Honestly, there were many things in the letter to mock as well as the mocking Vanessa. But I largely bit my tongue on many of the things that crossed my mind.
Yes, that letter has MANY items to mock. This has got to be one of the dumbest things released in the Getty Images name.
Vanessa Bouchara got thrown under the Getty bus by her employer for sure.
When I saw the letter, I felt that I did not want to waste time going down a rabbit hole. I wanted to get to the heart of the matter. As far as I was concerned, all the French law citations were both gibberish and noise.
My time was far too valuable to spend on the ridiculous claims made by the French lawyer.
I spent more time getting the word out than I did on my response to Vanessa and I am quite fine with that.
I wasn't sure if this warranted Techdirt's time because it came and went so quickly. But I am happy that Tim Cushing and Techdirt thought it was worthwile to mention. Thank you to both Techdirt and to Tim Cushing!
I think people instinctively want negative content taken down but it is not always possible. More people should directly engage and address the negative comment head on with a a strong explanation and rebuttal. Intelligent people will generally understand there will be some negative comments and how one handles it speaks to ones confidence and ability to cope with criticisms or lies.
The days of having a pristine, spotless online reputation is over for anyone who has been around long enough. Someone is going to hate or dislike you and say some negative or disparaging things. I am NOT anti-takedown or anti-removals but those who DEPEND on that to survive will ultimately not do well in the current legal environment.
I also believe that trying to bury negative content has limited success. It is difficult to hide everything. Sometimes, it is just better to directly deal and respond to it. Other times, you just have to let it go and ignore it.
Let me say that I think you are an honorable man and I am happy to have "met" you here. I say this because many people would not have said what you said. You went back to relook at the matter and that is a testament to your character. In my eyes, that speaks very highly of you.
I knew I provided a lead to SEL because it was my FIRST preference out of your competitors. I thought the story was VERY important to get out, in particular, for your audience to know about. I rarely submit leads to anyone.
I am glad to hear you are/would have been interested in the story. SEL appears to have numerous contacts in the pulldown menu and I really wasn't sure WHO was the best person to direct it towards. And I didn't remember whom I chose either. But I am glad you found my submission.
Anyhow, I hope things are cleared up now. Thank you, again.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate it very much.
First, let me say that I am an occasional reader of SEL. As an outsider, I respect the publication but do find it skewed sometimes. But let me also add, that nearly all blogs are skewed or biased towards a certain direction including my own.
Second, it appears I did make a mistake regarding Richart Ruddie and the SEL business event connection. I googled again and it appears to be a SEJ (Search Engine Journal) event, NOT SEL (Search Engine Land) event. I apologize for that misquote. It was an unintentional careless error on my part.
Third, I did contact SEL regarding the Baltimore Patel story very early on. But you may be correct that at that time, I was initially referencing Yelp. I have gone back to the SEL Contacts list to see if I recognize who I might have contacted. I distinctly remember the pulldown menu. But I do not remember exactly which option(s) I used.
Fourth, I did contact a few SE blogs/journals over the Baltimore Patel case / Yelp matter early on and NONE including SEL seemed interested, which is their right. I did my part to provide what I thought was a relevant lead. The Techdirt article linked to the SEL article and that is when I commented I notified SEL early on. If Techdirt had linked to SEJ (not SEL), for example, I would have likely written a similar title.
Fifth, I did not accuse anyone of "quashing" a story. My title said SEL "ignored" the story which is NOT the same as quashing a story. Many blogs "ignore" story leads because they don't deem it important or appropriate. I get that and don't take it personally. Perhaps, my lead was insufficient or inadequate and that is fine. I didn't feel the obligation to paint a complete picture or write a summary story for anyone. I simply provided a lead. My remark of "out-of-touch OR intentionally avoiding the notifications" is not me accusing anyone of "quashing" a story.
My reference to "the story" is the reference to the Baltimore Patel case (the early issue which evolved into Richart Ruddie/Profile Defenders and numerous other threads of discussion) because, in my view, it clearly pointed to an illicit court order for the purpose of taking down my review / scrubbing search engine entries. I probably didn't get into all this detail to connect all the dots but I did provide a lead which would have provided more details if it was followed-up upon.
