Jalopnik picks up on BenzBoost story regarding Evosport and Evosport threatens legal action

Wow. Jalopnik picked this up...

I smell rug burns.

LOL, wtf is this?

Serota also said Mr. Wilk has a prior relationship with Evosport and "pretty much threatened" them while trying obtain something for the company

Uh, I was a good customer and paid them quite well. Threatened them with what for what? Obtain what? I haven't done business with them in years.

I love that it says "unfair competition" WTF is wrong with these people..

Originally Posted by LostMarine

I love that it says "unfair competition" WTF is wrong with these people..

I have no idea what is wrong with them, look at this crap:

Update: We've been contacted by Evosport's counsel, Todd Serota, who says the company believes the claims are false and will pursue legal action against BenzBoost and its owner Joseph Wilk.

"Mr. Wilke has published information about Evosport that is clearly false and Evosport has tried to resolve it the easy way by asking him to take it down. He has not. Evosport feels they have no choice because it is hurting them…"

How am I hurting them and how are the claims false? By stating the fact is they haven't delivered parts to people? How many guys have come out and said they have been waiting for their parts for months on end? Didn't JRCART state everything was true? Don't their own documents show they have hundreds of thousands of debt? Aren't they trying to get investors due to this?

What is their problem? They need to deal with their issues and not blame me for everything.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Well, they have actually been threatening my father. Evosport has outdated contact information from when I did business with them years ago. They seem to assume I live with parents and that by going after my father it will force me to take the documents down. I don't live with him and he has nothing to do with my site so it is really just a petty move to threaten someone's 73 year old father. My father has been through concentration camps and forced relocation to Siberia so if they think mean phone calls are going to scare him they are out of their minds.

Clearly they seem to be threatened since they can't control this site like they can MBworld to just sweep this all away so they are using such despicable tactics. Yes, it does make them look worse and reflects poorly on them.

un fing believable! Only scum of the earth would bring family into this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But then again we are dealing with Brad i would put his name next to Mert D. and that is as low as it gets, so i guess this does not surprise me one bit. And winner of douche of the year goes to Brad O. congrats scum!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Yomama69

An person doesn't ever have to have representation in any court. It's called a pro se litigant. many times people go pro se in small claims courts, but I am not aware of any that restrict representation, as that's a fundamental right.

California has great laws for consumers....which is why I file my cases there

As a litigant in CA small claims court, you are not allowed to be represented by an attorney. Just adding some clarification.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp...tm#bringlawyer

Originally Posted by Sticky

I have no idea what is wrong with them, look at this crap:



How am I hurting them and how are the claims false? By stating the fact is they haven't delivered parts to people? How many guys have come out and said they have been waiting for their parts for months on end? Didn't JRCART state everything was true? Don't their own documents show they have hundreds of thousands of debt? Aren't they trying to get investors due to this?

What is their problem? They need to deal with their issues and not blame me for everything.

I don't know but if their atty can't spell your name correctly I think it's a good start Evosport has no one to blame but themselves period. You certainly didn't put them in the position they find themselves in, they did.

Sticky,you have a set of balls the size of grapefruits! You stand up for what you feel is right&won't back down from being bullied..I respect you for that and that makes you A-OK in my book. You're da man

Originally Posted by MHP LLC

I don't know but if their atty can't spell your name correctly I think it's a good start Evosport has no one to blame but themselves period. You certainly didn't put them in the position they find themselves in, they did.

Exactly, why aren't they taking responsibility?

Originally Posted by oldgixxer

Sticky,you have a set of balls the size of grapefruits! You stand up for what you feel is right&won't back down from being bullied..I respect you for that and that makes you A-OK in my book. You're da man

Thank you, let's hope others feel the same way.

To the best of my knowledge, First Amendment rights are pretty broadly supported and protected. AFAIK, not only would the vendor harmed need to prove the information was falsified, but that the poster of said information willfully acted with malicious intent to harm the vendor, to have a chance at successfully winning a slander/libel suit.

IMHO, Sticky's been pretty good about using "allegedly," "likely," "X we believe to be true, Y is rumor at present," etc, as this story has unfolded.

Since the investment "feeler" docs were marked "confidential" - posting them publicly might be a no-no. But, I'm not sure if that's Sticky's problem, or whomever leaked their set of confidential documents to outsiders.

But, if the documentation isn't intentionally faked, knowingly made to look real and posted as such, I don't see a claim against Sticky/BB as having much merit. That said, I'm not a lawyer.

Wow. This thread really serves it up. Just when you think it can't deliver anymore, BAMMM.... we have threatening letters from attorneys. What I have to ask...Evosport doesn't have the money to provide goods to their customers that have already paid for said goods, yet they have the funds to hire or keep an attorney on retainer to attack an auto enthusiast website and the owner of that website's father?

Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM

Since the investment "feeler" docs were marked "confidential" - posting them publicly might be a no-no. But, I'm not sure if that's Sticky's problem, or whomever leaked their set of confidential documents to outsiders.

They weren't marked confidential. The questionnaire was the only one that seemed to be at the top to be although it was sent out into the public and to various mail servers.

Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM

But, if the documentation isn't intentionally faked, knowingly made to look real and posted as such, I don't see a claim against Sticky/BB as having much merit. That said, I'm not a lawyer.

The documentation is 100% real so exactly, no merit.

Not only would I fall under shield laws for investigative journalism but I am also working as a consumer advocate:

Consumer advocacy refers to actions taken by individuals or groups to promote and protect the interests of the buying public.

I think Evosport should probably realize at this point with these articles being reposted all over the web, attempting to scare me won't do much good and will only serve to be counter-productive to their own goals.

Originally Posted by 930chas

Wow. This thread really serves it up. Just when you think it can't deliver anymore, BAMMM.... we have threatening letters from attorneys. What I have to ask...Evosport doesn't have the money to provide goods to their customers that have already paid for said goods, yet they have the funds to hire or keep an attorney on retainer to attack an auto enthusiast website and the owner of that website's father?

Well, you raise an interesting point.

Turns out the attorney is Brad's friend who does driving events with Brad: http://www.digest.net/bmw/archive/v8/msg07383.html

I have received numerous tips, and I can't substantiate if this is true, but have been told that he supposedly will write legal documents for Brad in exchange for parts and so forth. They are buddies and he would organize driving events as you can see from the link. I believe he owned a company called tracquest which he apparently sold.

Sticky PI ......damn bro you don't miss much.

Originally Posted by 930chas

Sticky PI ......damn bro you don't miss much.

Some people say I'd make a great attorney, guess we'll see.

Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM

To the best of my knowledge, First Amendment rights are pretty broadly supported and protected. AFAIK, not only would the vendor harmed need to prove the information was falsified, but that the poster of said information willfully acted with malicious intent to harm the vendor, to have a chance at successfully winning a slander/libel suit.

IMHO, Sticky's been pretty good about using "allegedly," "likely," "X we believe to be true, Y is rumor at present," etc, as this story has unfolded.

Since the investment "feeler" docs were marked "confidential" - posting them publicly might be a no-no. But, I'm not sure if that's Sticky's problem, or whomever leaked their set of confidential documents to outsiders.

But, if the documentation isn't intentionally faked, knowingly made to look real and posted as such, I don't see a claim against Sticky/BB as having much merit. That said, I'm not a lawyer.

I doubt you'd have too much trouble with law school.

I'm not a constitutional law lawyer, but I have studied Con Law. And some of the subleties definitely escape me.

Regarding the standard for determining libel, it depends on whether the injured party is a public or private person. Public persons are those that put themselves into the spotlight or inject themselves into public discussion. I imagine this is a factual question. I know that this can be difficult to determine at times, nevertheless, a determination is always made one way or another.

If the party is a public person then the New York Times vs. Sullivan standard is used. If the person is private then the Gertz standard is used.

New York Times vs Sullivan, provides for the "actual malice" standard. That is, the publisher of the statement knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of that statement.

So here, the protection of speech is higher because a public person's privacy is valued less than a private person's.

The Gertz standard affords speech less protection because a private figure's privacy is valued more than public speech that involves him. Here, all a private person needs to show is that the publisher of the statement acted negligently, which is easier to prove than recklessness.

Just commenting on the standard you mentioned.

Edit: An interesting quote from one of the Dissenting Justices, William O. Douglas, in Gertz (found this on Wikipedia):

"William O. Douglas, on the other hand, felt that libel laws were too strict even as it was, and that leaving liability standards for private figures up to the states was too capricious:

'This of course leaves the simple negligence standard as an option with the jury free to impose damages upon a finding that the publisher failed to act as "a reasonable man." With such continued erosion of First Amendment protection, I fear that it may well be the reasonable man who refrains from speaking'"

Originally Posted by Sticky

Some people say I'd make a great attorney, guess we'll see.

I can see that.