JL Kirk & Associates SLAPPs Katherline Coble
by tdaxp ~ April 11th, 2007
Coble, K. 2007. This entry for a limited time only. Just Another Pretty Face. April 11, 2007. Available online: http://mycropht.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/this-entry-for-a-limited-time-only/.
Instapundit, Pink Kitty, Moncks Corner Moments, thinktrain, Say Uncle, and The Vol Abroad link to disturbing news:
The doorbell rang 5 minutes ago.
It was delivery of a certified letter.
I am being ordered to take down all of my blog entries pertaining to JL Kirk & Associates. If I don’t, they will so me for tortuous interference and other damages.
In a subsequent conversation with the attorney, Alan Kopady of King & Ballow Law Offices, if I do not take down the blog entries they will contact my Internet Service Provider, Comcast, to have my internet access shut down.
I have until April 13th to comply with the demands of the letter.
An excellent summary of the controversy so far is available from Nashville is Talking. This appears to be a SLAPP — a strategic lawsuit against public participation
Some of the communication between the blogger and the SLAPP is below the fold:
The original post:
JL Kirk & Associates found my husband’s resume online. They contacted him a couple of weeks ago and offered their services as an ‘Executive Placement Firm’. As I’m wont to do, I of course Googled them as much as possible and found very little in the way of solid information. So I’ve decided to write up our experiences with them for anyone else who is interested in finding out more about this particular operation.
Anyone who has been searching for a job for any length of time is well aware of the various vulnerabilities that are part of the process. There’s the self-doubt, frustration and impatience, coupled with no small amount of worry. So when a job searcher gets an email that says “maybe we can help!” the relief is almost immediate.
My husband filled out an application and questionnaire, and returned it directly to the company. He then received an appointment with a counselor the following week. During that appointment the representative of JL Kirk & Associates interviewed him just as one would for a position. The afternoon after the interview he received an email that congratulated him on making it through the first step of the process. They wanted to schedule a second interview which required my presence as a Support Person/Spouse/Significant Other. When he scheduled the interview he questioned them directly about their fees and payment arrangements. He was told that if we received approval after the second interview the money would be discussed at that time.
So today was the second interview, and we drove to Maryland Farms for our 2:00 appointment. We sat in a waiting room next to a fake fireplace and a lone man in a suit. At 2:11 a matronly woman came out and announced to the other man–in front of us–that she would not be able to meet with him because he wasn’t able to bring his Support Person. They had a lengthy conversation in front of us about this failed meeting and his disappointment. He asked to speak with her behind closed doors (as would I) and then five minutes later that conversation ended with him leaving dejectedly. She then turned to us (it is now 2:17pm) and greeted us warmly.
We were led into an office that appeared to have been the result of a decorating war between a loan officer and an eccentric grandmother. The prototypical office furniture clashed with a giant print of Raffael’s Cherubs a reproduction oriental rug and a handmade mosaic table with a tilted top. The Husband and I were seated in two chairs across from the interviewer, who sat on a sofa next to a pile of throw pillows.
Here’s where the fun starts. We heard all about how hard it is to find a job, how most jobs aren’t posted online and are only found through networking. We heard about how the really good jobs are available only to those ‘in the know’ and can only be obtained through some wizardy combining Masonic handshakes, good dentistry and whatever pixie dust this particular company stores in the backroom. This interview seemed very carefully designed to exploit every potential vulnerability that any jobseeker feels. After about 10 minutes of conversation subtly designed to push every button we may have, the interviewer handed us a booklet that was said to be a tailored write-up of my husband’s profile as a job-seeker. The interviewer left us alone in the room to digest the booklet on our own terms.
The booklet consisted of three pages of reiteration of the interview’s strong-arm tactics, followed by a regurgitation of information from my husband’s resume, all summarised with a couple of pages essentially saying “the job market is tough but we think you’re really great and so we’ll be here to help you get a job!” We skimmed the booklet and reviewed our game plan, then signaled the interviewer by opening the door.
Our game plan was to ask direct questions about the company’s operation and placement record. In short, ‘what exactly do you do and how well do you do it?’ We had test answers in mind. In short, if we ask a direct question and get a vague answer such as “every case is different so numbers are hard to apply here” that tells us a great deal about the company’s services.
Sure enough, our first question about placement rate was answered with an “every case is different, etc.” style answer. Ultimately she gave us the figure of “90 to 92% placement rate” and then proceeded to tell us a long tale about a ‘failed’ client who showed up 37 minutes late to an interview with a CEO from an out-of-state firm. We all agreed that was indeed very unprofessional of said client and what a shame and how good to not work with him. (I of course was thinking about how we were on time for that interview which she failed to start until 17 minutes after the promised appointment time.)
She then gave us the very good news that they were prepared to accept us as clients. Then the fun began. We were told that Headhunters and Employment Agencies took fees only when a job had been secured for the job seeker, and they took their fees (generally 30-40%) from the hiring firm. But that means the job seeker gets a lower starting salary because all of their good money is going to the headhunter/employment agency. Thankfully, though, JL Kirk & Associates will be able to get my husband a job making a far larger starting salary. All we need to do is put $4,420 on a credit card today. Once we do that the entire weight of the firm of JL Kirk & Associates will begin the task of navigating treacherous shark-infested landmines of the job search on behalf of my husband. And just trust them, because they find jobs for 90% of the people who pay them to.
So that’s how it works. And that’s pretty much how we expected that it would work. But both the spouse and I believe that it’s irrepsonsible to not pursue any lead during this time so we thought we’d go through the process. Especially since they kept so much of it in the dark from the outset.
