4front Investigations, Kevin Sianez, Bill Taylor, Sean Craig, KMS Investigations, KMS Detective Agency, Sean Simmons RIPOFF - This guy claims to be a retired law enforcement officer. He also goes by many names. Birmingham Alabama

It seems odd to me, reading the rebuttal, that a firm that conducts private investigations for clients would have difficulty locating the original poster. After all, the OP seems to be a former client, so why would the firm need to post a reward for information leading to the OP? Seems a bit fishy to me. Maybe the OP is on point?

This date we have posted 12 ads on multiple browsers increasing our reward to $10,000 to prove this is a fraudulent report. We are soliciting any and all information on this poster and will pay this reward to anyone that can identify this person. We intent on moving agaisnt this person(s) in a court of law immediately. We are a brand new company and this person posted this remark at a time when we had been open less than 72 hours and with only 1 client. There is no possibility at all this could be legitimate and we intend to bring this out in the open.

We are preparing reports to have a subpoena prepared to identify the Internet Protocol address of this poster. We will not tolerate fraud and particuarly when we are the victims of fraud.

If a client of 4Front Investigations Inc will step forward and prove they were serviced by our corporation, just serviced in any capacity on any case we will pay you $10,000 upon proof. We dont care if your a satisfied customer or not you still get th money!

Our point being, YOU CANT HAVE A COMPLAINT IF YOUR ARE A BRAND NEW COMPANY OF LESS THAN 5 DAYS AND HAVE NO CUSTOMERS!

In addition we are taking out 3 ads in major newspapers in three cities announcing this fraudulent posting carried on ROR and offering the reward in the amount of 10 thousand dollars

4front
New York, New York

============================
============================
***********NOTICE***********
FROM RIP-OFF REPORT REGUARDING THE ABOVE COMMENTS

RIPOFF REPORT NEVER GIVES OUT AUTHOR INFORMATION.
RIPOFF REPORT ALWAYS FIGHTS ALL COURT ORDERS

First, Rip-Off Report's Terms of Service prohibit us from releasing such information without a court order. Second, we do not release this information because of a First Amendment principle which weighs against disclosing the identity of anonymous authors:

In addition, it would violate the First Amendment Rights of the authors of the postings to disclose their names without a showing that their statements are false and defamatory. The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that the right to remain anonymous is protected by the First Amendment. Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, *64, 80 S.Ct. 536, **538 (U.S. 1960). We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. (citations omitted). The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. Id., 362 U.S. 60, *65, 80 S.Ct. 536, **539 (U.S. 1960)

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

For more complete info on this subject, pleae email Rip-off Report. WE DO NOT GIVE OUT AUTHOR INFORMATION.

For these reasons, as a matter of policy, we generally do not release the names of authors or information from which their identities can be ascertained absent a prima facie showing that defamatory content has been posted on Rip-Off Report and that no other means exists to establish the identity of the alleged author. This policy arises from Rip-Off Report's desire to balance the First Amendment rights of its users against the discovery rights of those who allege they are victims of defamation.

Xcentric's policy in this regard is to follow the guidelines stated by the New Jersey Superior court in Dendrite Intern., Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J.Super. 134, 14142, 775 A.2d 756,76061 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2001):

We offer the following guidelines to trial courts when faced with an application by a plaintiff for expedited discovery seeking an order compelling an ISP to honor a subpoena and disclose the identity of anonymous Internet posters who are sued for allegedly violating the rights of individuals, corporations or businesses. The trial court must consider and decide those applications by striking a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation through the assertion of recognizable claims based on the actionable conduct of the anonymous, fictitiously-named defendants.

We hold that when such an application is made, the trial court should first require the plaintiff to undertake efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena or application for an order of disclosure, and withhold action to afford the fictitiously-named defendants a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposition to the application. These notification efforts should include posting a message of notification of the identity discovery request to the anonymous user on the ISP's pertinent message board.

The court shall also require the plaintiff to identify and set forth the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that plaintiff alleges constitutes actionable speech.

The complaint and all information provided to the court should be carefully reviewed to determine whether plaintiff has set forth a prima facie cause of action against the fictitiously-named anonymous defendants. In addition to establishing that its action can withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to R. 4:6-2(f), the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence supporting each element of its cause of action, on a prima facie basis, prior to a court ordering the disclosure of the identity of the unnamed defendant.

Finally, assuming the court concludes that the plaintiff has presented a prima facie cause of action, the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity to allow the plaintiff to properly proceed.

Having said this, Rip-Off Report does not disclose the identities of authors in response to informal requests. If you would like to obtain this information, you should consult with legal counsel and determine an appropriate course of action.

RIPOFF REPORT NEVER GIVES OUT AUTHOR INFORMATION.

Rip-off Report

This date we have posted 12 ads on multiple browsers increasing our reward to $10,000 to prove this is a fraudulent report. We are soliciting any and all information on this poster and will pay this reward to anyone that can identify this person. We intent on moving agaisnt this person(s) in a court of law immediately. We are a brand new company and this person posted this remark at a time when we had been open less than 72 hours and with only 1 client. There is no possibility at all this could be legitimate and we intend to bring this out in the open.

