2 Comments so far:

Stand By Me Playing For Change Song Around the World PAISOLA

"Music is the language of the Universe" Even for Prisoners

ABC News Confirms Tahiti Village Closed Down. Robert Paisola Reports Live

Protect Yourself from Abusive Bill Collectors With the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , Posted by Robert Paisola

Robert Paisola: From Sexual Abuse Survivor to CNN Advocate

Western Capital VIP Client Takes on Nationwide Credit, Listen Live! Robert Paisola Investigates

Ex-jail inmate sues over medical care, Robert Paisola Investigates

Asset Acceptance LLC Crosses the Line...Again, Robert Paisola Responds

God Bless You Robert Paisola. United Recovery and American Express

United Recovery Services Nails Client for American Express, Robert Paisola Investigates

WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK vs, XCENTRIC VENTURES Court Decision Posted for the Media, Posted by Robert Paisola

Free Lessons On The Secret Today! Posted By Robert Paisola

Cavalry Portfolio Abuse on Active Military, Posted by Robert Paisola

Playa Del Sol Timeshare Scam, By Robert Paisola

UNIFUND Credit card debt dispute - a motion to vacate a judgment, Posted by Robert Paisola

Boudreau & Associates Scam

Lisa Paisola, US Citizen, on MS Explorer

April 03, 2007, Harvard Adds Program to Train Nonprofit Leaders, Posted By Robert Paisola