JUICY STUFF BEGINS HERE
But I’m very angry about it. If you’ve made it this far, I suppose maybe you could tell that I’ve been supressing most of my irritation. However, irritation makes for good blog reading, and so here it is.I get really ticked off at people trying to use fear to motivate others. I don’t care if you are a fire-and-brimstone preacher, an insurance salesman, a used-car salesman or a cat burglar. Finding someone else’s fear and vulnerability and using that vulnerability to somehow enrich yourself is a cheap and underhanded tactic. It’s wrong and it’s cruel. And I think that’s exactly what this placement firm did to us today. There were times when I felt like I was sitting across from a spider. We were meant to feel at home enough to let down our guard so that the woman could then ply us gently with tales of terror. All of it was designed to make us hand over nearly $5,000 without question and without possibility of a refund.
The husband and I are not always idiots. We both expect to pay for services rendered from any provider. But we generally like to be treated as responsible adults. We had legitimate questions about the fee structure and we raised those at several points in the process. For them to not even discuss that fee structure until they had battered us emotionally for half an hour is what I would consider to be unethical. I’m sure there are other employment agencies and headhunters out there. We’ll continue to look for them.
In the meantime, I would discourage anyone who stumbles across this entry from even going through the JL Kirk & Associates “interview process”.
UPDATE
I should also mention that this company was formerly Bernard Haldane before it was purchased by Mr. Kirk Leipzig. One of the accusations against Bernard Haldane was that they would make an examination of the potential client’s assets and charge accordingly. I find it interesting to note just how close our “fee” was to the tax refund we recently received. Hmmm. Makes you wonder, no?
In the interest of fairness, Coble posted a respones from the company:
In response to those who choose to hide behind pseudo names, anonymous postings, and Mrs. Katherine Coble herself, I will respond to the blog herein; I am the matronly, eccentric grandmother, with the tackily decorated office within J.L. Kirk Associates.
There is a cultural phenomenon regarding information regurgitated on the internet. It seems there is a segment of our techno-access population who believe; if the written word resides on the internet, regardless of platform or source, it MUST be true! This is a sad testament to our information starved population, who use the internet as their link to the outside world. This platform/blog typifies the “mob” mentality, so for that reason, I will address and defend the fabrications written herein.
For those who are unaware, the Bernard Haldane organization no longer exists in Tennessee or to my knowledge anywhere in the United States. This is a fact. Mr. Kirk purchased the remaining assets of the BH organization here in Brentwood, changed the philosophy, company mission, replaced every BH employee, and put his name of the door! [1]Does this sound like a person who is hiding? As part of the purchase, he inherited the liabilities as well; unhappy clients who were hurt by former unethical practices he had no part in delivering. The price to appease those clients and put his business on the “moral” road to recovery was in excess of $154,000. Does this sound like a scammer? He was not ordered by any court or official, he did it to end the reign of BH and all the negativity.
I will now address. Katherine Coble’s accusations. It is important to know that when I met Mrs. Coble and her husband, neither was gainfully employed. Mr. Coble placed his resume on a free internet job site looking for employment. As a result of his resume posting, by his own admission Mr. Coble has received dozens of emails from the insurance industry, work at home, get rich quick, etc. (Had Mr. Coble accepted a position selling insurance for example, he would have had to pay for his own education, paid for his license, and waited for any possible compensation if/when he sold a policy.) Apparently these unsolicited offers are less offensive than a genuine offer of help – which I will address in detail further in this post. [2]
During the initial interview with my colleague, it was mentioned that Mr. Coble is an avid cyclist and a member [3]of a fledgling not for profit group. It is his hope to make this his career in approximately 2 years. With no motive other than to be helpful, my colleague put Mr. Coble in touch with a cycle/marketing person, name, telephone number and personal introduction. Further, Mrs. Coble was given a publishing contact as she is apparently an aspiring writer. In both cases, with no motive whatsoever, my colleague offered the contacts and use of her name – to the Coble’s, two perfect strangers! What was the result of the contacts? I have no idea (and as a simple gesture is irrelevant); [4] however, it is not part of our job description to provide ANYTHING to individuals during a screening interview. I read nowhere in this blog where your hostess thanked my colleague for her kindness. None was expected, so it makes my colleague the bigger person.
Our business model provides that we are able to grant services to approximately 225-250 clients per year. A scam would know no limits as to the number of clients per year – as the goal would be to reap as many fees as possible. Despite the baseless accusations waged by Mrs. Coble, our company provides a service that no other company in Nashville provides! Our career management staff, coupled with marketing and networking staff FIND JOBS FOR OUR CLIENTS! FACT!!!! We routinely represent individuals who bring personal/professional challenges to their career search; history of job hopping, lack of education, extraneous education, poorly crafted resume, poor interviewing skills, lack of professional resources, inability to identify their skill sets, lack of focus and/or direction, to name a few. Our staff spends countless hours working with each individual client to make them more marketable. Each client and ALL their issues are tackled, one at a time. It’s laughable that anyone of medium intelligence would put ANY stock in the juvenile facetious rant (the really good jobs are available only to those ‘in the know’ and can only be obtained through some wizardy combining Masonic handshakes, good dentistry and whatever pixie dust this particular company stores in the backroom) [5] And by the way, in Mrs. Cobles’ case, we would recommend (free of charge) to further her writing “career” she learn to spell “wizardry” and polish her grammar and punctuation skills. I make no apology for my skill (or lack of) as I never intend to make a living as a writer. [6]
Do we charge a fee for what we do? Yes. There is only one method to conduct a career search that is free of COST; the internet, newspaper, church or friends/contacts to SEARCH ON YOUR OWN. All career development resources (beyond those mentioned) require an investment by the job seeker. It is a misnomer that there are companies who do not charge fees (commissions) paid by the employee. I will briefly explain.
