PUBLIC SERVICE ANNC- SDILeGrand is stealing money! - Posted by John Chiappetta

Real Estate Investing Real Estate Law
21

Re: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNC- SDILeGrand is stealing money! - Posted by John Chiappetta

Posted by John Chiappetta on April 03, 2000 at 13:56:45:

What info? The mailing I received said…"How to make $2,000 in the next 30 days, How to buy your dream home with no money and no credit…That’s the infomation I paid for (albeit $50) that’s what was promised and that’s not what I got. What I got was a lot of headaches and hassle for that measley $50. - I don’t do business with people who are dishonest or misleading in any way shape or form. And I by the way do quite well with that philosophy.

22

Re: A Scam for $49??? I Don’t Think So. - Posted by John Chiappetta

Posted by John Chiappetta on April 03, 2000 at 13:58:57:

Before the LeGrand follwers come out to bash me, here’s my final word on this situation:

I have tried in very good faith to remedy this situation (I’ve spoken personally to people at Mr. LeGrand’s office at least 4-5 times) each time they assured me that this “terrible mishap would be remedied” and nothing has occured. Do you advocate doing business on a large scale with someone who can’t deal with a tiny $50 problem?

I say no way. You can say all the glowing things you want but this experience from a customer and business stand point does not give me any confidence to deal further with Mr.LeGrand or anyone that has to do with him or his products. That is what makes for competition and good business - I choose to take my business elsewhere. A philosophy that’s done me well over the years.

23

Re: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNC- SDILeGrand is stealing money! - Posted by John Chiappetta

Posted by John Chiappetta on April 03, 2000 at 14:02:48:

I called no one a name. I just stated the facts and my opinion on the matter at hand.

If you like his stuff more power to you - but I for one am not going down that road again. I’ll find a better way.

24

Re: For the record - Posted by TC

Posted by TC on April 03, 2000 at 21:42:48:

I myself have had a follow up phone call from Jeanne after I had ordered from cre just to make sure that I had received what I ordered and that I was happy with it.
I have say that this was very proffessional!

THANKS JEANNE!

25

Re: For the record - Posted by Laure

Posted by Laure on April 03, 2000 at 20:49:45:

Yea, And Jeannie is good too ! She returns all her phone calls, and is even pleasant on the phone! You can trust CRE and Jeannie.

Laure :slight_smile:

26

Re: Defamation Can Be VERY Expensive, John - Posted by Bob Richards

Posted by Bob Richards on April 03, 2000 at 18:00:19:

Doug,

The issue is dead. Read above. John’s going to get his cashola back from SDI. That’s a good thing. If John were a smart guy he’d take that $50 and put it towards the 3 module set offered here. He wouldn’t regret it.

I don’t feel like giving another lesson in Free Speech 101. The guy crossed the line, but he apologized. Case closed.

Bob

27

Re: Defamation Can Be VERY Expensive, John - Posted by Michael (md)

Posted by Michael (md) on April 04, 2000 at 24:32:10:

ABSOLUTELY!

Hang in there, John. Idle yet stupid “Legal” threats such as were proferred by Richards are not worth the virtual paper they were written on.

These are the same types who immediately start screaming “Wait till I get my lawyer” the first time they get into an argument or have a personal problem in their workspace (assuming they do work).

Pay no attention to the man (with the sophomoric threats) behind the curtain!

28

Threats? What Threats? - Posted by Bob Richards

Posted by Bob Richards on April 03, 2000 at 16:27:19:

John,

Calm down, son! I NEVER threatened you in my post! I am not a spokesman for Ron, and all I was doing was giving you a little friendly advice.

Just remember that free speech has its limits. If you think its unlimited, you’re wrong, my friend. When it negatively affects the business of another and its not true, you got yourself a potential problem. Take it for what its worth.

I wish you well in getting your snafu corrected.

Bob

29

Not All Speech is Protected - Posted by Bob Richards

Posted by Bob Richards on April 03, 2000 at 16:20:18:

Don,

Let me give you a little lesson in Free Speech 101. Lying is not protected speech, bub. Neither is obscenity, nor is defamation. As you correctly pointed out, truth is a legal defense to defamation, but the burden is on the defendant (John) to prove that his across the board smear of Ron is correct.

There is such a thing out there called “Interference With Contractual Relationship”. What this lovely little legal cause of action does is allow someone (like LeGrand in this case) to intiate litigation against someone or some entity when they can prove that false statements made about them have hurt their business.

Calling someone dishonest and a fraud in general is not accurate in this case with John. Unfortunately, he’s having his problems getting this snafu resolved, but his comments should be limited to the particular matter at hand.

Bob Richards

30

Re: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNC- SDILeGrand is stealing money! - Posted by don

Posted by don on April 03, 2000 at 16:10:23:

GIVE ME A BREAK. At this time 3.5 years ago I was working as an electrician. Within 60 days after meeting Mr. LeGrand I made enough money to quit my job. I am still unemployed and have more $ in the bank than most people my age. Quit your crying over a measly $50 and get off the couch and go make some money.

31

Re: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNC- SDILeGrand is stealing money! - Posted by phil fernandez

Posted by phil fernandez on April 03, 2000 at 14:05:32:

Hi John,

If I could possibly help at this point. It sounds like you are upset that you spent $50 for some real estate info. You sense that you got ripped off. You’re concern is real, but it is misplaced.

I am an experienced investor. I have heard Ron LeGrand speak at the last 2 CREOnline conventions. I have not purchased his material, but have spoken with many who have. I only hear good things about this material.

Remember, you aren’t going to get rich from a $50 thing. Can’t happen and never will. You only get what you pay for. The people that have bought LeGrand’s $499 courses are pleased with the info.

