When is a certified letter a good thing?

[flyingron]

The kicker though? When I got home the exact same letter was in my mailbox, so he had sent one registered and one regular mail.

That's common. They send one RRR so they can see if you got it but they send another by regular first class in case you're one of those who won't pick up certified letters.

Hey, they're entitled to ask. You're free to ignore them. I've received such threats before. I just trashed them. Sending letters is easy. Taking someone to court is more involved. Trying to win a slander case is even harder.

 

[Minimaker]

Call an attorney and ask if they can do anything to you for leaving the review. If not, I'd tell them to shove it and leave the review as is. The truth is the truth. This sounds like nothing more than a scare tactic.

 

[Birdman666]

Well, frankly, what are they gonna do?!

I wouldn't respond in any way shape or form.

That letter would be just another shredder toy for my birds to tear up.

He's got to pay his attorney probably somewhere between $200 and $250 PER HOUR to do something about it, and it's probably constitutionally protected speech.

If I were to respond, it would be to a simple one or two sentence letter:

"Gentlemen: I received your letter, and after careful consideration, I would like to direct your attention to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the doctrine of "protected speech." Kindly cease and desist from sending me any more letters. I wish to be left in peace. Thank you."

I doubt there is a Court in this land that is anxious to involve itself in an internet censorship case... [Go ahead. Try and get an injunction. Knock yourself out!] Or that this mechanic is going to want to pay a $10,000 retainer up front to take you to Court...

Or that, even if he were so inclined, he can prove by preponderance of evidence that any claimed drop off in business is directly and unequivocally related to anything negative you posted on the internet, and not anything else...

Like shoddy workmanship. Drop off in repeat customers. Competition. State of the economy. Etc.

Don't sweat the small stuff!

It's a spite fence, by someone you don't care to associate with anyway.

 

[Birdman666]

Trying to win a slander case is even harder.

And there is the whole issue of even if you win, how do you collect on the judgment?

If they don't have an easy avenue of collection, i.e. insurance, no attorney in his right mind would file it. UNLESS he was getting paid hourly, and only after he tells his client, this is a stupid thing to do...

 

[sonja]

You could update your review to include that he had his lawyer send you the letter since he didn't like what you had to say.......he did ask you to change your review, after all. Heeheehee

 

[henpecked]

He probably needs an attorney on retainer, so this avenue of approach, is not that expensive. IMO , you have every right to state the facts. Your probably hurting him and with good justification. Mommy told me, paybacks are hell. I'd call it a victory.

 

[Scott]

That's a shocker, Karen! Odds are your review was cogent and the shop is afraid it has veracity and may impact their business. Oh well, that's the power of the 1st amendment and the connectivity of the internet!!

That said, it might be worth a consultation, though I bet Mark is totally correct. In fact, it would be fun to update the review to reflect intimidation by the D-Bag owner and his pet attorney, but sometimes it's wiser to leave sleeping cockroaches alone!

 

[getwozzy]

Oh wow. Just wow. Some people amaze me sometimes- and not in a good way lol

 

[strudel]

If the letter just says what he thinks and asks you to change it, then the attorney obviously agrees that it isn't actionable. If it was actionable, the letter would say you've done something actionable, and unless you fix it you're getting sued....

 

[Flboy]

Go ahead and Chang your review. Tell how you are now being treated over an honest review on a dispute!

Oops, just saw I was parroting Sonja!

 

[Delfin]

I think Birdman666 hit the nail on the head and Sonja drove the nail home. Boy did I laugh when I read Sonja suggestion. Bet that mechanic wouldn't expect that kind of change on the review.

If he did a shoddy work then you have every right to tell people about it.
I was once told that the greatest form of advertisement is word of mouth. although today I'm thinking it's now social media. If you stuck to the facts then you did nothing wrong.

 

[strudel]

Don't they get a right of reply to reviews? Can't he post why he thinks it is unfair? I know on ebay you used to be able to put a reply to a negative review.

 

[RavensGryf]

Oh wow, late to the party here, but WOW!!! Like people were saying "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!" The guy contacts an attorney for what you wrote TRUTHFULLY on a review?! How can the guy even think he can do anything about that? I can see if you were lying and really embellishing it, but that's not the case!

 

[thekarens]

So I had to take a few days to calm down. Today I sent the attorney a scathing letter with the facts, facts that I have documentation for btw. Most likely I'll never hear from them again, but I feel better.

I stuck to the facts. The only thing that wasn't professional was the fact that I told the attorney I thought it was a jackass move on his part to send two letters, one certified and one regular and causing me to have to take off work to get it when I could have waited for the one at home.

 

[Scott]

The only thing that wasn't professional was the fact that I told the attorney I thought it was a jackass move on his part to send two letters, one certified and one regular and causing me to have to take off work to get it when I could have waited for the one at home.

You were too nice!!!

 

[Birdman666]

So I had to take a few days to calm down. Today I sent the attorney a scathing letter with the facts, facts that I have documentation for btw. Most likely I'll never hear from them again, but I feel better.

I stuck to the facts. The only thing that wasn't professional was the fact that I told the attorney I thought it was a jackass move on his part to send two letters, one certified and one regular and causing me to have to take off work to get it when I could have waited for the one at home.

You may feel better, but by giving them the documents, you are helping them to craft better lies...

Better to do nothing, or send a letter that just says go away, then to give them anything...

They are looking for something they can twist into "malice."

 

[thekarens]

I'm not worried. I stuck to the facts other than the jackass comment. I wasn't about to stand by and let them lie through their teeth saying things like I only requested a general inspection, not a detailed indirection. First of all, I asked them to find everything wrong with it that they could, second of all they never told me there were different levels of inspection. I asked that they find everything wrong that they could. To me that should have been sufficient.

 

[Hawk]

Certified mail?? You'll find this one Hilarious

Seriously, has anyone EVER received a certified letter (not package) and it's been good news? Me, NEVER! In fact, the only time I've received certified mail was when I was being sued and it was a horrible time in my life.

Last night I got home and there was the "dreaded" pink slip from the post office telling me to come get my letter and sign for it. It didn't state whot he sender is and it was too late by the time I got the notice to go to the post office.

I know for a fact I don't owe anyone money and the IRS has already given me my return for this year, so it's not that. I don't own any property. The only thing I can think of is I wrote a negative google review about a mechanic and he threatened to sue me, so this morning I checked the county and state courthouse records to see if anyone had brought suit against me and nothing there. I don't know if I should be more worried or less ;-)

This is an actual certified correspondence...... Beavers Built a Dam and threatened to be fined 10,000 a day...LOL..Really?? I lived a mile from here.....


STATE OF MICHIGAN
Reply to: GRAND RAPIDS DISTRICT OFFICE STATE OFFICE BUILDING 6TH FLOOR
350 OTTAWA NW GRAND RAPIDS MI 49503-2341
JOHN ENGLER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING MI 48909-7973
INTERNET: http://www.deq.state.mi
RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director

December 17, 1997

CERTIFIED

Mr. Ryan DeVries 2088 Dagget Pierson, MI 49339

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price
District Representative Land and Water Management Division

Dear Mr. Price:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response.

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan — I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize, their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris." I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is — aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation — so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern

that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition — contact the dam beavers — but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) — be sure you read them their dam Miranda rights first.

As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers — be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this dam State — I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy, or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice!

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem: bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten
t

 

[Christinenc2000]

OMG that is funny

 

[Birdman666]

I've actually read that one before and it's a dam funny letter...

Someone amused themselves writing it... and it was a good read.