Let me say I understand your strong tone to my public comment. It was not meant as any personal attack on anyone. It was a broad statement of general distrust I have of some aspects of the industry you report on and part of. As I said earlier, if SEJ (not SEL) was linked, it would be THEM I would be referring to. Does that make sense?
Again, let me apologize for that one careless error. I also hope that you will take into consideration my other points which I stand by. Thank you for the dialog.
Thanks for your thoughtful response and feedback. I appreciate it very much and read it in the good spirit your response was intended. Allow me to return the favor and elaborate on my comments. I think I did read that you might be a guest writer (not a staff writer) for SEL and hence, you would probably not receive any story leads from SEL. And even if you did, I understand you are not obligated to act upon them. I have no issues with that.
I also accept you at your word that you did not read any of the Levy/Volokh articles. My point was that the "fake defendant to remove Yelp review" story has been around since the end of August 2016. For many of us following this, it is now an older story that just gets periodic updates as Techdirt has done but perhaps it is "new" to SEL.
For the record, I do not feel personally snubbed by anyone. I actually have a great deal of respect for SEL as I am a frequent reader. I am a relatively unknown individual and I have no illusions about that. I simply think that it seems strange that no search engine blog (that I know of) has picked up on the Levy/Volokh stories given the clear emphasis that an elaborate and deceptive lawsuit scheme to clean up Yelp reviews and to ultimately scrub Google entries. The simple explanation might simply be that the SE corner of the Internet did not see what was being written in the 1A corner of the Internet.
But honestly, I thought the SE industry would have great interest and caught wind of these stories earlier. Certainly, Techdirt has been covering related stories (PissedConsumer, for example) even prior to the Baltimore Patel case. I acknowledge that the Internet is a HUGE place and it is impossible to know everything that is being written in a different corner of the Internet. Having said that, there simply are a good number of non-SE blogs/websites who did pick up the story the last few months such as shown here: http://defiantly.net/media-press-coverage-of-profile-defenders-shady-lawsuit-removal-scheme/
That is not opinion, that is a fact. And if the SE industry blogs/sites have picked up on the story, then I haven't found any recently.
Regarding how or what you write, I occasionally write my own pieces and I understand that every writer gets to choose what sources or information they want to incorporate. You are certainly not obligated to write anything to please or accommodate anyone except perhaps the publication (SEL) that publishes your piece. I accept that. I chimed in to comment because Tim Cushing made reference to your article and noted the interesting/coincidental timing of the Baltimore Patel case (which later led to other case and the discovery of the Richart Ruddie/Profile Defender connection) to the sudden slowdown of Google responsiveness to removing entries from their search entries. That caught my eye.
Regarding naming or quoting your experts, I understand the idea of protecting your sources and I have no problems with that if that is what you think you are doing. I accept you at your word and your explanation (not that you ever owed me one to begin with) now that you offered it. However, whether you realize it or not, there is an undercurrent of distrust in some aspects of the "search engine removal/takedown industry". In my view, there are some "not so elegant" practices in the SE industry and some seem to make a point of excessively staying under the radar. But to be fair, the same can be said for most industries. You can thank many of the "reputation experts" for coloring my views.
And just to let you know, I am not anti-takedown or anti-removal but I think people need to be honest that there is a good bit of questionable takedowns occurring which I speculate is why Google is not just accepting all court orders at face value.
Thank you again for your excellent response. I look forward to reading more of your work.
Search Engine Land is either out-of-touch or intentionally avoiding the notifications I sent them regarding the story Paul Alan Levy had initially written regarding the bogus Patel vs. Chan Baltimore lawsuit. I initially thought that the story was right up the alley for Search Engine Land and I submitted the URL to Paul Alan Levy's initial articles in late August. But it seems to me they ignored it and thought the story by Paul Alan Levy was not significant.
