Complaint Review: Studio 99 T - Studio 99 - Steve Tejada

To Ms. Newmark of The Newmark Law Firm, CEO/Pres Steve Tejeda &VP Dana Tejeda, Studio 99, Studio 9 and what ever name you are using this week.

Ms.Newmark, you have been quite contradictory in your rebuttals. At one point you state When someone comes and gives you advice, (free advice), you get what you pay for, especially uneducated individuals that write this garbage on the Internet. It is stupid to use this or any other site as a source for information. No intellgent person takes this seriously. When they offer you their point of view, you have to really step back and ask yourself, do I want their results? Well you seem to take it very serious. That is why people come to these sites, to get other's opinions. Also you say they offer you their point of view I believe that is legal. Christen was only stating what actually happened to her. I wonder what your agenda is for giving out her address and what kind of car she drives. Was it suppose to be a put-down? I for one don't see a problem with driving a nice car and living on the beach in a beautiful condo. How on earth would you know her financial status?
Half of your rebuttal makes no sense, your grammar and spelling leave a lot to be desired. I think that before you criticize one's education, maybe you should learn about spell-check.
So you actually believe the worlds problems could be solved if we all shoveled coal for heat? You may remember doing that but I don't.
So now this is my favorite part You wrote If one cannot prove what they are putting in writing and publishing for the public, than they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit, which would likely result in money damages by them to the entity, (Studio 99), that they have defamed or suffered liable or slander against. Setting aside the grammar again, can YOU prove Christen's wardrobe including Gucci purses are fake. No you can't. She has receipts for all of them and they are not fake. Gosh, do you think maybe you have committed liable? I know I'm not a high priced attorney but I do know the difference between liable and LIBEL. But I don't make the big bucks conning people either.

Whilst searching on the internet I stumbled across the aforementioned rebuttal concerning someone I know quite well. First, I wish to not get involved here but I would also like to set the record straight for the Newmark Lawfirm. My background is a married Realtor in my mid 40's from Knoxville TN.

The quote of Unemployed ex flight attendant has me a little puzzled. What is wrong with being a flight attendant? I was actually a flight attendant in my younger, single years and last year I turned over $9,000,000 in real estate. This is where I had the pleasure to work with Christen, which the Newmark Lawfirm forgot to report. I found her to be extremely professional and had knowledge beyond her years and she would have been highly successful if she would have stayed in her field however, she chose to relocate and I wish her the best of luck in her future ventures.

For someone to write, without knowing an individual at all is quite shocking. To comment on Christens financial status without fact of this actually makes me chuckle. Yes she drives a Volkswagen but also take for example Warren Buffet with an estimated worth of $44 Billion, he drives a 2001 Lincoln, a car doesn't necessarily show the fiscal status that one has. She is no Warren Buffet however to say of "marginal financial circumstances" is an assumption made on behalf of Newmark Lawfirm and their clients.

I also know as fact that Christens' clothing, accessories and bags are not of fake origin. These are the real deal and I have seen her wardrobe and let me say ladies, it would be something that most of us would be envious of.
Additional comments made in the later half of the rebuttal referring to the mental health of not only Christen but Monica and Screwed sounds ludicrous. When I went to college given, I am not a lawyer but I do know that lawyers are not doctors and cannot define someone's mental state. I cannot comment about Screwed or Monica as they are strangers to me, but I do know this is not the case with Christen, a highly intelligent motivated woman, the last person I would think of possessing a "mediocre mind".

There are other unusual comments about literacy and educational levels attained. For one to comment on another's intellect, one needs to consider the true facts. After reading the Newmark Lawfirm's rebuttal I would advise the author to check spelling and grammar before questioning the intelligence of the original author (you will notice that the rebuttal has the word intelligent spelt incorrectly, some irony perhaps?)

I use the internet frequently and I will somewhat agree with the fact that there is abuse and misrepresentation going on in many different forums but I don't think that this is a case here. What I find very interesting in this case is that I have read many threads and it appears that they are all singing the same tune and whilst an individual has the right to an opinion, it seems that many individuals have the same opinion here and a lot of negative reports are appearing, I am yet to see something of a positive nature.

In summary, I find this rebuttal a little comical as it appears the author is writing incorrect information about a complete stranger. Hearsay is evident throughout the rebuttal and I suggest that the author take a leaf out of their own book and be able to provide proof by evidence instead of obtaining and misconstruing information.

Whilst searching on the internet I stumbled across the aforementioned rebuttal concerning someone I know quite well. First, I wish to not get involved here but I would also like to set the record straight for the Newmark Lawfirm. My background is a married Realtor in my mid 40's from Knoxville TN.

The quote of Unemployed ex flight attendant has me a little puzzled. What is wrong with being a flight attendant? I was actually a flight attendant in my younger, single years and last year I turned over $9,000,000 in real estate. This is where I had the pleasure to work with Christen, which the Newmark Lawfirm forgot to report. I found her to be extremely professional and had knowledge beyond her years and she would have been highly successful if she would have stayed in her field however, she chose to relocate and I wish her the best of luck in her future ventures.