Head hunters, recruiters, and employment agencies are commissioned sales organizations. Their commission is generally 20-40% of first year gross income. Commonly, the employer will write the check. However, ONLY at the very highest levels of employment (CEO, President, COO, CFO, etc.) does the company actually PAY for the service. For those below this level, the employee typically pays for the placement in a reduction of salary. Sadly, this reduced salary is compounded annually and the cost of placement assistance becomes astronomical beyond the initial commission.[7] Apparently Mrs. Coble and her band of blind followers find no fault with the aforementioned company types WHO GET PAID. [8]
Agencies of this type do not represent individuals; they represent companies who will pay their commissions. As with any sales organization, the more (resume’s) they have to present to a company, the greater the likelihood of placement success. While this arrangement is extremely profitable for the “agency,” it leaves individual job seekers out of the equation when time (finding a job) is of the essence. A successful agency attracts new applicants daily, which become additional competition for the few job openings typically represented.
As one writer stated, his company only uses Monster.com & Craig’s List when searching or advertising for viable applicants. If this is a successful recruitment venue for his company, great. However, what about the ten’s of thousands of positions that are never advertised OR are advertised on company boards or otherwise, that the job seeker knows nothing about? If one doesn’t know a particular company exists, it’s impossible to access potential opportunities. To gain entrée to companies, identify potential opportunities, develop an ongoing relationship, etc., it takes time, personnel & money. Networking and marketing are expensive, and an on going pursuit that may not be fruitful for months or years. None the less, it is the business of the marketing company (JLK-A) to implement daily, weekly, monthly & annual pursuits on behalf of our clients today and for the future. In effect, it was yesterday’s work that provides the opportunities for our clients today! [KC: Here again is evidence of that Bernard Haldane child of the Proprietary Database. They claim to have a built-in network. They claim that is what you are paying for…access to their network.]
Mrs. Coble wrote ad nausea, about the careful design of strong arm tactics by an eccentric grandmother, emasculation of her husband, exploitation & vulnerability. Think about this. Why, did the Coble’s come to JLK-A in the first place? [9] To spend so much time and effort devising an angry, adversarial “game plan” prior to arrival was guaranteed to result in nothing positive or productive. Did I state the facts to Mr. & Mrs. Coble? Yes. When I explained the challenges in any career search, I also told Mr. Coble what I believed his challenges and opportunities to be. I concede, without benefit of a crystal ball, I could not speak to specific positions or companies, as it had yet to be determined exactly WHAT Mr. Coble wants to do. [10] As an organization we are to be faulted for his lack of specific focus? Mr. Coble was unemployed because he quit his former position…in excess of 6 weeks before he was interviewed by JLK-A. The circumstances of this unemployment would indicate that direction is an issue. Also, his former salary was $20,000 less than his career high, so it would indicate as a job seeker Mr. Coble has had difficulty with sustained upward mobility. [11]Could we help him, yes – but the Coble’s were so steadfast in their paranoia that this will never happen. Finally, when asked what he would like to do, Mr. Coble responded, “I would like JLK-A to assist me with those aspects of identifying and accessing career opportunities that I’m unable to accomplish myself. Specifically, to help identify companies and positions that will be a good fit with my skills, experience and personality, and to assist in opening the doors to exploring these opportunities.” I know of no resource (anywhere) that would/could address these issues free of any cost.
The only fear tactic was in the mind of blog hostess. I presented the fee in a direct and succinct manner. [12]No hocus-pocus, no fairy dust. It is what it is. We do a job, we get paid. When asked questions, they were answered – directly and without trickery.[13]
To respond to the “bring the spouse” tirade is almost comical but apparently there is a gross misconception perpetuated here. A career search affects everyone in a household. NO spouse is going to make a decision regarding his/her career without the full support of his/her spouse. Additionally, if there are problems at home, the likelihood of a completely successful search is greatly diminished. (i.e., accepting a position simply to placate one’s spouse, etc). These are issues we need to know BEFORE we accept a candidate as a client. As a company we are not predisposed to getting in the middle of a spousal fray, where the potential “settling” for a lesser position could result in OUR client not realizing his/her full potential – ultimately unhappy. Further, it is helpful to know the opinion (as it relates to the candidates career) of the spouse. No smoke, no mirrors – it simply makes sense! For the reasons mentioned above – we never consider a candidate without meeting the spouse (and in this day and time significant other/fiancé/my baby’s daddy/etc., applies).
For the record, the gentleman who arrived without his spouse was NOT chastised in front of the Coble’s, nor was it staged. [14] That comment is simply stupid.
To suggest that JLK-A has some inside track with the Internal Revenue Service, or has any idea if, or how much, a person receives in tax refund is a ludicrous statement. Not only is individual tax information NOT public, it would take a hacker of Herculean talent to delve into the IRS files. Stupid.
There is a Peace quilt hanging on the wall in my office. [15] Every square was handmade by a different person, assembled by a volunteer/reader and sponsored by Midwest Living Magazine. Once completed (and there were 20 quilts), individually they were auctioned to the highest bidders. Every dime raised was donated to the survivor families of 9-11. This is not a vintage or antique quilt that would command huge money in any selling venue. I personally paid a large sum of money at auction for this quilt as the proceeds went for a good cause. It hangs in my office because it helps me remember that terrible day and my money helped families in need. With few exceptions, every person entering my office has commented favorably on it. The auction tags, quilt sponsor and quilt assembler continue to hang on the back. BTW – all 20 quilts hung on display for one year at the Mall of America’s in Minnesota. Mrs. Coble’s spiteful meanness precluded her from asking me about it. The Raphael Cherubs are my fancy (as is the Vintage Victorian NOT Oriental rug) – I plan to see the original Cherubs in Italy this summer. Mrs. Coble was so free to criticize my surroundings – she would die if she saw my beyond eclectic, antique filled home! Wonder what hers’ looks like?!