Not one person at Search Engine Land responded or picked up the story. And as Tim Cushing correctly has pointed out, the entire lack of mention of the numerous articles by Paul Alan Levy, Eugene Volokh, and Techdirt over the fake defendant cases with Profile Defenders seems peculiar. Is it because Richart Ruddie was once involved with the Search Engine Land business events? Or was this something they really did not want to get out to their readership? I find Search Engine Land and some of their reporting to be suspect and self-serving.
"They" (Chris Silver Smith and/or Search Engine Land) seem connected to this group of unnamed lawyers who found ways to take advantage of the Google takedown policy. I find it peculiar that they didn't name or quote any lawyer on this matter. It would seem that some lawyer would be willing to make a public comment or statement on this but they didn't.
To be fair, I have no reason to believe that the writer, Chris Silver Smith, was privy to email notifications sent to the Search Engine Land website. Nevertheless, it seems to me this writer is not as informed as he should be given the fact that so many other bloggers have picked up or made mention of the Paul Alan Levy/Eugene Volokh stories.
You are certainly paying to the details. Thank you so much for scrutinizing this so closely. It is helpful.
Regarding Mr. Oberman, he might be Patel's GA lawyer but he has not attacked me, nor said anything negative about me. I have not even heard from him. It appears Mr. Oberman was brought into this case very quickly by Patel and Oberman did not have ample time to do more questioning or investigating on behalf of his client's story.
At this point, I am not overly-critical of Mr. Oberman's initial response. It appears he is trying to be responsible and cautious in what he says. I think Mr. Oberman is in a tough spot right now representing his client. Maybe I am being too gracious and gullible here regarding Mr. Oberman but he hasn't done or said anything that I have seen that is inappropriate.
I perfectly understand why Mr. Oberman is withholding the name of the reputation management firm. I think releasing that name would probably also hurt his client also. Having said that, I do think independent investigators by law enforcement needs to get involved to uncover the truth. If Patel didn't do any of this, then he should welcome the investigation to clear his name.
As I said, I am perfectly fine if it is found Patel is an unintended victim but who else would have a reason and motive to quietly file an illegitimate lawsuit in his name in a Baltimore court to remove consumer reviews I wrote about Patel here in Georgia?
FWIW, I have no reason to believe that Patel's SEO firm had anything to do with this. That relationship appears to have been in place for years prior to the current incident.
And even if Patel's SEO firm provides "reputation management" services, it is hard to believe that most firms would ever engage in such tactics. As of right now, I tend to believe Patel went outside his SEO firm to find another firm willing to use criminal and fraudulent court filings to remove legitimate user reviews.
But thank you for providing these nuggets of info, I didn't notice them before.
Yes, thank you for sharing these additional articles with people who might want to follow the story that will continue to unfold in the weeks and months to come as discoveries or developments occur. I believe Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen will be at the forefront of any new major announcements. To a lesser degree, I will soon be releasing updates on my blog, Defiantly.net
I am mindful that this story will likely fall of the grid shortly. Due to time constraints, I have restricted my commentary to reader comments within each of the aforementioned articles. As most blog writers know, writing articles can be time-consuming and regards a good deal of effort and mental energy (for me me at least).
However, when I have more time, I will make some blog posts that cover things not in the aforementioned stories. For example, I have a lot more to say about the business and declining ethics of dentistry and some of the ugly practices I have uncovered over the years that many people don't know.
That is not to say that every dentist is unethical or engages in such practices but I can tell you things have changed for the worse in the 25 years I have been a customer/client of dentistry. I have been forced to change dentist many times over the years for various "unhappy" issues.
That is but one example of many "side stories" that I want to get out as a result of this whole fiasco. Another has to do with my feelings of the practices of SEO/reputation management firms.
Good question. Yes, I am primarily based in Columbus, GA but I have a girlfriend who lives within a 5-mile radius of the dentist's office in Suwanee, GA and I stay with her frequently for days at a time. Even before I met her, for many years, I came into Atlanta for many social events and business functions. As such, I have several personal and business friends & acquaintances throughout the ATL area. I also fly out of Atlanta when I travel.