For someone to write, without knowing an individual at all is quite shocking. To comment on Christens financial status without fact of this actually makes me chuckle. Yes she drives a Volkswagen but also take for example Warren Buffet with an estimated worth of $44 Billion, he drives a 2001 Lincoln, a car doesn't necessarily show the fiscal status that one has. She is no Warren Buffet however to say of "marginal financial circumstances" is an assumption made on behalf of Newmark Lawfirm and their clients.

I also know as fact that Christens' clothing, accessories and bags are not of fake origin. These are the real deal and I have seen her wardrobe and let me say ladies, it would be something that most of us would be envious of.
Additional comments made in the later half of the rebuttal referring to the mental health of not only Christen but Monica and Screwed sounds ludicrous. When I went to college given, I am not a lawyer but I do know that lawyers are not doctors and cannot define someone's mental state. I cannot comment about Screwed or Monica as they are strangers to me, but I do know this is not the case with Christen, a highly intelligent motivated woman, the last person I would think of possessing a "mediocre mind".

There are other unusual comments about literacy and educational levels attained. For one to comment on another's intellect, one needs to consider the true facts. After reading the Newmark Lawfirm's rebuttal I would advise the author to check spelling and grammar before questioning the intelligence of the original author (you will notice that the rebuttal has the word intelligent spelt incorrectly, some irony perhaps?)

I use the internet frequently and I will somewhat agree with the fact that there is abuse and misrepresentation going on in many different forums but I don't think that this is a case here. What I find very interesting in this case is that I have read many threads and it appears that they are all singing the same tune and whilst an individual has the right to an opinion, it seems that many individuals have the same opinion here and a lot of negative reports are appearing, I am yet to see something of a positive nature.

In summary, I find this rebuttal a little comical as it appears the author is writing incorrect information about a complete stranger. Hearsay is evident throughout the rebuttal and I suggest that the author take a leaf out of their own book and be able to provide proof by evidence instead of obtaining and misconstruing information.

Whilst searching on the internet I stumbled across the aforementioned rebuttal concerning someone I know quite well. First, I wish to not get involved here but I would also like to set the record straight for the Newmark Lawfirm. My background is a married Realtor in my mid 40's from Knoxville TN.

The quote of Unemployed ex flight attendant has me a little puzzled. What is wrong with being a flight attendant? I was actually a flight attendant in my younger, single years and last year I turned over $9,000,000 in real estate. This is where I had the pleasure to work with Christen, which the Newmark Lawfirm forgot to report. I found her to be extremely professional and had knowledge beyond her years and she would have been highly successful if she would have stayed in her field however, she chose to relocate and I wish her the best of luck in her future ventures.

For someone to write, without knowing an individual at all is quite shocking. To comment on Christens financial status without fact of this actually makes me chuckle. Yes she drives a Volkswagen but also take for example Warren Buffet with an estimated worth of $44 Billion, he drives a 2001 Lincoln, a car doesn't necessarily show the fiscal status that one has. She is no Warren Buffet however to say of "marginal financial circumstances" is an assumption made on behalf of Newmark Lawfirm and their clients.

I also know as fact that Christens' clothing, accessories and bags are not of fake origin. These are the real deal and I have seen her wardrobe and let me say ladies, it would be something that most of us would be envious of.
Additional comments made in the later half of the rebuttal referring to the mental health of not only Christen but Monica and Screwed sounds ludicrous. When I went to college given, I am not a lawyer but I do know that lawyers are not doctors and cannot define someone's mental state. I cannot comment about Screwed or Monica as they are strangers to me, but I do know this is not the case with Christen, a highly intelligent motivated woman, the last person I would think of possessing a "mediocre mind".

There are other unusual comments about literacy and educational levels attained. For one to comment on another's intellect, one needs to consider the true facts. After reading the Newmark Lawfirm's rebuttal I would advise the author to check spelling and grammar before questioning the intelligence of the original author (you will notice that the rebuttal has the word intelligent spelt incorrectly, some irony perhaps?)

I use the internet frequently and I will somewhat agree with the fact that there is abuse and misrepresentation going on in many different forums but I don't think that this is a case here. What I find very interesting in this case is that I have read many threads and it appears that they are all singing the same tune and whilst an individual has the right to an opinion, it seems that many individuals have the same opinion here and a lot of negative reports are appearing, I am yet to see something of a positive nature.

In summary, I find this rebuttal a little comical as it appears the author is writing incorrect information about a complete stranger. Hearsay is evident throughout the rebuttal and I suggest that the author take a leaf out of their own book and be able to provide proof by evidence instead of obtaining and misconstruing information.

Whilst searching on the internet I stumbled across the aforementioned rebuttal concerning someone I know quite well. First, I wish to not get involved here but I would also like to set the record straight for the Newmark Lawfirm. My background is a married Realtor in my mid 40's from Knoxville TN.

The quote of Unemployed ex flight attendant has me a little puzzled. What is wrong with being a flight attendant? I was actually a flight attendant in my younger, single years and last year I turned over $9,000,000 in real estate. This is where I had the pleasure to work with Christen, which the Newmark Lawfirm forgot to report. I found her to be extremely professional and had knowledge beyond her years and she would have been highly successful if she would have stayed in her field however, she chose to relocate and I wish her the best of luck in her future ventures.