In conclusion, to those of you who hastily jumped on the JLK-A bashing band- wagon…have you checked out the instigator? Do a Google search on Katherine Coble! She is an angry, opinionated basher of many things[17] – and you might not like her positions either. Never in my life have I felt with such conviction to defend my company, my boss or my ethics. In this case, you, all of you are wrong in your assumptions about JLK-A. Don’t be lead by a negative, attention seeking, unhappy individual who is going through a rough time. Being unemployed and nearly broke would make anyone unhappy. However, an opinion, stated as such is fine. Hers’ was not an opinion, she fabricated quotes, invented an atmosphere that did not exist and led all of you. She lied…pure and simple. Those of you who have made and cancelled an appointment,[18] I wish you luck in your career search. Not knowing the “facts” about my company and believing all this drivel is really your loss. KRM.
Notice the footnotes in the above? Here are their body:
—-ENDNOTES—-
[1] KC: Yet the very practices of Bernard Haldane–right down to the promise of accessability to leads exclusive to JLK-A–were mimicked in our JLK-A Interview. We were told that they had direct access to the “people who do the hiring for the Big Jobs”.[2] KC: None of those other unsolicited offers presented themselves as a Job Opportunity complete with a series of interviews requiring us to drive 20 miles.
[3] KC: Co-founder
[4] KC: Husband Contacted the person involved. She may or may not participate, but she is a Buddhist and wasn’t particularly interested in a Christian cycling organisation. Husband did let her know she was welcome to participate regardless of her difference in faith. The contact I was given bounced me over to a book distribution outlet that handled a type of work I do not write. I continue to have other contacts within the publishing industry who are more in line with what I need. I would also point out that were I a poor writer, my entry would not have elicited such a response.
[5] KC: During our interview we were told that the career managers “worked magic”. I’m a huge Harry Potter fan, so that particular turn of phrase stood out to me.
[6] KC: Recommendation Duly Noted
[7] KC: This is straight out of her presentation patter, almost word-for-word. And straight out of the presentation booklet we got to take home with us. And straight out of Bernard Haldane’s old material.
[8] KC: I believe I said in the original post that I have no problem with paying for services RENDERED. I have a problem with being asked to pay upfront.
[9] KC: Because we believe in leaving no stone unturned.
[10] He wanted a job. He presumed that flexibility and his wide range of assets was a GOOD thing. It wasn’t a question of what he wants to do as much as a question of which of the many things he is qualified to do would he be hired for first. He had three jobs in the pipeline when we interviewed at JLK. Among the interviewer’s first words were an accusation that we would be wasting JLK-A’s time if one of those jobs came through even as the magic-working Career Managers were pushing for him with other companies.
[11] KC: Not true, but I’m not going to discuss the specifics of our finances here. Those who know us can vouch for the complete untruth of this.
[12] KC: Husband enquired about the fee at the first interview. No answer was given. Husband enquired about the fee in email prior to the second interview. We were told the fee and fee structure would be discussed at the second interview. We had to wade through nearly 25 minutes of interrogation before the fee was presented to us.
[13] KC: If you consider “wait until the next interview” a direct answer, sure.
[14] KC: Uh, yes he was chastised in front of us. The very next “nor was it staged” clause is proof that he was indeed reprimanded right in the lobby in front of us, God and that fake fireplace. IF it had not happened, you would not have needed to say “nor was it staged.”
[15] KC: About all the office decoration, which she has apparently taken offense to my describing…. I did not ask about the Peace Quilt because after cooling my heels in the lobby for a quarter of an hour I wanted to get down to business, not talk about quilts. As far as the rest of the office description–which I NEVER described as “tacky”–I included it for a very specific reason. Before composing my write-up I went to other sites to see what information existed. There are several complaints about JLK-A at Ripoff Report which were rebutted by JL Kirk employees. Many of JL Kirk’s rebuttals seem to involve some sort of “this person was never in our office” type of statement. So I figured the best way to refute that was to describe the office. Who, after all, could make up details like a Raffael print, a handmade table and a specific rug (which really tied the room together)? Obviously they now at least admit that I was indeed in their office. Of course they’re rather unclear on the rest of the circumstances but at least we’ve placed me squarely IN THE OFFICE.
[17] Angry some days. Opinionated most days. Basher of many things? Yes. Bad episodes of Lost. Bad episodes of Extreme Makeover Home Edition. Big government. War On Terror Hysteria. War on Drugs Hysteria. Clowns. I bash all of these many things. It of course means nothing about the outcome of my experience with JL Kirk & Associates.
[18] Between my blog comments and emails I’m guessing that number is now in the double digits. While I’m somewhat sorry to have caused JLK’s business a bit of hardship, I’m glad to have spared other vulnerable people the pain we went through. If you don’t believe the interview was emotionally painful, I kindly ask you to reread the comments of the woman who interviewed us.
The cease & desist letter is also available online.
I think this is your...
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Quite the debate going on. I would like to point out one thing, however. The fact that this “recruitment” firm was asking for an up front fee should be a strong signal that they are scamming their clients. Recruiters do not work in this manner (multiple sources advise against using these types of firms, whether government agencies, recruiters themselves, or career centers at universities and colleges.) The use of a lawsuit to silence a critic of the firm is simply another tell of what the firm seems to be, a scam. I see no reason to criticize Mrs. Coble for writing about her experience. After all, if you are believer in the free market (which I am,) reputation is an absolutely critical component of a business. Good business can defend their reputation by simply showing their results; bad business rely on lawsuits (a generalization, but true the vast majority of the time.)
Regards,
TDL
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
If you felt you were in the right, you would not complain on D5GW or PC? You would not attempt to shame your accuser to get justice, even though your accuser is attempting to coerce you through the law-courts?