But the bottom line is, his courses work if you do. It is still ultimately up to you to apply the info to make money in real estate.

32

Re: A Scam for $49??? I Don’t Think So. - Posted by Guffaw

Posted by Guffaw on April 03, 2000 at 14:27:57:

A philosophy that’s done me well over the years.

Doesn’t it feel good to be right???

33

Re: PUBLIC SERVICE ANNC- SDILeGrand is stealing money! - Posted by Bill P

Posted by Bill P on April 03, 2000 at 16:09:14:

HUGE SCAM - is not a name??

BTW, there is a saying that Ron likes to use. That is “Ignorance is More Expensive Than Education”. In other words, if you go off into your investing career half c*cked and mess up, it can cost you alot more than the $1000 comprehensive education he offers in his 3 modules. Also, he likes to say “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later” and I bet you will be in the later category. In other words once you try it without the proper education, and get frustrated, you could quite possibly return to the LeGrand door in a year or so and plop down that $1000 eventually. Like I did. And then kick yourself for the time you wasted being a know-it-all, like I did.

I guess that meeting and talking with those LeGrand grads that make over 250k a year in RE (and many, some more than $500k a year) has had an effect on me.

Bill

34

Re: For the record - Posted by Anthony Henry

Posted by Anthony Henry on April 03, 2000 at 21:31:30:

Ahh I have to chime in here, Jeanne is quite profesional and nice on the phone :). Thanks for contacting me as qickly as you did Jeanne about my Kaiser info.

Anthony Henry

35

Actually, you crossed the line… - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on April 03, 2000 at 19:56:12:

Bob,

Whether or not John crossed the line legally is something I am not capable of answering professionally. You certainly seem to think you have the answer, though. Legally, you may or may not be right.

Where you are wrong, however, is with your threats to John. Your original post to him was very threatening; I, for one, got the impression that you may be a SDI attorney or something. Maybe you are; maybe you aren’t. Nonetheless, you came off real strong. And threatening.

Threatening, in my opinion, has no place on this newsgroup. What makes this newsgroup so great is people can voice their opinions and information, and this community polices itself to provide the best, most helpful, and most accurate information. This is free speech at its best.

As a consequence, we get idiots from time to time who post silly, nasty, or distracting posts. We also get folks whose tone is often stronger than they intend. We get folks who vent. John was venting, and I think he did an admirable job holding back. Imho, John is still a little too hot; he needs to distance himself from his frustration and anger. When he does, he may be able to listen to the advice that says Legrand’s stuff is acually good and worth buying.

My beef with you is your tone. I don’t like the attorney who swoops in with veiled threats. Don’t lecture me, either, on first amendment rights. I’m not interested. I’m interested in the quality of this cyber community continuing. And veiled threats and fear will surely destroy it.

HR

36

Another bottom line… - Posted by Mark (SDCA)

Posted by Mark (SDCA) on April 03, 2000 at 14:39:21:

I agree whole heartedly with you not wasting time on trivial matters (majoring in minor things as Tony Robbins would say.)…
Here is John’s bottom line:
The product did not meet his expectation based on the marketing material.
He was repeatedly promised a refund which he never got.

Personally, I think he has a point. I am not sure why he could not just demand that his credit card company credit his account for 50 and let THEM fight it out with LeGrand.

37

Re: Actually, you crossed the line… - Posted by Bob Richards

Posted by Bob Richards on April 03, 2000 at 20:50:31:

HR,

How would you know whether I crossed a line? You admit you don’t know the answer to the legal ramifications of this guy’s lashings, so how can you form an accurate opinion on whats right or whats wrong in the matter? Is it based on your “gut”? Then if it is, your argument is at best, pure conjecture. Its tough to listen to folks talk about something they know little about.

I did not try to THREATEN the guy. I think his post was WAY OFF mark on LeGrand as a person and the company and he made some pretty broadbased statements about both which are UNTRUE. He can b*tch all he wants to about the company’s return policy and he’s 100% right in doing so, but the rest of his ventings crossed the line. There was no need to go there. I merely pointed it out to him. If he (as well as you it seems) got paranoid over it, then you both overreacted. You both need to read the initial post again. There was no threat made, merely some advice given on the limits of his justified frustration.

But I admit Mr. HR (do you have a name or just initials)I have a problem with your response to my post. This post had NOTHING to do with you in the least, so as such I find it hard to understand how you can have a beef with me. Why would you personalize it? What did I do to you? I don’t even know you. My post didn’t speak of “HR” at all.

And why in the world would I lecture you on ANYTHING, let alone First Amendment rights? Who are you for me to waste my time on that? YOU or your deal were not the subject of this thread, so why bother?

Put your ego back in your pocket, HR, and please don’t act like you’re the annointed one here to defend the freedoms of the masses on this BBS. They’re all grown-ups who can speak for themselves.

I think this thread has run its course. The guy got his money back and plenty of folks have stepped up and said how good Ron’s materials are. I thought it was a shame Ron was being painted as a McCorkle or worse. I hope most of the folks took my post as advice and not as a threat. If it was the latter, I apologize. This is a terrific forum for RE investing, and my attempt was solely to bring to the surface some thoughts worth considering.

38

Re: Another problem… - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on April 03, 2000 at 18:14:54:

I have met Ron in person and have one of his courses and feel everything about him and the course is superb. I am sure it is some type of unintentional error.

However, if I spent $50 on something and then got it billed onto my credit card a 2nd and 3rd time, I would be extremely ticked off myself. I would be afraid of a 4th charge.

39

Your post says it all. (nt) - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on April 03, 2000 at 22:27:26:

nt