For someone to write, without knowing an individual at all is quite shocking. To comment on Christens financial status without fact of this actually makes me chuckle. Yes she drives a Volkswagen but also take for example Warren Buffet with an estimated worth of $44 Billion, he drives a 2001 Lincoln, a car doesn't necessarily show the fiscal status that one has. She is no Warren Buffet however to say of "marginal financial circumstances" is an assumption made on behalf of Newmark Lawfirm and their clients.

I also know as fact that Christens' clothing, accessories and bags are not of fake origin. These are the real deal and I have seen her wardrobe and let me say ladies, it would be something that most of us would be envious of.
Additional comments made in the later half of the rebuttal referring to the mental health of not only Christen but Monica and Screwed sounds ludicrous. When I went to college given, I am not a lawyer but I do know that lawyers are not doctors and cannot define someone's mental state. I cannot comment about Screwed or Monica as they are strangers to me, but I do know this is not the case with Christen, a highly intelligent motivated woman, the last person I would think of possessing a "mediocre mind".

There are other unusual comments about literacy and educational levels attained. For one to comment on another's intellect, one needs to consider the true facts. After reading the Newmark Lawfirm's rebuttal I would advise the author to check spelling and grammar before questioning the intelligence of the original author (you will notice that the rebuttal has the word intelligent spelt incorrectly, some irony perhaps?)

I use the internet frequently and I will somewhat agree with the fact that there is abuse and misrepresentation going on in many different forums but I don't think that this is a case here. What I find very interesting in this case is that I have read many threads and it appears that they are all singing the same tune and whilst an individual has the right to an opinion, it seems that many individuals have the same opinion here and a lot of negative reports are appearing, I am yet to see something of a positive nature.

In summary, I find this rebuttal a little comical as it appears the author is writing incorrect information about a complete stranger. Hearsay is evident throughout the rebuttal and I suggest that the author take a leaf out of their own book and be able to provide proof by evidence instead of obtaining and misconstruing information.

The following rebuttal by The Newmark Lawfirm representing Studio 99 is directed and regarding false allegations made against the company by Monica, (not her real name, done on 1/31/08), screwed, (hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, done 2/12/08), and Christen
.
It is hard to not judge something that is counterproductive and destructive. When someone comes and gives you advice, (free advice), you get what you pay for, especially uneducated individuals that write this garbage on the Internet. It is stupid to use this or any other site as a source for information. No intellgent person takes this seriously. When they offer you their point of view, you have to really step back and ask yourself, do I want their results? (unemployed, ex- flight attendant, with marginal financial circumstances, who currently rents at the above apartment address, drives a Volkswagen, and wears fake designer clothing, accessories and purses).

Do they have an agenda here? There is something people do called leveling; that is when they see themselves below someone else and they have to do something to level that out. Some do it but just becoming AMAZINGLY EGOMANIACAL and just inflating themselves. Others do it by trying to tear the other person down to their level, as in the case of Monica, screwed and Christen. As Einstein once said, great spirits, (my clients), have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.

Readers of these reports; we believe that we can eliminate probably one third of this country's problems if people had to actually shovel coal into a furnace for heat, rather than spending all of the spare time that they have making problems for other people by sitting behind their computers doing things other than for which computers were originally designed for. What is most distressing about this is that these people are illiterate and so are their friends, because it looks like it is written by people that were educated in some third world country that only went up to kindergarten.

It is stupid to use this or any other site as a source for information. Things you read on the Internet from these sites are at best factually questionable; why? Who is the source? How old is he or she? 14? Who governs what goes on the Internet? Remember, a person can say or write whatever they want on the Internet. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? It is all hearsay. Don't make decisions based on these fictitious bits of information.

We have not heard nor seen any credible evidence here that warrants these accusations that have made against this business, (Studio 99). We have heard no compelling argument, no logic, no factual patterns or evidence that suggests that this is a scam. The behavior of Monica, screwed, and Christen, doesn't seem mentally healthy. This a form of abuse and we won't allow it.

Readers of these reports, deal with facts, not myths, lies and downright stupidity.
The conclusion of this rebuttal is directed solely at Ms Christen Brandli. As a mature adult, when you chose behavior, you must choose consequences. You should know that the information you are disseminating is inaccurate.

As a trial lawyer, I am here to tell you that cases are won and lost based on proof through evidence. Evidence are not statements made by people based on things they learned from other people, that would rank hearsay and not provable in a court of law. If one cannot prove what they are putting in writing and publishing for the public, than they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit, which would likely result in money damages owing by them to the entity, (Studio 99), that they have defamed or suffered liable or slander against.

Ms. B---, you should take this matter very seriously. Studio 99 takes this matter very seriously. As stated in the certified letter this law firm sent you, cease and desist and retract any and all statements including subject of this rebuttal, or this law firm that represents Studio 99 will be initiating a lawsuit against you for all damages available as a matter of law.
Govern yourself accordingly,
Tracy Belinda Newmark
The Newmark Lawfirm


Cc: Studio 99
The Better Business Bureau
The Rip-off Reportp