Spending lots of time in the area is how I came to know about Patel's promotional program. My girlfriend and gets many dentist promo flyers and gives them to me. And since I only need to see the dentist twice a year for cleanings and I spend quite a bit of time with her, it was easy to find a dentist near her home.
Not that it is relevant to the immediate topic but it is a very competitive dentist market in the North ATL area where my girlfriend resides. It is actually easier for me to find a dentist who wants your business in that particular area than Columbus. The competition between dentists is FIERCE in North Atlanta.
As a whole, I distrust many in the dentistry business. It can be a sleazy industry. I have seen, heard, and been "upsold" a lot over the years which is why I have so much to say on the matter.
I think that will eventually happen that I file a police report but I want to give time and see what other information surfaces in the next couple of weeks.
I can see where you are coming from that this situation might be "entertaining" to see all this unfold. I find it interesting but it is most definitely NOT entertaining from where I sit.
I understand you didn't mean it in a derogatory or personal way and I don't take offense. I can tell you since this began, I have had all kinds of feelings and emotions over this. Anger and frustration being the top emotions on my list.
As far as I can tell, Judge Philip S. Jackson is most certainly the real deal. I really wish I could be a fly on the wall and see how he reacts if and when he finds out about this situation that he was manipulated and tricked into signing the bogus consent order. I imagine he will be very unhappy.
As far as I am concerned, it was certainly a deliberate act by SOMEONE in their attempt to REMOVE my reviews of the dentist. The "defamation" word was included into the illicitly-obtained consent order to make it easier to persuade the consumer review websites to take down my reviews. But fortunately, Yelp didn't take it at face value and contacted me, which of course, was a shock to me which led to this story coming out.
I agree with many of your sentiments on many of the broader items your brought up.
But in this particular case, it is still early in the investigative process. I haven't given up yet. There are a few courses of actions I can pursue and channels for me to explore.
To be fair, I am now inclined to believe the dentist when his lawyer says he did not actually devise the deceptive scheme and that he didn't make the filing himself. I am somewhat happier to hear that.
However, what seems plausible to me is that the dentist hired some unethical SEO/reputation management firm to try to wipe off my Yelp review which contained a reference to his 2008 disciplinary consent order by the GA Dentistry Board he did not want other people to see. It was fairly easy to uncover but my guess is that he is a bit sensitive to it.
Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that even an unethical firm would arbitrarily conduct such fraudulent court actions without compensation from some party related to the dentist.
And yes, I do believe there was some crime(s) committed but it is too early to know who did what at this point. And I do believe resources will be brought to bear to conduct some investigation. Even the dentist's lawyer has said as much.
I agree that someone has committed a fraud on the Baltimore Circuit Court and Judge Philip Senan. My guess is law enforcement will have to be involved and I have been independently looking into this option.
And yes, I also agree that order must be vacated. We have a little time to get that taken cared of once and for all. I would expect that the order would be easily vacated and it would be uncontested upon filing of said motion to vacate.
More importantly, I hope the judge will learn of the details of this little conspiracy that was perpetrated against him.
As far as we know, there is no evidence that any lawyer was part of this uncovered action. It is certainly plausible that someone had some access to a lawyer to figure out some of the basic details we seek in the documents. But it is hard to believe a lawyer would risk their license to participate in this.
Re: Come, Sir - Surely 'Twas Jest!?
Yes, that letter has MANY items to mock. This has got to be one of the dumbest things released in the Getty Images name.
Vanessa Bouchara got thrown under the Getty bus by her employer for sure.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
My time was far too valuable to spend on the ridiculous claims made by the French lawyer.
I spent more time getting the word out than I did on my response to Vanessa and I am quite fine with that.
I wasn't sure if this warranted Techdirt's time because it came and went so quickly. But I am happy that Tim Cushing and Techdirt thought it was worthwile to mention. Thank you to both Techdirt and to Tim Cushing!
You make good points
The days of having a pristine, spotless online reputation is over for anyone who has been around long enough. Someone is going to hate or dislike you and say some negative or disparaging things. I am NOT anti-takedown or anti-removals but those who DEPEND on that to survive will ultimately not do well in the current legal environment.
