| Author |
Topic |
Michael Tracey |
 Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:19:46
|
Alison G has been passing herself off as a lawyer/attorney in dealings with a number of people on this forum.
She recently ran a WSO on how to legally protect your business assets and separate them from your personal ones.
Catherine Hudson sent me a PM stating Alison had admitted to her that she (Alison) was not legally qualified. As a result I locked the WSO pending verification.
Alison went so far as to provide me with links to a recently qualified attorney claiming that she was this person.
A number of senior warriors, well known to me, stepped forward to affirm/validate Alison's status. I then unlocked the WSO, which was closed shortly thereafter.
Continued digging has however substantiated Catherine's claims re Alison's status to the extent that I received the following PM from Alison quote : Mr. Tracey,
I would like to first of all say sorry. All I wanted to do was help people understand that they could be self sufficient in their legal pursuits. I am not a licensed lawyer, people used to ask me if I was and I would say I wasn’t. I then was approached and talked about branding myself. I will accept any consequences that are gained from my irresponsible actions. I took advantage of XXXXXXXXXX kindness ( she has no idea what the deal was. Catherine Hudson is also a very good & honest marketer that just came to you with genuine concerns.
Thank you
Alison
I would recommend anyone who has purchased the WSO to consider claiming against this.
Also anyone who has obtained, & put into practice, legal advice from her should have this independently verified by a qualified person.
Michael |
|
Thomas Belknap |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:25:55
|
Thanks Michael. I think most people on these forums should learn from this and always be somewhat skeptical. When I asked more about her qualifications she was very vague and then others suddenly jumped to her side saying that I was attacking her. When dealing with legal issues, I hope more people will not just accept stated qualifications and would demand proof. It could really screw up their lives taking the wrong advice.
Thanks again for looking into this Michael and protecting the rest of us. I want to also thank Catherine for stepping up in that WSO.
Thomas |
 |
|
Andyhenry |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:40:34
|
**Edited to avoid confusion**
I think what Alison did was definitely wrong and that she did the Warriors she dealt with a disservice. I've also been informed that this was not the first occurance of such behaviour and she clearly tried to hide it when confronted, so I can't put it down to simple misguided behaviour from an innocent person.
However, I don't believe it's in any of our interested to drag out a massive thread to repeatedly go on about it. focusing on negativity is usually not a great way to lead a productive happy life.
So, I think it's bad and the people involved will have their own thoughts and actions to take, but anyone not directly affected should now just learn what's happened and put it behind them, rather than jumping on a negativity bandwagon just for the sake of persecuting her.
Hopefully this will be another reminder to Alison that she should reconsider her strategy for online business.
I also thank Catherine for being proactive enough and persistent enough for this matter to have reached its conclusion.
Andy
|
|
|
Thomas Belknap |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:48:42
|
Andy, I never stated she was a bad person. I do question her ethics though and believe she should have known better. She stated she was a licensed, practicing attorney. She actually could get into a TON of trouble for what she did.
Sorry, but there would be no way that I could do business with someone who did something like that. There are alot of people hurting and needing to pay bills. They don't necessarily lie, pretend to be something they are not, which could have hurt a lot of people on here. Think of the people who took her advice and what could have happened to their businesses and families that relied on that income.
I am quite shocked at some of your comments about this situation. This could have effected a lot of people in a very negative way. They were taking legal advice from someone with no qualifications. Would you do business with Alison again?
thomas |
|
|
Michael Tracey |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:51:57
|
Andy.
One thing we need to take cognizance of is that when initially confronted with the allegations Alison continued with her pretense. This to the extent that she provided fictitious information.
She also appears to have continued her misdirection with certain people who supported her.
Further, she only made the admission in the PM quoted above when it became totally impossible for her to continue with the subterfuge
Michael
|
|
|
Jake Riley |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:53:35
|
Andy,
There is a lot more to it than someone wanting to make money to pay the bills. This extends into doing things that may harm someone's business. Don't forget as well that she only admitted it after being completely caught, it was absolutely not done out of respect for anyone here, it was out of fear that this will go beyond the obvious.
In addition, the identity used is someone who is unaware of this happening, but is someone she knew and someone she did not have a good relationship with. If this was contained within the WF than perhaps no harm done, but since it wasn't, this other person could be harmed in a bigger way than those who paid $37 for her WSO. I'll leave it at that. |
|
|
stressfree |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:54:56
|
so who were these people?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of senior warriors, well known to me, stepped forward to affirm/validate Alison's status
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the fact is she lied to get business. Credibiltiy 0 and you have to question her integrity. No doubt she will now change her Warriors name and start afresh. (no relation to Kimberly G. was she?) |
|
|
Jake Riley |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 03:57:08
|
She pulled one over on a lot of people, and I don't blame anyone for believing it. She even had Michael fooled (temporarily), because she provided information that is real, but just not belonging to her.