We are preparing reports to have a subpoena prepared to identify the Internet Protocol address of this poster. We will not tolerate fraud and particuarly when we are the victims of fraud.

If a client of 4Front Investigations Inc will step forward and prove they were serviced by our corporation, just serviced in any capacity on any case we will pay you $10,000 upon proof. We dont care if your a satisfied customer or not you still get th money!

Our point being, YOU CANT HAVE A COMPLAINT IF YOUR ARE A BRAND NEW COMPANY OF LESS THAN 5 DAYS AND HAVE NO CUSTOMERS!

In addition we are taking out 3 ads in major newspapers in three cities announcing this fraudulent posting carried on ROR and offering the reward in the amount of 10 thousand dollars

4front
New York, New York

============================
============================
***********NOTICE***********
FROM RIP-OFF REPORT REGUARDING THE ABOVE COMMENTS

RIPOFF REPORT NEVER GIVES OUT AUTHOR INFORMATION.
RIPOFF REPORT ALWAYS FIGHTS ALL COURT ORDERS

First, Rip-Off Report's Terms of Service prohibit us from releasing such information without a court order. Second, we do not release this information because of a First Amendment principle which weighs against disclosing the identity of anonymous authors:

In addition, it would violate the First Amendment Rights of the authors of the postings to disclose their names without a showing that their statements are false and defamatory. The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that the right to remain anonymous is protected by the First Amendment. Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, *64, 80 S.Ct. 536, **538 (U.S. 1960). We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. (citations omitted). The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. Id., 362 U.S. 60, *65, 80 S.Ct. 536, **539 (U.S. 1960)

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

For more complete info on this subject, pleae email Rip-off Report. WE DO NOT GIVE OUT AUTHOR INFORMATION.

For these reasons, as a matter of policy, we generally do not release the names of authors or information from which their identities can be ascertained absent a prima facie showing that defamatory content has been posted on Rip-Off Report and that no other means exists to establish the identity of the alleged author. This policy arises from Rip-Off Report's desire to balance the First Amendment rights of its users against the discovery rights of those who allege they are victims of defamation.

Xcentric's policy in this regard is to follow the guidelines stated by the New Jersey Superior court in Dendrite Intern., Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 342 N.J.Super. 134, 14142, 775 A.2d 756,76061 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2001):

We offer the following guidelines to trial courts when faced with an application by a plaintiff for expedited discovery seeking an order compelling an ISP to honor a subpoena and disclose the identity of anonymous Internet posters who are sued for allegedly violating the rights of individuals, corporations or businesses. The trial court must consider and decide those applications by striking a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation through the assertion of recognizable claims based on the actionable conduct of the anonymous, fictitiously-named defendants.

We hold that when such an application is made, the trial court should first require the plaintiff to undertake efforts to notify the anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena or application for an order of disclosure, and withhold action to afford the fictitiously-named defendants a reasonable opportunity to file and serve opposition to the application. These notification efforts should include posting a message of notification of the identity discovery request to the anonymous user on the ISP's pertinent message board.

The court shall also require the plaintiff to identify and set forth the exact statements purportedly made by each anonymous poster that plaintiff alleges constitutes actionable speech.

The complaint and all information provided to the court should be carefully reviewed to determine whether plaintiff has set forth a prima facie cause of action against the fictitiously-named anonymous defendants. In addition to establishing that its action can withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to R. 4:6-2(f), the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence supporting each element of its cause of action, on a prima facie basis, prior to a court ordering the disclosure of the identity of the unnamed defendant.

Finally, assuming the court concludes that the plaintiff has presented a prima facie cause of action, the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case presented and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity to allow the plaintiff to properly proceed.

Having said this, Rip-Off Report does not disclose the identities of authors in response to informal requests. If you would like to obtain this information, you should consult with legal counsel and determine an appropriate course of action.

RIPOFF REPORT NEVER GIVES OUT AUTHOR INFORMATION.

Rip-off Report

lets keep this straight and to the point. We just received clearance with E & O insurance coverage and business licensing to open our doors on thursday of last week. We are completing one surveillance case that is being worked as we speak. So, in other words, there is no way, no possibility, no remote chance in any way shape or form we could have a client to submit a complaint of any type period!

We are a brand new corporation, opened our doors less that 72 hours ago and what do you know a complaint is in rip off report. We are offering and will pay $5000.00 US dollars if this poster or anyone can submit proof that 4Front Investigations Inc has defrauded, failed to perform, taken monies from a client, individual or business or hired another private investigation firm to conduct work for us.

We will pay the sum of $5000 dollars immediately upon proof from this person that we performed work for them. Provide us a retainer contract, proof of payment, any transmission of a negotiated work contract for services. So heres your chance, step up and prove to the readers of this site you were done wrong in any fashion by 4Front Investigations Inc. $5000.00 is yours and we are standing by with baited breath.

You cant generate complaints from clients or customers if you have no customers or clients to get a complaint from.