I also believe that trying to bury negative content has limited success. It is difficult to hide everything. Sometimes, it is just better to directly deal and respond to it. Other times, you just have to let it go and ignore it.
Thank you for rechecking
Let me say that I think you are an honorable man and I am happy to have "met" you here. I say this because many people would not have said what you said. You went back to relook at the matter and that is a testament to your character. In my eyes, that speaks very highly of you.
I knew I provided a lead to SEL because it was my FIRST preference out of your competitors. I thought the story was VERY important to get out, in particular, for your audience to know about. I rarely submit leads to anyone.
I am glad to hear you are/would have been interested in the story. SEL appears to have numerous contacts in the pulldown menu and I really wasn't sure WHO was the best person to direct it towards. And I didn't remember whom I chose either. But I am glad you found my submission.
Anyhow, I hope things are cleared up now. Thank you, again.
Re: Re: I Notified Search Engine Land early on but they Ignored Story
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate it very much.
First, let me say that I am an occasional reader of SEL. As an outsider, I respect the publication but do find it skewed sometimes. But let me also add, that nearly all blogs are skewed or biased towards a certain direction including my own.
Second, it appears I did make a mistake regarding Richart Ruddie and the SEL business event connection. I googled again and it appears to be a SEJ (Search Engine Journal) event, NOT SEL (Search Engine Land) event. I apologize for that misquote. It was an unintentional careless error on my part.
Third, I did contact SEL regarding the Baltimore Patel story very early on. But you may be correct that at that time, I was initially referencing Yelp. I have gone back to the SEL Contacts list to see if I recognize who I might have contacted. I distinctly remember the pulldown menu. But I do not remember exactly which option(s) I used.
Fourth, I did contact a few SE blogs/journals over the Baltimore Patel case / Yelp matter early on and NONE including SEL seemed interested, which is their right. I did my part to provide what I thought was a relevant lead. The Techdirt article linked to the SEL article and that is when I commented I notified SEL early on. If Techdirt had linked to SEJ (not SEL), for example, I would have likely written a similar title.
Fifth, I did not accuse anyone of "quashing" a story. My title said SEL "ignored" the story which is NOT the same as quashing a story. Many blogs "ignore" story leads because they don't deem it important or appropriate. I get that and don't take it personally. Perhaps, my lead was insufficient or inadequate and that is fine. I didn't feel the obligation to paint a complete picture or write a summary story for anyone. I simply provided a lead. My remark of "out-of-touch OR intentionally avoiding the notifications" is not me accusing anyone of "quashing" a story.
My reference to "the story" is the reference to the Baltimore Patel case (the early issue which evolved into Richart Ruddie/Profile Defenders and numerous other threads of discussion) because, in my view, it clearly pointed to an illicit court order for the purpose of taking down my review / scrubbing search engine entries. I probably didn't get into all this detail to connect all the dots but I did provide a lead which would have provided more details if it was followed-up upon.
Let me say I understand your strong tone to my public comment. It was not meant as any personal attack on anyone. It was a broad statement of general distrust I have of some aspects of the industry you report on and part of. As I said earlier, if SEJ (not SEL) was linked, it would be THEM I would be referring to. Does that make sense?
Again, let me apologize for that one careless error. I also hope that you will take into consideration my other points which I stand by. Thank you for the dialog.
Re: Re: I Notified Search Engine Land early on but they Ignored Story
Thanks for your thoughtful response and feedback. I appreciate it very much and read it in the good spirit your response was intended. Allow me to return the favor and elaborate on my comments. I think I did read that you might be a guest writer (not a staff writer) for SEL and hence, you would probably not receive any story leads from SEL. And even if you did, I understand you are not obligated to act upon them. I have no issues with that.
I also accept you at your word that you did not read any of the Levy/Volokh articles. My point was that the "fake defendant to remove Yelp review" story has been around since the end of August 2016. For many of us following this, it is now an older story that just gets periodic updates as Techdirt has done but perhaps it is "new" to SEL.
