Lana Marks Ripoff I worked in the corporate office and saw that she is ripping off her customers out of a lot of money Palm Beach Florida

I agree with the comments posted regarding Lana Marks.

I purchased a crocodile handbag from their Beverly Hills store last Sept 2008.  As they did not have the color in stock, I paid for the item and was told that it will be available in two weeks.  So they took my money and I waited.

A month went by. No handbag.  Called their office and they said item will arrive in two weeks.  Two months went by and still no handbag.

Bag finally arrived in Dec '08.  BUT not in the color I ordered (as stated in the invoice).  Notified the store and they gave me a big hassle about this was the color I ordered.  Had to drive back to their store and showed them the receipt.

Store said I can ship it back to their office.  So I did.  Lana Marks had the balls to reject my mail.  What a bunch of frauds!!

Called them back and threatened to sue them for wrongful shipment, etc., and that they need to refund my shipping charges.  After all said and done, they agree to send me the correct item and to return my item.

Well, I finally received my item 8 months later.  The refund took another 4 months and over 20 phones calls to get it thru.  They always have excuses such as CEO is traveling so cannot sign check, or check is already in mail, so pls wait for it... yada yada....

This is the WORST highline brand I have ever dealt with, especially when you consider my purchase was over $5000 for a handbag!!!

So beware when shopping at this store.  Lana Marks is a fraud and should be avoided at all cost.

- One Pissed off Customer

After a hard sell by an employee and Lana Marks herself at the Palm Beach store, my husband and I purchased a bag for about $10,000. We were told the color and style we wanted was at another store and it would arrive to our home in New York within a week. 2 months later still no bag and I began to get pretty irritated. After being rudely treated by their staff we finally received our bag- scratched! A $10,000 bag appeared to have just been thrown in a box without any consideration as to how it would arrive. We filed a complaint with Amex and sent the bag back immediately. To our surprise Lana Marks denied the bag was damaged and we were unable to get a refund!!! We were stuck with a $10,000 credit to a store we hated. I would never shop there again. No wonder there are never any customers in the store when I go by and they are desperate to unload bags.

After a hard sell by an employee and Lana Marks herself at the Palm Beach store, my husband and I purchased a bag for about $10,000. We were told the color and style we wanted was at another store and it would arrive to our home in New York within a week. 2 months later still no bag and I began to get pretty irritated. After being rudely treated by their staff we finally received our bag- scratched! A $10,000 bag appeared to have just been thrown in a box without any consideration as to how it would arrive. We filed a complaint with Amex and sent the bag back immediately. To our surprise Lana Marks denied the bag was damaged and we were unable to get a refund!!! We were stuck with a $10,000 credit to a store we hated. I would never shop there again. No wonder there are never any customers in the store when I go by and they are desperate to unload bags.

After a hard sell by an employee and Lana Marks herself at the Palm Beach store, my husband and I purchased a bag for about $10,000. We were told the color and style we wanted was at another store and it would arrive to our home in New York within a week. 2 months later still no bag and I began to get pretty irritated. After being rudely treated by their staff we finally received our bag- scratched! A $10,000 bag appeared to have just been thrown in a box without any consideration as to how it would arrive. We filed a complaint with Amex and sent the bag back immediately. To our surprise Lana Marks denied the bag was damaged and we were unable to get a refund!!! We were stuck with a $10,000 credit to a store we hated. I would never shop there again. No wonder there are never any customers in the store when I go by and they are desperate to unload bags.

I was hired by this woman in her headquarters in West Palm Beach.
After several days in training,she constantly ranted, yelled and raved about everything, including her lunch delivery. When phone calls came to her, she told her employees, (Me included) NEVER to say she was available.After 3 dayso f being subjected to personal insults, I asked her to kindly please do not yell at me in front of other employees. She then proceeded to scream at everyone in the office, and to fire me. In 3 days I saw her hire, and fire no less than four employees.

Honest,



I just read this post and I fully understand why you chose Honest as your rip-off-report name.



Thank you for having the courage to provide information about your personal experiences with the Lana Marks company. Thank you for exercising your Constitutional rights.



Yes, I do know from experience that people like you and I have no other options. We can not go to the Police. We can not go to the State Attorney General. We can't even file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Because they wouldn't listen. Our only recourse is to tap quietly at our keyboard and post our Whistleblower Report on the Rip Off site.



We do this because the authorities do not listen. We do this because we have no voice!

August 28, 2006



Paul N. Sorrell

Lavely & Singer

2049 Century Park East

Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906



Re: Lana Marks



Dear Mr. Sorrell:



This is in response to your letter of August 24, 2006 to the operator of Rip-off Report, and also in response to your posted rebuttal. Your letter threatens to hold Rip-off Report's operators liable for damages purportedly sustained by Lana Marks as a result a third party's posting on Rip-off Report about Ms. Marks.



Citing inapplicable case law, your letter asserts that "all those involved in the publication" of the allegedly defamatory statements are subject to claims for defamation and trade libel, as well as claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Based on this inapplicable law, you not only demand removal of the report, you demand $50,000 in damages.



Your letter and your post state "this letter is a confidential legal communication and is not for publication." However, you posted your letter on the Rip-off Report website. If you did not want it published, then you should not have posted it.



While your letter cites twenty court cases, you never mention the federal statute that preempts all of the cases that you cite -- the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230. The Communications Decency Act, prohibits civil actions that treat an interactive computer service as the "publisher or speaker" of messages transmitted over its service by third parties. Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So.2d 1010 (Fl. 2001). This federal statute, which was passed by Congress with the desire to "promote unfettered speech," provides in relevant part that:



No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.



47 U.S.C. 230; Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).



The operation of an internet web site upon which others post statements is an activity which is unequivocally protected by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C.A. 230. Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc. 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So.2d 1010 (Fl. 2001); Schneider v. Amazon.com, Inc., 31 P.3d 37 (Wash.App 2001).



Every Federal court that has considered the issue has held that the Communications Decency Act immunizes a web site operator for defamation it publishes if it is not the information content provider of the content at issue. Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465 (3rd Cir. 2003); Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 983-84 (10th Cir. 2000); Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997). In four other circuits "the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and District of Columbia "the district courts have interpreted section 230 to bar lawsuits such as this. Patentwizard, Inc. v. Kinko's Inc.,163 F.Supp.2d 1069 9D.S.D. 2001); Smith v. Intercosmos Media Group, Inc.,U.S.Dist.LEXIS 24251 (E.D.La. 2002); Morrison v. America Online, Inc., 153 F.Supp.2d 930 (N.D. Ind. 2001); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 D.D.C. 1998).



"Lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions 'such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content' are barred." Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 51 (D. D.C. 1998).



Case law makes clear that the immunity extends to protect web site operators from claims based on the operator's failure to investigate postings or failing to edit or remove inaccurate postings, and claims based on the web site operator making editorial decisions on what to post or not post. Batzel v. Smith, 2003 WL 21453358 (9th Cir. 2003).



Congress has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory speech, providers or users of interactive computer services when the defamatory material is provided by someone else. Id. One of these policy reasons is to "prevent lawsuits from shutting down websites and other services on the Internet." Id.



The Communications Decency Act preempts state law to the extent that state law allows defamation claims against web site operators for content they did not create. "Preemption is required where state law conflicts with the express language of a federal statute." Doe v. America Online, at 1015. Further, the Communications Decency Act applies even where the web site operator had notice and refused to remove the offending material. Id. at 1012-1013.



The Communications Decency Act also prohibits injunctive relief against web site operators. In the case of Kathleen R. et al v. City of Livermore, 87 Cal App.4th 684, 697-98, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 772, 780-81 (2001), the California Court of Appeals dismissed claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, holding that section 230(c)(1) of the Act prohibited claims for injunctive relief as well as damages. (citing Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 983-84 (10th Cir. 2000). In Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co., the Tenth Circuit upheld dismissal of state law claims for injunctive relief as well as damages. Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co., 206 F.3d at 983-84.



Rip-off Report's operator is not the information content provider of the posting about Ms. Marks. Thus, it may not be treated as a publisher, re-publisher, or author and cannot be held liable for defamation.



Needless to say, my client has no interest in paying your client $50,000 in damages. Moreover, Rip-off Report does not remove postings once they are made by third parties.



Your demands are rejected.



Sincerely,



JABURG & WILK, P.C.



Maria Crimi Speth, Esq.

Why is this posting still up? Please review my letter, which you should have received yesterday, and remove this posting at once.



This law firm represents Lana Marks. Ms. Marks is the subject of a defamatory and trade libelous story posted on your website at www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff206920.htm. We intend to hold you and anyone else involved in the posting of this defamatory message liable for all damages sustained by Ms. Marks and her business as a result of this posting.



Among other things, the report on your website states that Ms. Marks is engaged in a ?scam,? that customers are overcharged for products, that customers received damaged or used products instead of the new ones they purchased, that Ms. Marks substitutes other products for products actually ordered, that customers are overcharged and/or otherwise treated wrongfully, and that Ms. Marks engages in improper and unlawful business activities, including the use of celebrity photos without permission. These statements constitute defamation and trade libel against Ms. Marks.



As such, Ms. Marks has substantial claims against you and all those involved in the publication or broadcast of the defamatory statements for defamation and trade libel, as well as claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As I assume you are aware, where a statement or publication contains provably false factual assertions, it rises to the level of defamation. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990) 497 U.S. 1, 111 L.Ed.2d 1, 110 S.Ct. 2695; Selleck v. Globe Internat'l, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1133, 212 Cal.Rptr. 838, 844-845. Indeed, the definition of defamation is ?very broad and has been held to include almost any language which, upon its face, has a natural tendency to injure a person's reputation, either generally, or with respect to his occupation.? Bates v. Campbell, 213 Cal.438, 2 P.2d 383 (1931). See, also, Weller v. American Broadcasting Co., 232 Cal.App.3d 991, 283 Cal.Rptr. 644 (1991); Burnett v. National Enquirer, 144 Cal.App.3d 991, 193 Cal.Rptr. 206 (1983); Sommer v. Gabor, 40 Cal.App.4th 1455, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 235 (1995) (rev. den. 1996). It is clear that the defamatory statements on your website are libelous per se under the well established rule that a statement is defamatory ?if it tends to injure plaintiff in his trade, profession or community standing, or lower him in the estimation of the community.?



Moreover, it is equally well established that a defendant can be liable for defaming someone by what is falsely ?implied? as well as from what is literally stated about the person. See for example, White v. Fraternal Order of Police 909 F.2d 512, 518 (D.C. Cir. 1990). See also, Weller v. American Broadcasting Co., 232 Cal.App.3d 991, 283 Cal.Rptr. 644 (1991) (report implying that plaintiff overcharged museum for candelabra); Selleck v. Globe Int'l, Inc., 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 212 Cal.Rptr. 838 (1985) (in determining whether a statement is false and defamatory, the court will "look to what is explicitly stated as well as what insinuation and implication can be reasonably drawn from the publication").



Even if you claim to be relying on some other third party with regard to a statement on the website which is defamatory you and all those acting in concert with you will nevertheless be liable for re-publishing the false and injurious statements. It is well established by court decisions that someone who broadcasts, disseminates or re-publishes defamatory statements by a third party with knowledge or reason to know that the statements are defamatory, or consciously disregards the falsity of the statements, or consciously disregards the fact that publishing the statement would violate the person's right of privacy is liable for the damages caused by the re-publication of the statements. See for example, Lewis v. Time, Inc., 83 F.R.D. 455 (E.D. Cal. 1979); Osmond v. Ewap, Inc., 153 Cal. App.3d 842, 200 Cal. Rptr. 674 (1984); Hartmann v. American News Company, 171 F.2d 581 (7th Cir. 1949); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine,Inc., 611 F. Supp. 781 (D. Wyo, 1985); Spence v. Flynt, 647 F.Supp. 1266 (D. Wyo. 1986); Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc., 556 F.2d 113 (2nd Cir. 1977); Heatherton v. Playboy, Inc., 60 F.R.D. 372 (C.D. Cal. 1973); Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, 800 F. Supp 928 (E.D. Wash. 1992), Matson v. Dvorak, (1995) 46 Cal. Rptr.2d 880, 886; Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 776 F. Supp 135, 139 (SDNY 1991); Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 123, 139 (2nd Cir. 1984).



The Court in Michael Jackson v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, 68 Cal.App.4th 10, 80 Cal.Rptr. 2d 1 (1998) stated:



"... when a party repeats a slanderous charge, he is equally guilty of defamation, even though he states the source of the charge and indicates that he is merely repeating a rumor. * * * A false statement is not less libelous because it is the repetition of rumor or gossip or of statements or allegations that others have made concerning the matter." Id. at 27 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).



Based on the foregoing, demand is hereby made that you comply with the following:



1. That the offending report regarding Ms. Marks be removed immediately from your website.



2. That you agree to promptly post a correction/retraction of the defamatory statements in the report as well as an apology to Ms. Marks, in a manner as prominent and conspicuous as the defamatory material was originally broadcast or published, the content of which must be agreed to with us prior to posting.



3. That you agree to pay $50,000 in damages to our client to compensate her for the substantial injuries which she will suffer as a result of the gross violation of her rights, as well as to reimburse her for the attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this matter.



4. That you and all those involved in the posting of the report agree to permanently cease and desist from publishing, broadcasting or otherwise disseminating any further disparaging or defamatory statements, references or depictions of or concerning Ms. Marks.



5. That you immediately identify the source(s) of the statements in the report. Be advised that in any ensuing litigation, we would promptly seek to compel you and anyone else involved in the posting of the report to identify the source(s) as permitted by applicable law.



Please confirm immediately that you will comply with the above-stated demands. You would be well-advised to remove the report immediately in any event, in order to lessen and mitigate the damages which you are causing to Ms. Marks and for which you are legally liable and accountable.



This letter does not constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of Ms. Marks' rights or claims. Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of Ms. Marks' rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.



This letter is a confidential legal communication and is not for publication. Any publication, dissemination or broadcast of any portion of this letter will constitute a breach of such confidence and a violation of the Copyright Act.



Very truly yours,





PAUL N. SORRELL

Of

LAVELY & SINGER

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION



PNS:jt



cc: Ms. Lana Marks



286-1\PNS\LET\MARKS - LANA 082406