Goddess Beauty was created to address an overwhelming need in the marketplace for specialists in the hair extension field. In this hot, fast paced industry, there are a variety of marketing companies promoting a single method of hair extension application with a "one-size fits all" mentality. Goddess Hair Extensionists are trained in MANY methods of non-damaging hair extension application in order to best meet the needs of individual clients are far as hair type, length, texture and ethnicity.
As with color and cutting, hair extensions is a specialty unto its own, and it's important that your hair extensionist understands the many intricacies of hair quality, application and methods on the market today, in order to properly address your concerns and desires with your hair.
Goddess Beauty is not another big marketing company. We are a network of highly skilled hair extensionists that have a deep level of understanding about the hair enhancement market, and the best in all state-of-the art methods available.
We are NOT affiliated with Goddess Salon out of Arizona, or www.goddesshairextensions.com. This is an unfortunate coincidence of name similarities that has caused us a HUGE hassle with competitors now trying to slam our reputation "anonymously" on consumer complaint boards. We welcome any past client who has EVER had a problem with our work to contact us directly.
About Goddess Hair Enhancement Training
Goddess Extensionists are not your 'average stylist' training in one method of 'glue' or 'fusion' extensions. We are expert level hair enhancement professionals trained in ALL methods of application. We have done well over 2000 clients, come up with our own damage-free extensions and hair replacement, and we will consult with you on the BEST method for you! We also specialize in custom caucasian curly hair extensions which are almost impossible to find from any any hair extensionists! After students have completed the course, they will find themseleves confidently state that they can offer the best NON-DAMAGING hair extension attachment methods on the market today.
Typically, certified graduates who follow our precise marketing tips find that they are booking 5-10 appointments per month and can specialize in helping women with fragile and/or thinning hair.
Goddess Hair Enhancement Training is acknowledged by The California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology.
|
|
Complaints Board Slander and Lies
From our Goddess Hair Extensions Legal firm Mendia and McDowell (federal and state attorney firm)With regards to the LLC bringing a suit against the users of complaintsboard.com, it would be a "complaint for damages and injunctive relief". There would be four causes of action consisting of (i) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (ii) libel, (iii) slander, and (iv) trade libel. A second suit in your name would be prosecuted as a "complaint for damages and injunctive relief". The causes of action would be specific to you and would consist of (i) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (ii) libel, and (iii) slander. Both suits would ask for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294. As per case law, the exposure for punitive damages in California is up to nine times the amount of actual damages. Needless to say, the exposure on either one of these suits is high, and the cases are straight forward wins. We will be pursuing this matter ongoing.
More scams about complaints board: http://www.merchantcircle.com/blogs/Armed.Forces.MCSS..718-291-0150/2008/7/Complaints-Board-does-not-publish-truthful-info-Armed-Forces-MCSS/97762.
Scammers Are On Complaintsboard.com
Armed Forces MCSS™ Blog
Complaints Board does not publish truthful info - Armed Forces MCSS
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE:
I agree that this website (complaintboards.com) is in violation of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003).
They are NOT immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites.
Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality.
As social networking sites and internet blogs continue to increase in both popularity and use, the opportunities for defamatory and libelous actions increase proportionally. Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. Slander is generally spoken defamation, while ‘libel’ is written. Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality.
Operators of blogs are generally immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not contribute to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party was eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA. In Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., a federal court ruled on the application of the safe harbor of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The defendant in that case operated a matchmaking website known matchmaker.com. As part of its service, the defendant collected profiles of singles based on an extensive questionnaire. The plaintiff sued Metrosplash because of a false profile of her which an unknown user had posted to the website. The court ruled that by creating the extensive questionnaire, Metrosplash played an active role in developing the information that had been posted. Furthermore, the court ruled that Metrosplash was an information content provider and thus not eligible for the CDA's safe harbor provided to "interactive computer services." Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., Case No. CV 01-0018 DT (CWx) C.D. Cal. 2002) (subsequently reversed by appeals court). While operators of blogs and services are generally immune from such liability, the more active the service is with its member’s, the greater the likelihood of potential liability as a publisher of defamatory materials.
Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation. Posting false and explicit claims regarding a person will generally be held as defamatory for purposes of liability. However, other issues arise concerning the anonymity of the person posting the information, and if known, the jurisdiction in which they are subject.
Jurisdictional issues may arise in situations where the poster had no reason to expect that the effect of the posting would be felt in a certain jurisdiction. However, in defamation cases jurisdictional disputes are liberally ruled upon in favor of the victim. In Griffis v. Luban, the Minnesota court of appeals ruled that Alabama had jurisdiction over a Minnesota defendant who posted defamatory messages on the Internet. The defendant repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking the plaintiff’s professional credentials. The plaintiff initially obtained a $25,000.00 default judgment in Alabama, which she was seeking to enforce in Minnesota. The Minnesota court ruled that the Alabama court had properly exercised jurisdiction because the effects of the messages were felt in Alabama and that the defendant should have expected that she would be sued there. An important factor in the ruling was that she had actual knowledge of the effect of the defamatory statements on the Defendant. Therefore, the Minnesota court enforced the $25,000.00 default judgment. Griffis v. Luban, 633 N.W. 2d 548 (Minn Ct. App. 2001).
However, there are cases where courts have refused to allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on defamatory statements. In a Pennsylvania case, the court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a New York defendant who had posted defamatory comments about a defendant on an offshore betting website. The court held that since the comments were not specifically directed at Pennsylvania, the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan, C.A. No. 01-2202 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
The problems with bringing defamatory actions based on internet postings largely lie in proving that the defendant actually made the posting. If that connection can be made, a much stronger case can be presented and jurisdictional issues can be tackled.
And of course, you do understand that one person can post multiple complaints cloaking themselves as different individuals and then use this as a reference to show extreme prejudice.
It is unfortunate that people will mistake opinons for the truth.
|