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
However, the profit issue also makes the two cases quite different.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan, if it were me and JLK, I would not have gone to the first interview, certainly not the second. If, out of extreme desperation or the wish to find a benevolent angel delivering up the Divine Career, I did go to both interviews, I'd feel like a fool afterward and hush up, learning from my mistakes without having to advertise them to the world — i.e., advertising by transferring the mistake onto a proxy. So, no, there'd be no blog post on PC or D5GW about the experience.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis, to rephrase: if for your perhaps-true-but-negative-impression-generating comments, Coble chose to sue you… “you would not complain on D5GW or PC? You would not attempt to shame your accuser to get justice, even though your accuser is attempting to coerce you through the law-courts?”
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
No, I wouldn't try to shame Coble. Perhaps I'd try to co-opt Coble's attempt for my own purposes. And let this 10x become a 20x story with much greater consequences than a simple blogstorm trying to protect the integrity of an infantile Blogosphere.
But, hell, Dan, I'd have YOU to write about it; so why would I need to?
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Precisely! A threat is not the actual use [1], and when the threat is operative, it's more like 4GW. A threat is not kinetic, only the actual action is kinetic. But in this case, the action — the trial — would almost certainly resolve in a non-kinetic effect, or the loser's giving in to the changed reality of the situation.
[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/01/toward_a_better_understanding.php
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dolphin,
I wonder if CGW would believe that it is fair & reasonable for Coble to see her as, though what he says may be literally true, it may leave an unfavorable impression of her? :-p
Curtis,
“when the threat is operative, it's more like 4GW”
Why? Because 4GW is a default state for non-operative threats? And likewise, do you consider 4GW War to be synonymous with 4G operations regardless of domains?
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
bloggers are happy to dish out judgment but cry “Foul!” when actual legal judgments, before an impartial judge or jury, are threatened.
Curt, I'm wondering if you bothered to actually read the entire exchange. Kat wrote a blog entry about her personal feelings about a bad experience she had with this company. She voiced an opinion, which is clear upon reading her original post.
The company in question responded, calling her names directly, insulting her, spreading demonstrably false information about her and most certainly violating any company-client confidentiality that may have existed. I think if Kat couldn't “take it,” she would have most certainly deleted this comment and filed her own legal action against JLK for what is alot closer to libel than anything she had written.
If you look at the specific complaints they have about the “false and defamatory” statements she made, 3 of 4 are clearly opinion only (I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you can sue somebody for saying “I personally don't like you”), and the remaining one is noted by the Better Business Bureau as well (I presume the BBB is not currently facing a lawsuit from JLK).
In fact, even in the cease-and-desist letter (complete with all it's spelling mistakes), they acknowledge that her statements may be “literally true.” This cease-and-desist letter is just another example of the “strong-arm tactics” Kat felt she was being exposed to. Basically, Kat posted an opinion the company would rather not see and so they are trying to bully her into taking it down.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
“Why? Because 4GW is a default state for non-operative threats? And likewise, do you consider 4GW War to be synonymous with 4G operations regardless of domains?”
Could you explain this? I do think that the movement toward a higher G is often a flight away from a higher K (kinetic)…but I'm not sure what you mean.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
dolphin,
“Curt, I'm wondering if you bothered to actually read the entire exchange. Kat wrote a blog entry about her personal feelings about a bad experience she had with this company.”
No, she wrote about that company. Her “bad feelings” are not justification for her characterization of that company. I'm in 100% agreement that we may have whatever feelings we have about any company, but I do not believe that we should hold those “feelings” up as irrefutable proof about a company's legitimacy, nor that “feelings” justify libelous speech about a company.
“In fact, even in the cease-and-desist letter (complete with all it's spelling mistakes)”
Here is another example of 4GW argumentation. It reminds me of TDAXP's comments about the word “sic”. [1] Spelling mistakes are irrelevant to the argument.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/01/01/new-year-same-old-mainstream-media.html
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
Those are some hefty and worthwhile questions.
I don't see our separate online criticisms — mine and Coble's — as being altogether different; except, I would not solicit the blogospheric moral support group as backing, judge, and jury, nor as proof of my characterization. If she wants to sue me, I'm all for it. This is what makes us different, however.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
CGW,
In the very first paragraph of her original post she says and I quote “I’ve decided to write up our experiences…” That places the rest of her post CLEARLY in the realm of opinion. There is no thought police in this country. We not only have the right to hold our opinions, but we have the right to voice them under the First Amendment. Kat made no claims AT ALL as to the legitimacy of the company. She wrote a post noting her OPINION and how her experience with the company made her feel. It doesn't matter what you believe she “should” do, the fact is that as a citizen of the United States of America she has the RIGHT to voice her opinion. I challenge you to find even one example of case law saying people don't have the right to have and voice an opinion.
Per the spelling mistakes, I think it's a valid point. In at least one instance the spelling mistake changed the meaning of the statement. That makes it incredibly relevant to the argument. If words have no meaning, then I fail to see how any argument is even possible.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
We're a little asynchronous here, but I'll ask the Q again just to make sure it doesn't get lost in your inbox.
If JL Kirk is rightly justified in filing a lawsuit against Coble because of a characterization of a person (the company), how would Coble not be rightly justified in filing a lawsuit against you because of a characterization of a person (Coble)?
Secondly, the first person to mention spelling mistakes in those whole affair is JL Kirk (see the comment on ““wizardry” above).
I can see how you can see yourself and Coble as morally equivalent and Coble in the wrong, but I can't see how you feel that Coble is in the wrong but you are in the right.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
G is an inverse measure of kinetic intensity. [1] Thus it may be possible that, in a lawfare context, a single lawsuit is 4G Lawfare. However, in the context of blogospheric discussion, it would be a huge increase in kinetic intensity and therefore a large fall in G.