For the record, I do not feel personally snubbed by anyone. I actually have a great deal of respect for SEL as I am a frequent reader. I am a relatively unknown individual and I have no illusions about that. I simply think that it seems strange that no search engine blog (that I know of) has picked up on the Levy/Volokh stories given the clear emphasis that an elaborate and deceptive lawsuit scheme to clean up Yelp reviews and to ultimately scrub Google entries. The simple explanation might simply be that the SE corner of the Internet did not see what was being written in the 1A corner of the Internet.
But honestly, I thought the SE industry would have great interest and caught wind of these stories earlier. Certainly, Techdirt has been covering related stories (PissedConsumer, for example) even prior to the Baltimore Patel case. I acknowledge that the Internet is a HUGE place and it is impossible to know everything that is being written in a different corner of the Internet. Having said that, there simply are a good number of non-SE blogs/websites who did pick up the story the last few months such as shown here: http://defiantly.net/media-press-coverage-of-profile-defenders-shady-lawsuit-removal-scheme/
That is not opinion, that is a fact. And if the SE industry blogs/sites have picked up on the story, then I haven't found any recently.
Regarding how or what you write, I occasionally write my own pieces and I understand that every writer gets to choose what sources or information they want to incorporate. You are certainly not obligated to write anything to please or accommodate anyone except perhaps the publication (SEL) that publishes your piece. I accept that. I chimed in to comment because Tim Cushing made reference to your article and noted the interesting/coincidental timing of the Baltimore Patel case (which later led to other case and the discovery of the Richart Ruddie/Profile Defender connection) to the sudden slowdown of Google responsiveness to removing entries from their search entries. That caught my eye.
Regarding naming or quoting your experts, I understand the idea of protecting your sources and I have no problems with that if that is what you think you are doing. I accept you at your word and your explanation (not that you ever owed me one to begin with) now that you offered it. However, whether you realize it or not, there is an undercurrent of distrust in some aspects of the "search engine removal/takedown industry". In my view, there are some "not so elegant" practices in the SE industry and some seem to make a point of excessively staying under the radar. But to be fair, the same can be said for most industries. You can thank many of the "reputation experts" for coloring my views.
And just to let you know, I am not anti-takedown or anti-removal but I think people need to be honest that there is a good bit of questionable takedowns occurring which I speculate is why Google is not just accepting all court orders at face value.
Thank you again for your excellent response. I look forward to reading more of your work.
I Notified Search Engine Land early on but they Ignored Story
Not one person at Search Engine Land responded or picked up the story. And as Tim Cushing correctly has pointed out, the entire lack of mention of the numerous articles by Paul Alan Levy, Eugene Volokh, and Techdirt over the fake defendant cases with Profile Defenders seems peculiar. Is it because Richart Ruddie was once involved with the Search Engine Land business events? Or was this something they really did not want to get out to their readership? I find Search Engine Land and some of their reporting to be suspect and self-serving.
"They" (Chris Silver Smith and/or Search Engine Land) seem connected to this group of unnamed lawyers who found ways to take advantage of the Google takedown policy. I find it peculiar that they didn't name or quote any lawyer on this matter. It would seem that some lawyer would be willing to make a public comment or statement on this but they didn't.
To be fair, I have no reason to believe that the writer, Chris Silver Smith, was privy to email notifications sent to the Search Engine Land website. Nevertheless, it seems to me this writer is not as informed as he should be given the fact that so many other bloggers have picked up or made mention of the Paul Alan Levy/Eugene Volokh stories.
I understand Mr. Oberman's initial response
Regarding Mr. Oberman, he might be Patel's GA lawyer but he has not attacked me, nor said anything negative about me. I have not even heard from him. It appears Mr. Oberman was brought into this case very quickly by Patel and Oberman did not have ample time to do more questioning or investigating on behalf of his client's story.
At this point, I am not overly-critical of Mr. Oberman's initial response. It appears he is trying to be responsible and cautious in what he says. I think Mr. Oberman is in a tough spot right now representing his client. Maybe I am being too gracious and gullible here regarding Mr. Oberman but he hasn't done or said anything that I have seen that is inappropriate.