Do not blame anyone regardless if seasoned or not, remember they are business people, not private investigators, good grief. |
|
|
asianlunatic |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:00:16
|
Its not right Andy, i nearly consulted her "expertise" on a latest project and that could have easily "hurt" me if i followed through. Wanted to have her interviewed.. i stopped when i saw the "Tracey lock" on the WSO..
and now this revelation..
Its not right..
Forgive and forget when someone makes a honest mistake..
This is not one that falls under the same category.. She did know what was she doing.. and she would have faked it if Catherine or Tracey didnt find it.. It could be even more worse..
p/s- i am not hitting you Andy, just merely stating my views on this. Dont take this personally.
|
|
|
Sudheendra |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:05:14
|
Impersonating as a Professional expert in a field as significant
as law -- when you are not -- can make a lot of people end up
in a lot of trouble.
This is a very popular forum and there are people listening to
what the 'experts' on here say. |
|
|
Justin Michie |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:10:36
|
I always thought something was funny about her and the way she went on that she was a lawyer and then $27 for 2 hours of legal advice - there are some cheap lawyers out there, but that's ludicrous.
Thanks Michael and others for digging into this as she could have (and possibly will) hurt a lot of people with inaccurate legal advice.
JM
|
|
|
Thomas Belknap |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:11:19
|
quote : Originally posted by Jake Riley
She pulled one over on a lot of people, and I don't blame anyone for believing it. She even had Michael fooled (temporarily), because she provided information that is real, but just not belonging to her.
Do not blame anyone regardless if seasoned or not, remember they are business people, not private investigators, good grief.
Looking at a profile on the internet, that she sent you, is not doing due diligence. I can say I am George Bush and point you to a link talking about George Bush but that doesn't make me him now does it.
Good grief is right.
Edited: Part of the problem was members here jumping to her side when others questioned her qualifications.
Thomas |
|
|
Mike Patrick |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:24:59
|
Andy,
That's the biggest crock of namby-pamby, feel-good BS I've read in a while. Pull your head out of your butt and join the real world. What she was doing was not only irresponsible but illegal as well. And what of the people who might have taken her "advice" and gotten into big legal trouble. What about the person whose credentials she was "borrowing."
I'm glad you "had my doubts anyway." Thanks for nothing.
**Edited after Andy's edit**
I hate it when people try to run from their words by *editing* what they actually wrote, especially when "**Edited to avoid confusion**" really means "edited because people called me on my crap." |
|
|
Jake Riley |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:26:32
|
Thomas,
It was up to the people who did business with her to do the checking, Michael doesn't screen every one of us on the forum, if he did, the population would probably be cut way, way down.
You have to think of things from another angle as well. Catherine Hudson went to Michael with concerns, but it would have simply been her word over "Alison's". Michael requested proof from "Alison" and was given proof (trust me, you would have been fooled too). He did what anyone else would have done, but the point is, he continued to look into it, and when he was sure of the situation, he did something about it.
Think about if it were you, and someone went to him saying you weren't who you claimed to be, if he quickly jumped the gun a lot of people would find themselves out of play whenever someone was upset at them and just wanted them gone.. some things need to be done with a bit of care and concern, and that's how he approached it, I can't imagine an administrator doing it any other way if they are any good at their "job".
I do agree with you on one point though, people do rush to the defense of others at times claiming to be able to validate someone when all they are going on is what they were told, or their friendships, etc... still, it's our fault for taking someone's word for it, if we checked it out for ourselves we wouldn't have anyone else to blame. |
|
|
Thomas Belknap |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:32:24
|
quote : Originally posted by Jake Riley
Thomas,
It was up to the people who did business with her to do the checking, Michael doesn't screen every one of us on the forum, if he did, the population would probably be cut way, way down.
You have to think of things from another angle as well. Catherine Hudson went to Michael with concerns, but it would have simply been her word over "Alison's". Michael requested proof from "Alison" and was given proof (trust me, you would have been fooled too). He did what anyone else would have done, but the point is, he continued to look into it, and when he was sure of the situation, he did something about it.
Think about if it were you, and someone went to him saying you weren't who you claimed to be, if he quickly jumped the gun a lot of people would find themselves out of play whenever someone was upset at them and just wanted them gone.. some things need to be done with a bit of care and concern, and that's how he approached it, I can't imagine an administrator doing it any other way if they are any good at their "job".
