Tag Archives: Legal

Lawyer appeal BSD

Jerome Cornejo profile pic
Jerome Cornejo profile pic

I received the following email from Jerome Cornejo. The email address has this profile picture associated with it. Nice beach scene. Pity it is only 70×70 pixels in size.

From: Jerome Cornejo <[redacted]@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:27:18 +0300
Subject: Lawyer appeal BSD
To: Paul Zagoridis

Dear Paul.

We ask you to delete the full information about the company BSD in the daytime.

Due to the fact that we have not received a response from you on our official letter, we are forced to take corresponding action. For your false accusations against the Company BSD we are forced to file a lawsuit and defend the name of the Company in a court. You will have to answer in a court for the harm done to the company and people who lost their jobs, and also pay millions of dollars for caused damages.

I think he’s claiming to be a lawyer for BSD but it isn’t clear. It just stopped. There is no footer, or signature section with the usual corporate or lawyer guff. And no title, contact details or anything else.

There is a Microsoft Word attachment which could be a payload for all manner of malware. I very gingerly opened it in Google Drive.

No letterhead, names, addresses, phone numbers or other contact details, just text reproduced in full below.

Dear Paul!

We are obliged to inform you that your unreasonable claims and accusations regarding BSD Trade Service Corp activity caused great damage to the Company. The number of negative and false publications on your website impacted the Company’s activity.

All these people suffered from false publications on your website that adversely affected on Company’s reputation and caused financial losses.
 
BSD Trade Service Corp values its reputation and does not carry out any unlawful actions in which it was accused. We work in accordance with all laws and regulations established by Labor and Employment Department of our country. We said about this in a letter that we sent you earlier.
As we explained on the our previous reply letters Bsd provides Bpo services and has nothing to do with financial advisory.

Bsd is proud with the services that it provides,more than that with all the false information that you published on your website there is zero complaints from HQ broker clients at any level and this mean a lot,this mean that HQ broker that is our respectable client is working by the rules and regulations of the financial industry,more than that if there are clients that are not satisfied from HQ services they are more than welcome to withdrawal their capital at any time.

Due to the fact that we have not received a response from you on our official letter, we are forced to take corresponding action. For your false accusations against the Company BSD we are forced to file a lawsuit and defend the name of the Company in a court. You will have to answer in a court for the harm done to the company and we are suing you personally as well for damages and defamation you caused to Bsd worldwide,the value of the damages is millions and you can assure that with our legal team you will pay us all the damages personally.

The management.

I sent the following reply

Dear Jerome

Without Prejudice

I request further and better particulars, specifically

  • the name of your firm,
  • the name of the client you are representing,
  • for the avoidance of doubt, the address of the client,
  • your legal mailing address,
  • your address for service of documents,
  • your telephone number, and
  • your Roll of Attorney’s Number

I am surprised that you contacted me from a gmail email address rather than a professional firm address. Should I infer that you have not received instructions from your client?

I have not received any official letter before this email, other than an unsigned, unattributed and unverifiable message via my contact page claiming to be from “BSD Trade Services Corp. administration” on 15 June 2018 which I addressed at http://wealthesteem.org/official-letter-from-bsd-administration/ as well as in my message via BSD Trade Services Contact page. Given the lack of names, capacity and addresses on this email plus the dubious and unverifiable gmail source, it is not unreasonable to doubt the authenticity of all such messages.

Furthermore, by using the subject “Lawyer Appeal BSD” and threatening legal action you are passing yourself off as a lawyer. Given there is no lawyer called Jerome Cornejo licensed to practice law in either the Philippines or Australia I contend that you are falsely representing yourself as an attorney. Such deceptive trade practices could be the basis of a civil and criminal complaints against you. Of course I could be misinformed and I look forward to receiving confirmation of your bona fides.

However given the allegedly fraudulent business practices of HQ Broker, BSD Trade Services, GWU Marketing Corp, and other individuals and entities in this enterprise, I wonder if you really exist or is this just another email alias (a.k.a. sock puppet) in a web of deceit?

Should you reply with the requested further and better particulars, I will then address the substance of your letter.

Paul Zagoridis
Publisher
WealthEsteem.org

Official letter from HQBroker

Three hours twenty minutes after sending the Official Letter from BSD Administration, HQ Brokers sent this message with the same subject line.

This is the first time a full name has been used by HQBroker so I’ll ask her for the “official appeal”. This will be interesting.