I perfectly understand why Mr. Oberman is withholding the name of the reputation management firm. I think releasing that name would probably also hurt his client also. Having said that, I do think independent investigators by law enforcement needs to get involved to uncover the truth. If Patel didn't do any of this, then he should welcome the investigation to clear his name.
As I said, I am perfectly fine if it is found Patel is an unintended victim but who else would have a reason and motive to quietly file an illegitimate lawsuit in his name in a Baltimore court to remove consumer reviews I wrote about Patel here in Georgia?
SEO vs. Reputation Management firm
And even if Patel's SEO firm provides "reputation management" services, it is hard to believe that most firms would ever engage in such tactics. As of right now, I tend to believe Patel went outside his SEO firm to find another firm willing to use criminal and fraudulent court filings to remove legitimate user reviews.
But thank you for providing these nuggets of info, I didn't notice them before.
Re: Elsewhere around the 'net
I am mindful that this story will likely fall of the grid shortly. Due to time constraints, I have restricted my commentary to reader comments within each of the aforementioned articles. As most blog writers know, writing articles can be time-consuming and regards a good deal of effort and mental energy (for me me at least).
However, when I have more time, I will make some blog posts that cover things not in the aforementioned stories. For example, I have a lot more to say about the business and declining ethics of dentistry and some of the ugly practices I have uncovered over the years that many people don't know.
That is not to say that every dentist is unethical or engages in such practices but I can tell you things have changed for the worse in the 25 years I have been a customer/client of dentistry. I have been forced to change dentist many times over the years for various "unhappy" issues.
That is but one example of many "side stories" that I want to get out as a result of this whole fiasco. Another has to do with my feelings of the practices of SEO/reputation management firms.
Good question
Spending lots of time in the area is how I came to know about Patel's promotional program. My girlfriend and gets many dentist promo flyers and gives them to me. And since I only need to see the dentist twice a year for cleanings and I spend quite a bit of time with her, it was easy to find a dentist near her home.
Not that it is relevant to the immediate topic but it is a very competitive dentist market in the North ATL area where my girlfriend resides. It is actually easier for me to find a dentist who wants your business in that particular area than Columbus. The competition between dentists is FIERCE in North Atlanta.
As a whole, I distrust many in the dentistry business. It can be a sleazy industry. I have seen, heard, and been "upsold" a lot over the years which is why I have so much to say on the matter.
Police
I think that will eventually happen that I file a police report but I want to give time and see what other information surfaces in the next couple of weeks.
Not really entertainment for me
I understand you didn't mean it in a derogatory or personal way and I don't take offense. I can tell you since this began, I have had all kinds of feelings and emotions over this. Anger and frustration being the top emotions on my list.
Re: Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Philip S. Jackson
Litigation privilege
Review removals were the intent
Time will tell
But in this particular case, it is still early in the investigative process. I haven't given up yet. There are a few courses of actions I can pursue and channels for me to explore.
Inclined to believe dentist on a couple of items
However, what seems plausible to me is that the dentist hired some unethical SEO/reputation management firm to try to wipe off my Yelp review which contained a reference to his 2008 disciplinary consent order by the GA Dentistry Board he did not want other people to see. It was fairly easy to uncover but my guess is that he is a bit sensitive to it.
Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that even an unethical firm would arbitrarily conduct such fraudulent court actions without compensation from some party related to the dentist.
And yes, I do believe there was some crime(s) committed but it is too early to know who did what at this point. And I do believe resources will be brought to bear to conduct some investigation. Even the dentist's lawyer has said as much.
Fraud
I agree that someone has committed a fraud on the Baltimore Circuit Court and Judge Philip Senan. My guess is law enforcement will have to be involved and I have been independently looking into this option.
And yes, I also agree that order must be vacated. We have a little time to get that taken cared of once and for all. I would expect that the order would be easily vacated and it would be uncontested upon filing of said motion to vacate.
More importantly, I hope the judge will learn of the details of this little conspiracy that was perpetrated against him.
No lawyers in the filing
More comments from Matthew Chan >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Matthew Chan.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt