Evidence Gallery (Asher case)

Below, we are putting everything we have. This will be updated as we get new information. It is in two categories, evidence provided by Asher and evidence provided by everybody else.
Outside sources (chats may not be in order. We are uploading in the order tl which we recieved them.)

Below, a damning confession from Asher.

Above image posted to show HIPAA does not apply to media.


Asher’s evidence

Is a respected activist stealing groups?

UPDATE 1: In regards of the accusation that Asher hijacked the pages mentioned, we have found that the evidence is insuffient. We cannot confirm who started OpExposeCPS without a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, Asher is innocent as per his Constitutional rights. An image has been removed due to fhe HIPPA law.

For anybody who has given birth, nurtured, and perfected an idea, it is terrible when a trusted friend hijacks it. For a couple of unlucky people, this is exactly what happened to them.

Asher Gemlar is not an unknown name. Through groups such as #OpExposeCPS, we all know of his devotion to the cause. However, what if we were to tell you that #OpExposeCPS is registered to an EIN number and so, legally, Asher is defrauding a company? Hard to believe, right?

The image above shows who actually owns #OpExposeCPS. Located above the name, Kara Zimmerman, you can clearly see the company name. According to Ms. Zimmerman, Asher had volunteered with her organization. However, upon being made an admin, he booted her off and hijacked the page.

She alleges that he is illegally gaining money via donations. However, none of the money goes to what he claims it to. We remained skeptical as the claim seemed a bit outlandish. Then we got several images, they are below.

Above, (image removed due to HIPPA laws.)

Above, Asher uses the group to hustle money for food.

Upon further research, we learned that Asher has a prior criminal record pertaining to drugs. This record, in our opinion, brings a lot of questions toward his credibility. Although we already began to doubt him, what we found next only further confirmed our doubts.

A second accusation of hijacking somebody else’s hard work. Although not much is known regarding this accusation, the first accusation speaks wonders. Hopefully, in the near future, we will have an update.

One thing is for sure, if Asher is an activist, he is not a good one. His operation and method seems to be based upon the theft of everybody else’s hard work. It is, with that in mind, we warn you: beware who you trust.

CALIFORNIA MOM ROISIN CASSIDY: VICTIM OF AN ATTORNEY DISCOVERY SCAM!

Disclaimer: WoC does not own this article. It is being uploaded to preserve it in the event the original is taken down. The victim, has informed us that a well-known CPS activist has been threatning her. We are investigating this activist.

Source: original article here

Many of us have come to believe that our own attorney was working for the other side. However, when we confronted our attorneys about our suspicions or brought the issue up before the Court, we have been scoffed at and mocked.  
In the letter below, you will see how one litigant, Roisin Cassidy, actually caught out two of her attorneys working in coordination together and with the opposing attorney so that she would lose custody through a scheme that revolved around court rules in regard to discovery.  What the attorneys did was collude with each other in a post judgment custody switching scheme to allow the abusive father discovery, while Ms. Cassidy was prohibited from doing so.

Read the letter below as Catharine Sloper unravels this complex web of lies and deception that so many family court litigants fall victim to.  Think you are imagining it? Think it couldn’t possibly be true?  Think again.