Subject: Official letter from HQBroker
Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 12:27 AM
From: [Redacted] <[redacted]@hqbroker.com> sent this message via the Contact page
To: Wealth Esteem wealthesteem.org
Message ID <28e1d5951730d7a253fc8989719913d9@wealthesteem.org>

Dear Paul,

Today lawyers of the BSD Company appealed to us regarding material that was published on your website, this material contains information about allegedly connection of BSD Company and our Company HQBroker. Please note that the company BSD has nothing to do with the broker HQBroker.

We ask you to remove in the shortest time all information related to the company BSD. If you do not do this, you will be dealt with BSD attorneys. Please, contact with us for the official appeal.

Official Letter from BSD Administration

I received this message via the Contact page.

I wish I knew who wrote it, but it states no name or capacity beyond “represent”. The [redacted] email address used to post the message is a generic role-based address not usually used for such communication. It doesn’t state the legal entity or address of the entity. That makes it hard to respond. Will the writer please comment below with those details so I can respond?

Subject: Official Letter from BSD Administration
Date: Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:07 PM
From: BSD Trade Services <[redacted]@bsdtradeservices.com> sent this message via the Contact page
To: WealthEsteem wealthesteem.org
Message-ID: <664963a9ac0ff893b8f4d28dee7a9889@wealthesteem.org>

Ma’am/Sir,

This is an official letter from BSD Trade Services Corp. administration, on behalf of the company I represent, BSD Trade Services Corp., I would like to denounce all claims and allegations the company is receiving from your site. BSD Trade Services Corp. is a BPO operating firm that provides diversified services to various types of industries. Our services include outbound call center for accounts opening financial institutions, customer support that receives inbound calls, digital marketing, and first deposit services. The firms we provide services to include financial institutions as banks, online trading companies, and insurance companies.

However, the services we provide to HQ broker do not, and should not, reflect the entirety of BSD in any way; reiterating that HQ broker is not the only company we cater.

BSD neither handles HQ broker’s clients nor their clients’ accounts and/or funds. Our company also does not give financial advice to HQ broker itself or to their clients; our company does not provide HQ broker financial services, ergo ensuring that we are not involved to any of their transacting activities. BSD yields only the services available in our company, and we do not offer HQ broker further proceedings beyond what I have mentioned.

I attest that our company fulfills its obligations and responsibilities in practicing all laws and regulations stated from our country’s Department of Labor and Employment.

Furthermore, all claims stated heretofore to our company are false and should therefore be removed as we stand to retain the company’s upright name and reputation. It would be of our complete right to institute legal proceedings should any comments, reviews, or claims against BSD is not discarded or removed.

We await your action and response.

Respectfully,
BSD Trade Services Corp.

Trademark, Copyright and Intellectual Property

People get confused between copyright and trademarks. The area of law is called Intellectual Property (IP).

Copyright protects the expression of an idea. This includes spoken, written and audio-visual expressions. Hence books, movies, documentaries, photos, recordings, paintings, articles, drawings, poems, songs and music are all covered by copyright (subject to the creators jurisdiction).

Trademarks (and service marks) are a distinctive sign, logo, word,  phrase or indicator used to indicate a good or service comes from a specific individual, company or group as opposed to some other source. It is designed to give consumers confidence in the quality and reputation of a good or service.

Many people say “Monster cable” is copyrighted when they actually mean it’s trademarked.

Trademarks were invented to prevent unscrupulous merchants passing off an inferior tradesman’s work for a more reputable work. So master tradesmen would make their mark on the item they’d made indicating they had approved it’s quality and finish, much like a master painter signs his work.

Really good and expensive work attracts counterfeits. Wanna purchase a watch?

Trademarks don’t have to be registered, but it’s a good idea. Then other similar trademark holders can object and everyone does the intellectual property dance.

It is supposed to be nearly impossible to trademark something generic such as the word “Elite”, but large IP practices seem to get them registered. Often a registration is canceled  on appeal for being too generic or if found to be in broad use by many people.

If the name is a range identifier as opposed to the main brand, and it is not attempting to pass itself off as another brand, then trademark registration is either not worth defending or too generic. So Kogan is releasing the Elite range and Panasonic also has an Elite range. Nobody is going to think they come from the same company.

My preference  is brands, ranges and models be uniquely named as it makes searching for them so much easier.

Risks of serving on a board of directors

Directoship Risk was a question asked and answered by a LinkedIn connection of mine – the erudite Dr. Earl R. Smith II Executive Director of Longview. Actually Dr Smith covered more than risk, he laid down some Board of Directors – Basic Principles and included great perspectives on Director compensation. He also invited comments on the risks of serving on a board. I replied…

Keep detailed minutes of the meeting and if there is an error or over-simplification move an amendment before adopting the minutes of the previous meeting.

I am aware of a board currently trying to deal with a decision that was not properly minuted. An executive director overstepped her delegation but the minutes of the relevant meeting did not spell the limitations out. But every board member remembers the discussion and the limits placed on the delegation. When the deal came unstuck 12 months later the board have a major problem with their process.

Directors in common law countries have a duty of care to ensure they are adequately informed. Directors are expected to make their own enquiries to ensure they are receiving accurate information from the executives reports.

Some risks haven’t been mentioned.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX): Directors have significant and onerous obligations even if they are on the board of a small public company.

NEWS ALERT: SOX could apply even if your company is not domiciled in the USA. If you do business in the USA there is the potential to be within that jurisdiction.

This includes selling products to a USA domiciled customer especially if you sell FIS, CIF or C&F. As the risk and title of the goods does not pass until the goods are in the USA a case can be made that you are trading in the USA.

If your email or webhosting is in the USA an argument can be made that you have a US presense and are subject to SOX.

This is a stretch but ignore it only if you never intend to set foot in the USA. They’ve arrested hackers on tourist visas in the past. Google Jon Lech Johansen (DeCSS) and Dmitry Sklyarov.

Secondly boards of non-profits in receipt of government funding must not only be aware of their fiduciary duties (including duty of care and duty of loyalty, but also to avoid conflict of interest), there are laws for the jurisdiction or the funding body that carry civil or criminal penalties.

Thirdly in some jurisdictions your personal credit history/score includes an evaluation of the companies where you are a director. This happened to me when I agreed to attempt a turnaround that did not succeed. The company was liquidated and I still have to explain I was a non-executive director (sometimes banks even listen).

Insurance policies can be void in the event of fraud or malfeasance.

As a result of my experience I only serve on boards that I am passionate about. It also means I am more conservative in my board role than I am with my own money.

As for suing directors for breach of duty? If there is fraud or malfeasance then let the ambulance chasers loose. Sadly all other cases highlight the move of the Common Law world from one of responsibility to a world of blame and entitlement. An unfortunate by-product of the oversupply of lawyers.

Email Confidentiality Notices

Many emails coming to me have default confidentiality or commercial-in-confidence signatures. I think privacy aware individuals or organisations see them and adopt them without thinking through the issues.

Firstly if I haven’t specifically solicited a confidential email why should it be binding on me. Here is an interesting point from the abuse.net database:

IF YOUR MESSAGE CONTAINED A NON-DISCLOSURE OR CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: We do not solicit or accept confidential information for the contact database since the contents of the database are available to the public. Confidentiality notices are legally meaningless in the United States, where abuse.net is located, so such notices are ignored. If you accidentally sent something that you do consider confidential, tell us nicely and we’ll consider deleting it.

So think twice about blindly grabbing someone’s signature file and using it in your organisation.

That also applies to Privacy Policies and Terms of Trade. The number of businesses I’ve seen that have obviously borrowed their terms of trade from another supplier without thinking it through. Terms of Trade has implications for accounts receivable, collections and insolvency. At least get an advisor’s opinion.

Writing Affidavits

I pride myself in being an internet power user. I think I can research most things on the net very well. I’ve had to draft an Affidavit for the succession wars and so I thought “surely this is something I can discover on the net”

Ha!

I found definitions and some general (albeit useful) guidelines. But you’d think there would be an accessability site somewhere dedicated to enabling citizens to take control of their legal affairs. While I don’t think it is a conspiracy by the legal profession to protect their monopoly, the complexity and formality of the legal process is unjust and disenfranchises citizens.

Democracies should embrace accessability and root out practices and procedures that create obstacles to ordinary citizens participating in social, political and legal action.

Now that I’ve made such a high faluting statement, I don’t know how to simplify the process so typical high-school educated citizens can participate. I recall when selling books to prison libraries, the most requested subject was a criminal law textbook for a 4th grade reading age. Prisoners did not lack intelligence; they lacked education, vocabulary and articulation.

So back to writing affidavits, if it takes five years of university education, a law degree and two or three years experience in a legal practice to lay out evidence in a civil matter, something is broken.

Plain english law is the first step. What’s the next?