Of course, actions ultimately take place “in the context of everything else…”
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Nothing kinetic has happened yet, Dan! (Except, I suppose you could call the lack of movement **toward** JLK, by prospective clients, a kinetic effect…) I think that JLK's threat of going to the ISP is 4GW — really, it's almost GGish — but if the suit were actually taken to court, I still don't see the high-kinetic aspect. Courts in the U.S. are Memospheric battle grounds. They do have ultimate kinetic effects, but so does 5GW.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
It's as kinetic as pulling out a gun, without shooting anyone yet. The law-courts are arbitrators of violence and coercion, and the threat of a lawsuit is the threat of violence and coercion.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I'm not altogether certain that use of the judicial system is 1G. In fact, PSlog and I have been contemplating the difference between 4GW lawfare and potentical 5GW lawfare — and I'm still waiting on a post from him exploring that difference!
But given how 5GW will often play on the generally accepted “reality”, and given the status of U.S. courts for arbitrating that reality…Well, I'm not certain the JLK move should be seen as 1GW.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The problem with the “review” is the innuendo about business practices, largely between the lines. This “review” is not about expressing one's aesthetic like or dislike of a movie or artistic creation; it is not about responding publicly to a verifiable attempt at harrassment, criminal activity, etc.
I think that the 10x bigger story factor is much like the Imus 4GW backlash factor: poor, poor bloggers able to dish it out but not receive it. I.e., bloggers are happy to dish out judgment but cry “Foul!” when actual legal judgments, before an impartial judge or jury, are threatened. If Coble had written that blog post on paper, Xeroxed it, and handed it out all over town as a pamphlet — even, tacked it to lightposts and made posters to hang on walls — in an effort to turn away business from JLK, would that also be permissible?
The insinuation about JLK's having access to IRS info is the worst; but, “strong arm tactics” is used, and things like this:
“Finding someone else’s fear and vulnerability and using that vulnerability to somehow enrich yourself is a cheap and underhanded tactic. It’s wrong and it’s cruel. And I think that’s exactly what this placement firm did to us today. There were times when I felt like I was sitting across from a spider.”
are just as bad. They're painting a character, not only of business practices but also of the person doing the interview! Coble launched a 4GW maneuver and is now crying foul because the opponent is launching back. Bloggers of Coble's caliber necessarily want the battlefield to remain solely in the realm of Internet speech; but the courts would be a much safer place, a better place for all concerned.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
Thanks for the clarification.
A test for whether a case is a SLAPP or not is whether the legal costs would quickly outweight actual damages. In this case it appears to be correct. Knowledge of the “Coble's negative impression of Kirk” imbruglio was limited to a small number of local bloggers. Kirk apparently decided that blogging was an oppropriate forum for such induendos, as their reply comment was equally suggestive of things not said.
A detail: I didn't read the original post as implying that JLK had an inside track to the IRS. Rather, that they calculated their fee relative to the client's resources. This price discrimination is not itself unethical, and presumably if one knows the income from and nature of someone's employment, one can guesstimate their IRS refund.
On the generations of war:
“They're painting a character, not only of business practices but also of the person doing the interview! Coble launched a 4GW maneuver and is now crying foul because the opponent is launching back.”
Well, kind of. The original Coble post is clearly 4G. After a failed 4G response (the rude comment), the company resorted to brute strength (1 G) threat of a lawsuit. Perhaps a “better” response would be 5G, using a service like ReputationDefender or somesuch to make this discussion go away without appearing to be involved.
The threat of a lawsuit achieved exactly the opposite.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
If I **had** to choose sides, based only on what I've read here, I would side with JL Kirk & Associates.
The Coble critique of JLK, in the first section, can be summarized thus: “They used a grandmotherly environment and scare tactics to soften us and frighten us (evil bastards!) and then they demanded money upfront to begin their services; plus, they wasted our time by not telling us how much money we'd have to pay until the second interview, after we'd driven 20 miles to the place each interview and had sat through a rhetorical sales pitch telling us how frightening the job search market can be.”
That's it. The rest is merely the coloring of a creative writer trying to make more of the situation, specifically by painting JLK as an evil scam operation — i.e., Coble is suggesting a War on Terror of her own, because, well, being terrified is terrifying! This creative coloring has obviously caused JLK a loss of potential revenue; I would say it is libel, but legally I'm not sure that would stick, since apparently no false “fact” is made although every true statement is given a hyper-negative spin.
In truth, the stupid Cobles accepted the “wait until the 2nd interview” line and decided to wait: that's their fault, for waiting and then going to the interview anyway. Once there, they could have gotten up and left at any time, such as when the spouseless man was turned away or when JLK used a sales technique (“scare tactics”) which they did not like. And what's with the mention of “a series of interviews requiring us to drive 20 miles.” **Requiring** them? No, I think not. In any case, 20 miles is not atypical for interviews, whether in nearby cities or across the same city.
I do find the JLK's impression of the blogosphere to be quirky and funny; plus, I am always for more public discourse rather than less; but in a 4GW/5GW world, blog posts which single out businesses in the manner of the Coble post ought to be attacked back by businesses. Had Coble presented verifiable proof of illegal practices, that would be another thing. Causing damage to a business simply because you want a new job handed to you on a silver platter — i.e., without having to pay for services upfront according to the provider's business plan, without having to drive (gasp!) twenty miles to an interview, and without taking responsibility for your actions in accepting those terms — is simply unethical, boorish, and counterproductive.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
I'm confused by your comment.
The original Coble piece was a negative review of a business.
I have negatively reviewed NationMaster, and been threatened with a SLAPP for it. I have negatively reviewed books and movies by name, and that's been that.
I don't find Coble's original review that useful or interesting to me. Maybe it will be useful to some job searches in the Tennessee area. Perhasp there are positive review of JL Kirk out there. Perhaps JL Kirk is at the center of an evil conspiracy. Who knows. Perhaps more time would tell.
The reason this story is disturbing is not the negative review, but JL Kirk resorting to lawyers and censorship. In the same way, my negative review of Nationmaster would have been interesting only to myself if it had not been met with legal threats.