Dear Attorney Jennifer Ani:
I have been informed that, in response to a blog posted on the website “Divorce in Connecticut”, you have had several objections to the content. In the spirit of wanting to be entirely accurate, I did want to run some questions by you.  
The particular issue which I hope you can address, and which came up within the context of the Divorce in Connecticut blog regarding this case, has to do with the issue of discovery as follows:
On November 14, 2015, Attorney Ani, you wrote an email to Roisin stating that Attorney Christiana Samuels refused to reopen discovery as follows:
“She [Attorney Samuels]…said, “your client asked for disclosure a long time ago.  It’s [discovery has] been cut off.”
The implication of Attorney Samuels statements was that discovery was closed and that Attorney Robert Bruening, on behalf of his client, was somehow responsible for closing discovery by sending Attorney Samuels a document requesting disclosure of discovery.  The further implication was that the inability to reopen discovery was fatal to Roisin’s case because then she would be precluded from bringing any rebuttal witnesses to trial to offset the custody evaluator, Dr. Kenneth Perlmutter’s report.  
As I state again, the finger for this major legal error, both Attorney Ani and Attorney Samuels appeared to be stating, was pointed directly at Attorney Robert Bruening who was held responsible for sending out this document requesting disclosure.  On the basis of these two attorney’s accusation, Roisin Cassidy then refused to pay Attorney Bruening the outstanding amount of $10,000 in legal fees which she allegedly owed him at the time.
Based upon the stated concern that discovery might be closed, you, Attorney Ani then turned to a person you designated as a discovery expert–Attorney Kathryn Kirkland, a legal professional with at least 40 years of legal experience.  In a rather inconclusive email dated December 7, 2015 (copy provided to Roisin), Attorney Kirkland offered some views regarding whether or not discovery was closed in the case citing CCP 128(a)3, CCP 2024.050 and CCP 2034.220.  I am assuming that you charged Roisin Cassidy for this consultation.
However, despite these protestations on the part of three attorneys, I myself looked under Article 2, Section 2034.310 and I saw that discovery, or late disclosure of an expert witness, under section (b) of that part is acceptable if “that expert is called as a witness to impeach the testimony of an expert witness offered by any other party at the trial.  I agree that such testimony would largely be limited to that of a fact witness not an opinion witness. This is perhaps unfortunate, but it does not leave Roisin completely without options, which is what you should have told Roisin, but did not.  
To verify this particular point of law, I did send a letter of inquiry to each of the attorneys in this case–Samuels, Ani, Bruening and Kirkland–in order to give them a chance to correct me on this point.  However, thus far, not a single one of them has responded with a correction of any of the points I make here in this blog. 
A few days later, on December 10, 2015, with Roisin under the impression that discovery was closed and her expert witnesses, therefore, excluded, Roisin approved and authorized Attorney Jennifer Ani to use her limited legal funds for the purpose of crafting and submitting a motion which she hoped would reopen discovery so that she could fully defend her case.  In connection to reopening discovery, the motion Attorney Ani wrote entitled “Notice of Application and Application For Continuance of Trial Date; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Attorney Jennifer Ani; Exhibits” made reference to CACCP 2034.230(b), CCP 2034.710, and CCP 2034.720 as well as case law from 1990, 1999, and 2006.  
In response, Attorney Samuels submitted to the Court an eye brow raising two hours later on the same day her “Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration to Respondent’s Requste [sic] For Order in which she opposed Attorney Ani’s request for the reopening of discovery solely citing CCP Section 2024.020(b).
Judge Swope, who must have known that these motions were fraudulent and should have exposed them as such, denied the request for a continuance and to reopen discovery.  This action alone calls his ethical base into question and appears grounds for a judicial complaint against him.
So this is my point towards which I have been going slowly and surely via this long winded introduction, and it is as follows: 
The entire discovery issue in the case was completely fabricated!  In reality there was no such thing! The attorneys in this case on both sides appear to have gotten together and invented the whole thing, and I will tell you how I know this.
I had the opportunity to read two articles regarding Family Code 218, one of which is entitled “Family Code 218 Overrules Marriage of Boblitt Decision and Allows Post Judgment Discovery.  What Family Code 218 apparently states is that, as of January 1, 2015 (and please note: Roisin Cassidy’s trial was conducted on February 8, 2016) “discovery will reopen automatically upon the filing of a post-judgment motion as to the issues raised in the post-judgment pleadings currently before the court.”  This new rule, apparently, determined that the California Civil law which all the attorneys in Roisin’s case kept on citing no longer applied in any way whatsover.  In other words, Rule 218 means that discovery opens automatically once a post judgment motion is filed regardless of California Civil Law.
Thus, my puzzlement and that of Roisin.  If Family Code 218 replaces prior existing California law, why were all these attorneys in this case–Attorney Jennifer Ani, Attorney Christiana Samuels, and Attorney Kathryn Kirkland, let alone a Judge–bringing up and debating this issue at length to the point where other more significant matters in this case were left neglected?  Discovery was reopened automatically when the petitioner filed to change custody from Roisin to him.  Therefore, the entire debate over discovery was moot!  So why was it conducted?  I am very curious to know the answer, as is Roisin!
Then, if Attorney Robert Bruening will excuse me, let me close with his words.  When Roisin asked him why he had closed discovery, which was what Attorney Christiana Samuels accused him of doing, this was his response:
“I did not close discovery.  No attorney can close discovery without some kind of agreement.  I cannot imagine what [sic] any attorney would agree to close discovery prematurely.  I guarantee you there is no such agreement. Discovery ends by law/Rules, 30 days before trial.  Giving notice of your witnesses occurs 5 days before trial.  That has nothing to do with whether discovery is still open or not.”
As you may recall, Attorney Ani, you provided notice to the Court and to the opposing side regarding Roisin Cassidy’s rebuttal witnesses on December 7, 2015, well in advance of the February 8, 2016 trial date and so there should have been no problem including these witnesses on Ms. Cassidy’s roster of witnesses for her trial.
Attorney Ani, naturally in the face of learning that it appears that the discussion over the reopening of discovery was a complete fabrication based upon nothing and a total waste of time, Ms. Cassidy is very upset. When you should have been focusing in on preparing the expert witnesses and exhibits for trial, you appear to have been wasting time and Roisin’s limited financial resources on legal issues and conversations that had absolutely no basis or merit.  What is more, had you prepared properly as you should have, no continuance would have been required.
In addition, you appear to have been, and Attorney Samuels appears to have been, misrepresenting Attorney Robert Bruening’s actions on behalf of his client and ascribing malpractice to him when he had not done anything wrong; this led to Attorney Bruening suffering a considerable financial loss.  Further, I understand you have made several calls to Roisin Cassidy’s family members and tried to slander her reputation and standing with them.  This is unconscionable.
In putting together this extraordinarily deceptive and manipulative discovery scheme to swindle Ms. Roisin Cassidy and her family out of thousands and thousands of dollars of legal fees, and at the same time hand over custody of her children to their abusive father, you have violated your legal obligations to your client in multiple ways.  I understand that she intends to file a grievance complaint against you.  I sincerely hope that she does so.
Yours truly,
Catharine Sloper

Divorce in Connecticut Website

Please sign the petition at the link below and show your support.  Thanks so much.  See link:
https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-american-family-court-bias-against-irish-immigrant-mother

Catharine Sloper at 11:51 PM

In the case of Roisin Cassidey: did attorney Jennifer Ani fail her client?

NOTICE: WOC DOES NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE WE UPLOADED IT BECAUSE A SELECT GROUP ARE TRYING TO GET IT REMOVED.

SOURCE: original article here.

On October 26, 2015, Roisin Cassidy, a protective mother residing in San Mateo, CA received very bad news. Dr. Kenneth Perlmutter, the custody evaluator in her case, had written a 45 page custody evaluation recommending that the court shift primary custody of her two boys to her ex husband, Stephen Tyrrell, who lives outside of California in Washington State, even though she had been the primary caretaker of the children for 15 years. The result would be a situation where Roisin lost all legal custody of her children to the father. Further, Roisin Cassidy would have to get permission from her ex-husband in order to travel outside of the country, whether she had her children with her or not.
Roisin Cassidy is a fighter, particularly when it comes to her children, so instead of giving up in the face of Dr. Perlmutter’s assault on her parenthood, Ms. Cassidy decided to hire an attorney and fight the Perlmutter report. To do so, Ms. Cassidy hired Attorney Jennifer Ani based out of San Rafael, California. At the time that she was hired, by all accounts, Attorney Ani, even though she would later deny it, was completely on board with disputing Dr. Kenneth Perlmutter’s custody evaluation and fighting to assist Roisin Cassidy in holding onto custody of her two boys.
In fact, in a letter to the opposing attorney, Christiana Samuels dated December 6, 2015, Attorney Ani affirmed Ms. Cassidy’s right to fight for custody stating, “My client has a right to contest the recommendations, she has a right to a trial and a due process right to have that trial take an appropriate length of time.”  Within weeks of trial Attorney Ani was affirming her client Raisin Cassidy’s right to fight for custody, stating in an email to Roisin dated January 23, 2016, “But this [i.e. going to trial] is worth it. If I can do this [get the expert witness testimony and reports], I do think that we have a good chance to defeat the move-away.”
Even as close as ten days before trial, Attorney Ani was claiming that she intended to fight for Roisin Cassidy to maintain custody of her children. Further, at that time, Ms. Cassidy paid Attorney Ani $20,000 in attorney’s fees for her services based upon her assertion that she was fighting for custody.
Further, in the months leading up to trial, based upon Attorney Ani’s claim that she would strenuously oppose Dr. Perlmutter’s recommendation of a change in custody, Roisin Cassidy went to see three experts that Attorney Ani recommended. Also, based upon Attorney Ani’s assertions, Ms. Cassidy anticipated that these experts would provide expert reports and testimony to dispute Dr. Kenneth Perlmutter’s evaluation. These experts were as follows: Dr. Thomas A. Gonda, M.D., Dr. Robert Kaufman, Ph.D., and Beth Miller, M.A.. In preparation, during the months of November 2015 and December 2015, Roisin Cassidy met with these mental health professionals and paid them for the evaluations with the understanding that they were eventually going to be testifying in court regarding their work with her.
As the day of trial approached, however, Roisin Cassidy began to notice warnings signs.  For instance, Ms. Cassidy and Attorney Jennifer Ani were supposed to meet on the weekend of January 30-31 to discuss preparations for trial which was scheduled for February 10, 2016, but Attorney Ani cancelled those arrangements and told her she had to fly to another state for an important criminal trial. Whenever Roisin Cassidy asked Attorney Ani to review some of her questions for trial or share the contents of expert witnesses’ reports, the attorney was unwilling to do so.  In essence, right from the start, Attorney Ani evaded and avoided any meetings with Roisin Cassidy necessary to prepare for trial, and didn’t bother to do any preparation on her own.
Still, nothing prepared Roisin Cassidy for the shock and surprise she experienced, when, within days of the trial, Attorney Ani submitted to the court a motion to withdraw from the case, essentially abandoning her client.
So how did this outrageous situation unfold?
The trial in this matter, as I have stated, was set for February 10, 2016. Essentially, what happened is that on or around February 3-5, 2016, Attorney Jennifer Ani dropped all pretense of attempting to fight for custody and pretty much  told Roisin to agree to put her oldest son on a plane to Washington state where her ex husband, Steve Tyrell, lived by the end of the week, and also agree to do the same with her youngest son once school was over. If Roisin Cassidy did not agree to this immediately, Attorney Ani stated she would no longer represent Ms. Cassidy. What made this plan particularly egregious was the fact that both of the children have medical issues, so any change in their living situation required proper advanced preparations. This was an issue that clearly the father and the attorneys involved couldn’t care less about.
Of course, Roisin Cassidy did not want to agree to this; she had just spent the last three months preparing for and paying for a defense of her role as residential parent to her children. It was a bit sudden for her to be doing an about face.
Once Attorney Jennifer Ani realized that Roisin was not going to cooperate in wrecking her own case, Attorney Ani then  violated her professional ethics as an attorney by misrepresenting the facts of the case.
Thus, in emails to Roisin Cassidy and in documents submitted to the Court, Attorney Ani lied directly, and blamed her decision to withdraw on Ms. Cassidy, falsely stating that Roisin did not intend to pay the fees required for expert witnesses to appear in court and provide their testimony.
Along this line, on February 6, 2016, Attorney Jennifer Ani wrote a letter to Ms. Roisin Cassidy stating, “You are aware that each expert requires to be paid in advance of trial. You are also aware that fees remain outstanding.” Further, in an email dated February 8, 2016, Attorney Ani stated, “This email confirms that you have not paid Dr. Kaufman’s bill, Beth Miller’s bill, and Dr. Gonda’s bill .”
In fact, Roisin Cassidy had already paid Attorney Ani $3,400 for Dr. Kaufman’s appearance in court. She had also paid Attorney Jennifer Ani $5,000 to assure Dr. Kenneth Perlmutter’s appearance in court.
However, before paying any further fees and throwing good money after bad, in an email to Attorney Ani on February 6, 2016, Roisin stated that she was only willing to pay the remaining expert witness fees if Attorney Ani agreed to advocate diligently on her behalf using those witnesses. Would Attorney Ani agree to do so, she asked. Otherwise, what would be the point? Attorney Ani did not respond to that question.
In her motion to withdraw dated February 10, 2016, Attorney Ani stated in her declaration, under Item #3, pretty much that Roisin Cassidy is responsible for paying all expert witness fees, and essentially implied to the Court that Ms. Cassidy had not done so.  Indeed, Roisin Cassidy had paid for the majority of the expert witness fees and was prepared to pay them in full, if Attorney Ani would agree to use those witnesses to full advantage.  What Attorney Ani had done was make it clear she had no intention of doing so.
All of this is damning in terms of Attorney Jennifer Ani’s behavior. Not only did she abandon her client just before trial, Attorney Ani then sought to place the blame for her actions on her client in an attempt to destroy Ms. Cassidy’s reputation and undercut her custody case. Such actions are a complete violation of Attorney Jennifer Ani’s attorney ethics.
The actual responsibility for the collapse of Roisin Cassidy’s case lay directly on Attorney Jennifer Ani’s shoulders and had nothing to do with Roisin.  This following explains why.
According to San Mateo, CA local rules for a long cause trial (which is what had been scheduled), if you intend to have expert witnesses appear in court, and if those witnesses intend to provide reports to be submitted to court as evidence, your attorney must submit a brief including the names of the witnesses and their reports must be provided to the opposing attorney five days before the trial date in order that the opposing side can exercise its due process right to prepare a response. The same goes for any exhibits that your side is intending to present to the Court.  All these need to be provided in advance in that brief.
Since Attorney Ani failed to provide the required advanced notice in regard to her expert witnesses, their reports, and any exhibits she intended to submit to the Court in advance, the judge excluded all of them from trial.  This was fatal to the case well before anyone stepped foot in the courtroom. Attorney Ani is the trained legal professional; she is the one who has been educated in court rules, not Roisin, and so to blame her client for her own failures makes no sense.
Still, Attorney Jennifer Ani did have Dr. Kenneth Perlmutter available for trial since the other side had called him in as a witness as well.
In fact, she had stated very specifically that her primary strategy was to demonstrate that Dr. Perlmutter’s report was inaccurate. If Attorney Ani had conducted a skilled cross examination exposing the factual errors and exploring the numerous contradictions of Perlmutter’s report, she could have succeeded easily.  So how could she possibly claim that not having additional expert witnesses would render it impossible for her to proceed with the case?
All Attorney Ani really had to do was present to the court all the exhibits Roisin Cassidy had provided to her indicating that Dr. Perlmutter’s report was riddled with mistakes.  Attorney Ani herself was the one who chose not to do so.  She was the one who simply ignored the San Mateo local rule requiring her to alert the opposing side of these exhibits so Roisin was unable to use them.
What is even more disgraceful in Attorney Jennifer Ani’s behavior in this case is not only did she lie about Roisin Cassidy’s willingness to pay for her witnesses, she also attempted to slander Ms. Cassidy’s reputation further by stating in her motion to withdraw that Ms. Cassidy was pursuing her case “without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring [a] person.”
This is absolutely and categorically untrue, and all the emails and correspondence conducted in this case back that assertion.  Raisin Cassidy pursued her case specifically because Attorney Jennifer Ani told her it was winnable and for no other reason.
Attorney ethics require that when an attorney withdraws from a case he or she does so in a manner that causes the least possible damage to her client.  Attorney Ani, in slandering her client twice, specifically violated that directive.
As it turned out, when Attorney Ani’s motion to withdraw came before the court, these falsehoods were so transparent that Judge Franchi, who heard the motion, refused to grant it.  Still, even though Attorney Ani wasn’t allowed to leave, Roisin Cassidy herself asked that Attorney Ani be removed from the case after watching the attorney make a complete mess of her defense at trial. That’s how badly Attorney Ani bungled the case while in court.
The question I was left with in the end was, did the Roisin Cassidy case represent a setup in which Attorney Jennifer Ani was complicit. I believe this is possible.
First of all, how else can you understand a major custody trial which was scheduled to last only three hours. When Roisin attempted to have this time frame expanded, her request was repeatedly denied. How is it possible to believe that any court would schedule a custody trial for three hours, knowing it has a lengthy history and required a 45 page custody report? Further, in a motion presented to the court on December 10, 2015, Attorney Ani had made it clear that she required at least 2 1/2 days to present her case.
Further, how else can you understand a situation where you have a major custody trial and the attorney for the defendant has simply failed to exchange lists of exhibits or the names of expert witnesses in advance which is required according to court rules.
Finally, how else are you going to understand a situation where the attorney representing the mother in the case suddenly, practically the day before trial, files a motion to withdraw based upon purely fabricated reasons, and then engages in a hateful rant against her former client as a means to break her spirit!
In the end, Roisin Cassidy paid at least $50,000 in legal fees to defend her right to parent, all of which led to nothing. Why?  Because Attorney Jennifer Ani simply abandoned her client, lied about her client, and then attempted to withdraw from the case while inflicting the maximum damage possible, all in violation of her professional ethics.  As Roisin said to me, “How could this happen?” We’d also like to know the answer to that question as well.
TO SUPPORT ROISIN CASSIDY IN HER BATTLE ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION AT THE LINK BELOW:
https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-american-family-court-bias-against-irish-immigrant-mother

Catharine Sloper at 12:24 AM

Linda Hickey evidence 1

People have asked for more evidence. Since she continues to slam victims, we are releasing everything sent to us. It may not be in order. We are simply uploading it as we recieved it.

COMPOSER: STEVEN BURK

I, Mr. Steven Burk, am not affiliated with any organizations. To this, Ms. Hickey has willfully fabricated that information in order to cause malicious harm to innocent organizations such as MAFA. In no way do I condone the actions of Ms. Hickey. That is why, I am uploading these images. Let her hang herself.

Notice Linda says she hurts victims “because she can.”

In the shadows: child predator busted

A parent’s worst fear is to learn that their children are in danger. It is even worst when we learn that the child has not only been groomed, but they actually believe these predators love them. For one anonymous mother, this fear has become reality.

The mother recently discovered that her daughter, “Jane,” has become a target for child predator, Danny Upchurch. Although it remains unclear as to how long they have spoken, his conditioning is clear. In fact, the young teen denies being in any form of danger.

Danny, in the image above, is clearly wanting a child with the 15yo. Disturbing right? Although this, within itself, is disturbing, it gets worst. When reviewing the images obtained by undisclosed sources, we found his reason for wanting this child.

Yes, you have read this correctly. Upon having a child, he desires to have sex with the child upon turning ten. Further into the conversation, he explains that if the child is male, she is to have sex with him. At one point, he even discusses a threesome.

What we have here is beyond horrific. This man, who walks freely, could potentially have other victims. It is cases such as this, that lead me to do what I do. People like this should be exposed, arrested, and the key thrown away. Simply stated, monitor your children, especially online.

A hen in the foxhole.

It was just a matter of time before an article of this nature would be composed. Advocates, who pretend to be such, are always a target for us. So, it is with that said, we now expose Linda Hickey (Clanahan.)

I recently had some disturbing stories flow in about Ms. Hickey. As always, I remained skeptical. After all, innocent until proven guilty, right? Well, sadly for her, the images I have portray her as a bully and so much more.

As I said, portray her as a bully. This “family advocate” has made many enemies. It is alleged that she has even began targeting organizations and advocates alike calling them frauds. One such victim is Rosemary Dalton, founder and CEO of M.A.F.A LLC. Linda had openly stated that the organization was a fake. Our response are the images below.

So, we have a “fake” organization that is state recognized? This right here completely discredits Ms. Hickey. To claim an organization is a fraud falls into the category of defamation. However, Linda doesn’t stop there.

The first comment indicates that Linda has blasted information about victim parents. Upon further investigation, I found that this is a highly plausible claim. But, she apparently runs GoFundMe’s to which victims do not get all the donated proceedings. The proof is below.

So, she closed this one and yet there are two problems here.

1. The GoFundMe is still active.

2. She clearly has not given the money to the intended person.

Why is this? Why would a family advocate “close” this and keep money in it? Is it a demonstration of ethics? Did she intend to pocket this money once it was forgotten? At this time, we can only speculate. Regardless of the reason, it is a clear display of her character.

Activists Raymond Schawb and Jennifer Winn even found themselves within her scope. For those who know these people, we know they have a very good reputation; they have also been a big driving force within the CPS arena. For Linda, that did not matter. She attacked and her victims list grew. But, we will let the image speak for itself.

Accusations of being a bully, blackmailing, putting active cases at risk, are very common with her. This is the type of advocate we need to avoid. Families want to believe that these people wish to help, however, this is not always the case.

She has targeted organizations and advocates alike. Made victims out of victims as well as those who do wish to help. False information is never a good thing. It is even more damning when it is against those who are trying to end the corruption.

Popular pet product fails customer

We have all heard the stories, somebody buys a pet product, it fails, and the company refuses to stand by their guarantees of refunding the product. Well, this is sorta like that.

The popular manufacturing company, “Out!” Is the company we will be discussing. Recently, a young couple bought the ever so popular, urine removal product (pictured below.) However, they never expected the turmoil that would soon unfold.

Upon following the directions and applying the product onto their pet’s urine, they discovered that the product actually did more harm than good. While it did remove the urine, it also destroyed the carpet (pictured below,) clogged their vaccuum, and rendered it innoperable.

However, it was the company’s response to this that has lead them to be on “WoC.” When confronted, the company stated that the customer was at fault for the damages. Although, the young couple followed their directions, they were at fault?

I took the time to visit with the couple, who were obvious upset. They told me that they originally only wanted a refund for the product. However, now they are wanting the company to pay for the repairs of their vaccuum and carpet.

I also took time to look at the damages, needless to say, I will not be buying their product anytime soon. The bottomline to this is fairly simple. When a company produces a product and that product fails, it is more ethical to address the customer’s concerns. So far, this company, based on various emails, has dragged the situation out for more than a week. Who is in the right? What do you think?