I do agree with you on one point though, people do rush to the defense of others at times claiming to be able to validate someone when all they are going on is what they were told, or their friendships, etc... still, it's our fault for taking someone's word for it, if we checked it out for ourselves we wouldn't have anyone else to blame.
I wasn't talking about Michael at all in my last post to you. I was talking about the people that just took what she said as gospel without any due diligence. Michael did a great job. Even when she showed him a "profile" he didn't just take her word. I think more people should have done what Michael did.
People don't need to be professional investigators to do better due diligence which was my point.
Michael and Catherine both protected a lot of people on here.
Thomas |
|
|
Jake Riley |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:35:27
|
Thomas,
I see, I misunderstood since he was shown the profile, not people on the forum. In any event, I do agree with what you are saying, absolutely. |
|
|
Andyhenry |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 04:51:39
|
quote : Originally posted by Mike Patrick
Andy,
That's the biggest crock of namby-pamby, feel-good BS I've read in a while. Pull your head out of your butt and join the real world. What she was doing was not only irresponsible but illegal as well. And what of the people who might have taken her "advice" and gotten into big legal trouble. What about the person whose credentials she was "borrowing."
I'm glad you "had my doubts anyway." Thanks for nothing.
Hi Mike,
I'm glad you are clear about your perspective on things.
I'm not into crying "oh won't somebody think of the children" - her actions haven't directly impacted my world at all, so I have no interest in getting all puffy about it and burning her at the stake.
Anyone who acted based on her advice should take appropriate action - anyone else, doesn't need to do anything more than avoid taking her advice.
Sorry to have offended you with my lack of negativity. I'm not sure I want to pull my head out if it's going to end up in your world.
Andy |
|
|
Thomas Belknap |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 05:19:37
|
quote : Originally posted by Jake Riley
Thomas,
I see, I misunderstood since he was shown the profile, not people on the forum. In any event, I do agree with what you are saying, absolutely.
It seemed like we were saying the same things. 
This goes way beyond Alison. I have seen things like this on the forum. For example, someone posting a method that could involve copyright problems. I and others have stated there may be copyright problems with the technique and then get attacked for being negative. I don't mind the attacks but I find it very funny seeing everyone line up like ducks to the water.
In any case, Andy had a point in that it hasn't effected me nor my business. We all need to mind our own business and part of that will be due diligence.
Thomas |
|
|
AaronC |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 05:22:23
|
I have to say... I am completely stunned. Practicing law without a license is a serious crime.
|
|
|
ExRat |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 05:26:19
|
Hi Tom,
I just saw the thread in question and admire your attempts to try and get Alison to explain the holes in her advice - regardless of how many people turned on you for it. I guess the moral of the story is 'don't waste time trying to warn lemmings about the dangers of playing follow-my-leader near high cliffs...'
Hi Andy,
I understood your post but can't help but see the irony in the new direction taken by the negativity bandwagon.
All of this reminds me of the post I saw the other day that said something along the lines of -
'Wow! That's two different people I've seen on this forum saying that they have made loadsa money from this 'new'(sic) CPA thing. I'm going to steer all of my energies in this direction from now on....' |
|
|
Thomas Belknap |
|
n/a |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 05:39:17
|
Personally I would like to thank Michael for
bringing this to our attention. I recently
sent her a PM, after clicking the link in her
sig, to verify she was an attorney because I
was going to be needing some answers about
specific tax laws and incorporation. She
responded positively, although not directly
stating she was in fact a lawyer, and I had
it on my schedule to seek her services. This
could have done severe harm to me including
Federal offenses with large fines and possible
jail time.
So, lesson learned, and from now I on I check
with the bar association first.
PS: I am curious why she has been allowed to
keep her status when others get n/a for simple
spam?
Cheers,
|
|
|
Iain Ainsworth |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 05:49:02
|
Can I ask why the person in question hasn't been banned?
Seems that you can be banned for posting negative comments but not passing yourself off as someone you're not, to the possible detriment of those who believed her and acted on her advise.
|
|
|
Martin.Avis |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 05:49:45
|
I'm confused.
I thought that the Warrior Forum rules on naming and shaming were absolutely crystal clear: this is not the place to do it.
Quite rightly, the moderators here take a dim view of anyone mentioning other people by name in any kind of negative manner and delete posts and usernames regularly as a result.
Yet here we have a senior moderator blatently breaking the very same ruler that he has hitherto enforced.
I don't care to comment one way or another on the topic, but I do think that a certain double standard may have crept in.
Michael - no doubt you feel that you posted in the member's best interests, but I could say the same if I posted a warning about another Warrior who I alleged was scamming us. Yet you would quite rightly zap me for doing so.
Also, the last time I checked, the P in PM meant private.
Martin |
|
|
Dhira |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:02:10
|
quote : I thought that the Warrior Forum rules on naming and shaming were absolutely crystal clear: this is not the place to do it.
Should be if they are defrauding and endangering other members.
Which at the very least should be bannable if it hasn't been done already... |
|
|
William R Brandenburg |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:03:26
|
Hi Michael,
I just wanted to thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Warrior Forum since there are implications of some members business being in harms way due to dealings with Alison. You brought this to the attention of the forum to protect members.
Live life to the fullest 
|
|
|
Michael Sturgis |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:04:47
|
Martin, I am glad that Michael posted this message, I for one purchased this WSO after Michael unlocked it. I took that as a sign that "Alison" had proven to him she was a lawyer . So now that he has more info, it was right for us to hear about it. I'm sure if the WSO had not been taken down he would have commented there.
Thank you Michael Tracy!
Michael |
|
|
asianlunatic |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:06:35
|
quote : Originally posted by Martin.Avis
I'm confused.
I thought that the Warrior Forum rules on naming and shaming were absolutely crystal clear: this is not the place to do it.
You rather have someone scamming you up, and potentially even going to go to jail for following her "legal advice" ??
|
|
|
Martin.Avis |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:08:30
|
Jake,
I'm absolutely nobody. But the ultimate power here is Allen and he has made his rule very clear.
Michael could easily have made a post that would have alerted concerned parties without overtly naming the guilty party. He could have put that post in the WSO forum where it would have reached the intended audience more efficiently.
Instead, he chose to open a thread that abused the forum's #1 rule.
And the added irony is that by responding in the way that I have, I guess I've breached the rule too. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd PM'd Michael rather than posted a reply.
But then that's the trouble with cast-iron rules - someone always thinks there are exceptions.
Martin
|
|
|
Jake Riley |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:12:16
|
Martin,
You type faster than I delete, I wrote that, and then thought about it a bit.. I understand where you are coming from, but I think in certain rare instances, rules need to be bent or broken, and to the degree in which people could have problems with the businesses that were registered if they aren't made aware that the person who set it up isn't an attorney (and didn't even go to law school), it's a really serious issue, and how else could he ensure that people were alerted to it? |
|
|
Jake Riley |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:14:47
|
| I get what you're saying, but some people don't go back and look in the WSO, whereas they are more likely to look here. I also think that if you were a victim, you wouldn't be so set on discussing rules but rather discuss consequence. |
|
|
William R Brandenburg |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:14:47
|
quote : Martin.Avis Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:08:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake,
I'm absolutely nobody. But the ultimate power here is Allen and he has made his rule very clear.
Michael could easily have made a post that would have alerted concerned parties without overtly naming the guilty party. He could have put that post in the WSO forum where it would have reached the intended audience more efficiently.
Instead, he chose to open a thread that abused the forum's #1 rule.
And the added irony is that by responding in the way that I have, I guess I've breached the rule too. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd PM'd Michael rather than posted a reply.
But then that's the trouble with cast-iron rules - someone always thinks there are exceptions.
Martin
So it is wrong for Michael to try and protect people who may have been defrauded but quite alright to flame Michael for doing so. Kind of a double edge sword you might say.
Live life to the fullest |
|
|
Martin.Avis |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:24:15
|
Please don't read my comments as defending a scammer. They are not.
Nor are they really intended as an attack on Michael - who I'm sure has acted in good faith.
My concern is that this forum is based on a fundamental rule. Allen's Rule Number 1.
Personally, I think that rule is way to strictly enforced. Many a time I have wanted to warn people here about unsavory practices or outright scams, but I have not done so out of respect for the forum and its primary rule.
I have seen many many posts deleted. Entire valuable threads wiped out to enforce Rule #1. Even when the naming and shaming has been of vital interest to Warriors. Sometimes far more seriously that in the current case.
The rule has, up to now been rigid.
However, by posting the way he has, Michael has now introduced an element of degree. There are now 'ifs' attached.
If you are an admin.
If you are senior enough.
If you can get away with with it.
If the situation is serious enough.
That's what I see as being wrong - not the question about Alison G, who I know nothing about.
I clearly see that people who have been taken by Alison G are now quite happy with the way Michael has dealt with this, but don't you think that people who might be conned by someone I could name, or you could warn us about are equally valid cases?