Happily, this attempt to quiet civil discourse backfired. The Coble piece on Kirk was featured on instapundit, and now is a factory of 10 bigger story than it had been before.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
Here is my confusion: in comments like the one above, you seem to apply you object to Coble out of an ad hoc objection to 4G-style tactics (and a presumed preference for 5G-style tactics). However, in the other thread [1] you complain about “mob justice” (the ability of one's reputation to be affected by what others say about you).
So I'm not sure if your complaint against Coble is technical or moral.
TDL,
“Good business can defend their reputation by simply showing their results; bad business rely on lawsuits”
Very smart.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/12/j-l-kirk-associates-not-a-better-business.html#c1535857
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
At heart, my complaint is two-fold: 1) I object to her boorish and inane attempt in the original post she made (one writer to another…); i.e., I have an aesthetic complaint, but it's not one upon which I'd base any sort of legal action, and 2) my concern is that the 4GW-style mentality will prove very dangerous to many more people if it is left to rule the day and the future. The question becomes one of whether conflict should be resolved in a very horizontal, ad hoc, mob fashion or through a means upon which we can all agree, accepting the outcome, out of better hope for the future; i.e., through rule of law.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Furthermore, comments like TDL's and your own assessment that the comment is “very smart” show the disdain for the rule of law, and the legal system and procedures, indeed our very system of government, that I find to be very dangerous. While I would be one of the first to suggest that our system can be improved, probably much improved, from what it is, I do not think that disdaining the legal process so unilaterally is significantly different than what the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq (some of whom are both) do.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Wow! CGW, do you work for the Bush administration??
You realize your last comment reads like this: “If you don't think people should sue at the drop of a pin, then you're letting the terrorist win!”
That kind of absurdity can only damage your argument.
Instead of comparing us to terrorists, why don't you list the specifics from Kat's original post that you think constitute libel. Then if you want to go further, compare and contrast the employee's initial response and explain why, if Kat's post is libelous, is the employee's response not.
I await your answer, because if saying you don't like something is slander/libel, I could be in big trouble, I've regularly told friends whether or not I like a particular restaurant/movie/book/retail store/etc.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
I may have contempt for some laws, regs., and certain aspects of the legal system, but I do not disdain the “rule of law”. Furthermore, I fail to see how Ms. Coble's post demonstrates a disdain for the “rule of law” or the dangers of 4GW. I think you are reaching here. My point was twofold; 1) the fee structure used by this firm is not the industry practice and often associated with firms that are trying to defraud their clients, 2) reputation is critical to the success of a business. I stand by this comment:
“Good business can defend their reputation by simply showing their results; bad business rely on lawsuits”
I stand by this comment because this is one of the factors in how markets operate. I do not see how this fundamental economic/business point is dangerous to our entire way of life (especially since reputation and the ability to criticize businesses have been fundamental aspects of American capitalism.) I am truly perplexed by your comment. We may simply be talking past each other and debating different topics.
Regards,
TDL
April 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
TDL,
The question may become, Who gets to determine the “good” and the “bad” before the words “business”, and how shall it be determined?
Besides Coble, nearly every other blogger writing about this controversy has virtually no direct experience with the company JLK. And yet, they all combined may be able to set “good” or “bad” status for the company on the basis of 1) Coble's critique, 2) the JLK representative's comment on that post, and 3) JLK's response (to threaten a lawsuit.) That's it. The non-bloggers who do a Google search on the company now have those three things, plus the 20x factor of these other bloggers who know next to nothing about the company (except what they have read on each others' blogs, found via Google.) Furthermore, the “good” and “bad” status is not being set by a disappearance of people willing to pay several K for career placement, but by word of mouth founded on nothing but blogospheric indignation. Can JLK show their results, when people stop being available for results to happen — i.e., when very few people actually use JLK's services, as a result of the Blogospheric storm?
Before the Internet, word of mouth as it increased its distance from the actual people interacting with businesses — multiple layers of separation — would fade. Now, the Internet has upset that dynamic; in fact, it seems reversed: as the layers of separation increase, the word-of-mouth, in a queered version of the telephone game, increases in intensity, vehemence, etc., or at least maintains a certain level of loudness in a self-perpetuating style. (Just brainstorming in this last para.)
April 14th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
If this firm has a good track record and does what they claim to do, they can simply prove there 90-95% success rate. I can not attest to the industry standard of success rates, but this level of success does not strike me as impossible (some of the very best in financial services sector [which I am in] boast these type of rates.) I took issue with their price structure, which is uncommon and typically associated with scams (this does not mean that a reputable firm can not use this method.) Also, the JLK representative made a point about how it is better to pay up front (and I wanted to take this opportunity to counter that point;) if you are on a job hunt your goal is to gain a position where you can showcase your talents. Yes high pay is good, but an opportunity is even better. When you are unemployed $5K could mean the difference between paying the bills and not paying for a couple of months or more. If the choice was between taking lower pay and gaining a position or potentially putting myself in a financial bind, I would choose the former. At best JLK has a bad philosophy, at worst they are scamming their clients; I can not say which it is, but I can say that if this firm asked me to pay them money I would stand up and walk out of the interview. Bad firm does not necessarily equal bad people. Their business model is flawed. If their business model is flawed, then the market should punish them until they rectify that error.
As for reputation, before the internet there were trade journals. Yes these journals (not the scholarly types the are more well known today) were not instantaneous, but often they would carry some mean spirited attacks on various businesses. These types of complaints have always existed. It is simply easier today to see these complaints, because you can find anything online as opposed to digging through the periodicals section at a library. Yes, where word of mouth is concerned distance had a role to play. Instead of distance, word of mouth is now affected by time. I would guess that in a week or two, few will remember this issue. A good business will be able to sustain such assault, because if the complaint comes from one or two individuals it will most likely not be able to sustain itself for an extended period of time. If that is the case the assault will dissipate, otherwise new complaints will arise and sustain this assault.