Rule #1 should have only one interpretation or else we will need a whole new sticky for Rule #1 and its possible exceptions.
Martin |
|
|
Paul Myers |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:25:55
|
| Martin, quote : I thought that the Warrior Forum rules on naming and shaming were absolutely crystal clear: this is not the place to do it. This is not a vague case of he said/she said. Nor is it a problem with the person that's being addressed. It's a caution against people engaging in behavior that's potentially very dangerous to their businesses and possibly their freedom.
Frankly, Michael has taken an extremely charitable stance on it. I haven't been privy to the communications between him and other members on this, but I can tell you there's more going on here than someone's simple desire to help having gone wrong.
I consider the behavior in question to be a general attack on the entire group. It deserves to be addressed this way. And there's no question about the correctness of the accusations.
This is clearly not the sort of situation that rule was intended to cover. And before you get list lawyer on me, remember: If there's a question about the letter of the law, even real world courts (in the US, anyway) consider the clear intent of the legislature in making judgements.
Why wasn't she N/A'd? I can't say, but it might well remove evidence that is seen as being important to preserve.
Paul
|
|
|
milan |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:36:44
|
| Michael Tracey - thank you very much for spending your time on this. It does make this forum a better place indeed. THANK YOU. |
|
|
Martin.Avis |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:37:32
|
quote : This is not a vague case of he said/she said.
Paul, I get it. So if I can provide evidence that Harvey steals his jokes from children, the rule against calling him on it doesn't apply. 
You won't get any list lawyerness from me. I'm happy to defer to those who know their facts better than I do. Wrangling over the minutiae of half-understood details is far more fun over a cold Bud than over a hot keyboard anyway.
Martin
|
|
|
Paul Myers |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:50:00
|
quote : Personally, I think that rule is way to strictly enforced. Many a time I have wanted to warn people here about unsavory practices or outright scams, but I have not done so out of respect for the forum and its primary rule.
I have seen many many posts deleted. Entire valuable threads wiped out to enforce Rule #1. Even when the naming and shaming has been of vital interest to Warriors. Sometimes far more seriously that in the current case. "Naming and shaming" is exactly what the rule was intended to prevent. A long line of "he said/she said" threads, where most of what was claimed was unprovable and often highly subjective.
Or the threads where people attempted to use this forum as a means of blackmailing someone. Or as an extension of a merchant's customer service system. Or just to damage others they had disagreements with.
It was not intended for a circumstance in which someone actively came into the forum and preyed on the group as a whole, in ways that could be extremely damaging.
Moderators are allowed to exercise judgement. They MUST be allowed at least some latitude. That's part of the job. The problem with that arises in exactly this sort of circumstance. Someone comes along who wants to play list lawyer and turn everything into rigid rules.
If a moderator uses poor judgement, it is handled in private, as is appropriate.
Question, Martin: Someone was trying to hack WSO thank you pages. Literally, to steal products from members. Allen checked the IP involved against posts made and publicly gave the username of the thief. No question about what account what used, and this was a general attack against the Warriors specifically.
Is that appropriate?
If you remove human judgement from the equation, things break down in unforeseeable ways. If you allow everyone's judgement to have weight, they break down in utterly predictable ways. So, you create a narrow space and watch how people use it.
Trying to dictate more rules, less rules, or interpretations of the rules is not the right way to address this.
Paul
|
|
|
Paul Myers |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 06:57:40
|
quote : So if I can provide evidence that Harvey steals his jokes from children, the rule against calling him on it doesn't apply.
It's not always about proof. And I'm not the one to ask. I used a different standard than the current moderators. Mine is irrelevant. Theirs, and Allen's, are what matter.
quote : Wrangling over the minutiae of half-understood details is far more fun over a cold Bud than over a hot keyboard anyway. Make mine Coors Light.
Paul
|
|
|
Ut |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 07:01:38
|
quote : Originally posted by Martin.AvisPaul, I get it. So if I can provide evidence that Harvey steals his jokes from children, the rule against calling him on it doesn't apply.
Hahahahaha!!
|
|
|
scotteno1 |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 07:04:21
|
well she did wrong because. The trend reveals that she even provided links to validate her claim, it is really diceing since she's appologise and admitted. However her admittance is a result of the fact that she could not hide it anymore.
for some senior warroiors to validate her claims is a serious one, meaning they were swept off.i think i beleieve that it is carefully laid plan.
scott |
|
|
| Topic |
|
|
|
Alison G... Anyone dealing with her please read