As for who gets to decide, the consumer does. It is that simple. If provide a service or sell a good your ultimate master is the consumer. Satisfy the consumer and you satisfy your financial objectives. It is that simple, the consumer is master.
As for the marketing acumen of JLK, it is abysmal. The type of comment that the JLK representative made was unprofessional, emotional, and counter-productive. The best comment to have made would have been, “It is unfortunate that we were unable to help with your problem. Our clients are satisfied with our performance, but we appreciate your input. We wish you and your husband the best in your job hunt.” That simple, no multi-paragraph tirade. Short and simple (I believe the military term is KISS.) As for their standing on the search engines, higher a company that specializes in managing these results; there are dozens out there and the cost is reasonable.
Regards,
TDL
April 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
Flat & horizontal [1] conflict is more peaceful, and even “more American” [2], that vertical and steep combat.
Dolphin,
“why don't you list the specifics from Kat's original post that you think constitute libel. Then if you want to go further, compare and contrast the employee's initial response and explain why, if Kat's post is libelous, is the employee's response not.”
I agree that this would be helpful.
TDL,
“As for their standing on the search engines, higher a company that specializes in managing these results; there are dozens out there and the cost is reasonable.”
Do you have experience with such companies? I'm wondering, in light of the very different results for ask, google, and live. [3]
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/05/01/what_tom_friedman_means_by_flat.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/30/blogs_versus_msm_in_the_18th_century.html
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/15/comparing-kirking-on-ask-google-and-live.html
April 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I do not have experience in using those types of services. I only know them from the equity side. I'm not a Tech analyst, however, and my knowledge of them is limited.
Also, since when has stating personal opinion risen to the level of libel?
Regards,
TDL
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
TDL,
Very good comments. Some thoughts:
“At best JLK has a bad philosophy, at worst they are scamming their clients; I can not say which it is, but I can say that if this firm asked me to pay them money I would stand up and walk out of the interview. Bad firm does not necessarily equal bad people. Their business model is flawed. If their business model is flawed, then the market should punish them until they rectify that error.”
I think many examples of paying upfront exist, particularly if we broaden the concept of payment to include investments and the type of market which cannot guarantee 100% return on investment. Purchasing a product from Wal-Mart is one thing; investing in Wal-Mart is another; and paying another to invest that money for you carries even more risk and less guarantee of a return. Given the low unemployment rate in the U.S., the fact that many older employees are not leaving to make room for younger employees to advance to better positions, etc., I'm not sure that ideal placement to the satisfaction of the consumer utilizing a career manager is something that can be guaranteed — also considering the demands such a consumer might might, plus the expenditure a career manager might need to make in satisfying those demands. The fact that the Cobles had not been able to find the ideal job on their own, thus choosing to go to JLK, suggests to me that they probably already know the job market may be tough; that may be part of their “button” issue (i.e., that JLK could push those buttons, as described by the writer of the blog post.)
As for flawed business models: I agree with you. Ultimately, the company's business model should be the deciding factor. Part of that model means being able to render acceptable service to a consumer, thus getting that consumer's business and sustaining it without follow-up lawsuits for a failed contract negotiation.
“As for who gets to decide, the consumer does. It is that simple. “
No, it's not any more. Were any of the bloggers writing about this controversy the “consumers” in that formulation?
“If provide a service or sell a good your ultimate master is the consumer. Satisfy the consumer and you satisfy your financial objectives. It is that simple, the consumer is master.”
Now, the ultimate master is the nameless (often) and faceless (usually) blogger who never visited with you, tried your service or product, etc. — and never would have even if they'd never heard of you, or even if they had. This gets to your point about trade journals and word-of-mouth reputation building: The internet is another creature, since all these speakers are generally nameless and faceless. Bloggers may cry “Free Speech!” but many of those who do — not all — hide behind pseudonyms and false names in anonymity: unwilling to really believe that the are protected whatever they say, nor willing to stand up to defend what they say, or put their lives and reputations on the line for free speech. Indeed, a slew of the pseudonymous “mouths” giving “the word” may be only one putative “consumer” with multiple online personalities. Essentially, the speech has become quite separate from the concrete reality (any real connection or interaction with the business or with those who have direct experience the business) and from persons with a personal reputation to maintain. No longer will hateful, curse-filled, lying, inarticulate and slanderous speech carry the burden of proof and the threat of backfire. (Consider the example of my telling my neighbor that he should buy a car from the used-car salesman Mr. Jones; then consider the fact that Mr. Jones only sells lemons and, unknown to my neighbor, is my cousin; and, finally, consider my neighbor's opinion of me after I have told him such a thing.)
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“and, finally, consider my neighbor's opinion of me after I have told him such a thing.”
…and he has bought one of the cars. I forgot to finish the thought.
All of this line of thinking has to do with the issue of static. [1] The speech is increasingly distant from the most pertinent causes — the blogstorm is warring against a theoretical shutdown of each blogger's blog from similar lawsuits rather than against the business practices or models and actual dealings of the business — and thus the effects of the speech do not address those things so much as other things. Reputation may solidify around ideology and abstract notions and perhaps personal loyalties rather than around actual practices. A major corporation or conglomerate of corporations might successfully fight against such a storm, or not; but a much smaller business has no hope once the fire has taken hold — save a resounding and ultimately standing legal judgment, but only as long as the legal system is still respected by a sufficient majority of people.
[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/01/interlude_static_visualized_co.php
April 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Curtis,
“A major corporation or conglomerate of corporations might successfully fight against such a storm, or not; but a much smaller business has no hope once the fire has taken hold — save a resounding and ultimately standing legal judgment, but only as long as the legal system is still respected by a sufficient majority of people.”
Very good point. Like the Imus controversy, the target of the outrage is weak enough to lose a symbolic battle [1].
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/16/don-imus-and-jl-kirk.html