Complaint Review: Local Guerilla Marketing - Franklin Tennessee

REVIEW UPDATE: March 22 2016: Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International remains committed to 100% customer satisfaction and has drastically improved their business processes over the years to better serve their customers. Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International is truly dedicated to making sure ALL customers are happy with their coverage. Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International continues to show customer service is of the utmost importance and they currently have no complaints!

To date, Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International has addressed and resolved all reported complaints, which have always been resolved to the complete satisfaction of their customers. Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International proves to be among the top members of the Rip-off Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Customer Satisfaction Program, as a Verified Safe Business. Over time and since becoming a member, Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International has remained actively engaged and improving the way they address customer service complaints. Rip-off Report has confirmed that Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International is no fraud, is not a scam and is of the highest integrity. As an active and current member of the Rip-off Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation and Customer Satisfaction Program we are happy to report that now more than ever Wendy Stevens - Liberty League International remains committed to customer satisfaction and gets our top Verified Safe endorsement.

Rip-off Report Review:

Editors UPDATE: Positive Rating and Recognition has been given to Wendy Stevens for its Commitment to Excellence in customer service.

Rip-off Reports investigation of Wendy Stevens uncovers an ongoing commitment to total client satisfaction. This means that clients can expect that Wendy will always work towards finding a mutually satisfactory resolution to any complaints or concerns. Wendy listens carefully to client concerns and sees them as an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and become more efficient as a company in the services she offers and the support for those services.

One top executives in the internet marketing industry stated to Rip-off Report, that Wendy Stevens personal philosophy is that her clients are a precious resource. We must listen to our clients and respond properly. This is the best way to ensure I will maintain a successful enterprise both now and in many years to come.



Another top executive of the company stated to Rip-off Report, that Wendy Stevens personal business philosophy is based on the premise that Wendy Stevens strives to add value in its services as they understand that a successful business model is based on value-added services, and client care. Wendy Stevens mission statement says it all; "Our goal is to provide our clients the best quality, value and professional excellence in the industry." Some of the other things Rip Off Report learned in the course of its investigation: Wendy Stevens business was established in 2004 to provide professionals and entrepreneurs elite marketing training. Wendy has trained thousands of individuals in that time with a handful of personal coaching clients and is recognized as a leading expert and premier trainer in the internet marketing world.



Rip-off Report has confirmed that Wendy Stevens takes quality control very seriously. Wendy has recently put a lot of effort into ramping up her support team and client relation processes including full time availability to clients to assist with any issues that develop. Rip-off Report was pleased to learn that Wendys past and current approach to business is focused on its pledge to total commitment towards client satisfaction.

WENDY STEVENS RESIGNED FROM LIBERTY LEAGUE, BETTER OPPORTUNITY, MORE BENEFICIAL TO CLIENTS, AND FOR HER ASSOCIATES WENDY HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE WAY BUSINESS WAS RUN, MAKING IT BAD FOR EVERYONE For over six years individuals have enjoyed Wendy Stevens engaging training style and have been attracted to her genuine caring for each individual she works with one on one. Wendy''s unique philosophy of giving back to others through sharing her success in internet marketing earned her a stellar reputation in the industry at large. Rip-off Report received complaints from individuals claiming to be her Liberty League associates prior to Jan 2009. In several cases the individuals did not even appear on Wendy Stevens'' official sales register nor did their IP addresses match the reports submitted--in other words, their stories were made up.



Rip-off Report has investigated each Wendy''s reports and also found that some complaints were related to customer service issues which Wendy did not directly control.

Wendy Stevens began her career as internet entrepreneur with Liberty League, but the company made a series of fateful decisions that resulted in it going out of business in mid-2009. Rip-Off Report discovered that Wendy Stevens had no ownership in Liberty League. Although Wendy trained for that company she did not control staffing decisions, product quality, customer service policies, refund policies, nor any other control mechanism to ensure customer service for her associates. It was a very frustrating situation for her personally.

When the leaders of Liberty League launched a new business venture in late 2009, Wendy had grave doubts about its viability but did everything she could to help it succeed out loyalty both to the owners and her associates. When it became clear to Wendy that this new venture would not in fact succeed, and that her associates had been left without a way to make a living, Wendy Stevens resigned from the business to find another, better opportunity, for her associates. In doing so, Wendy Stevens walked away from the majority of her income. How many entrepreneurs have that kind of integrity and dedication to their team? Wendy did succeed in finding a great new opportunity for her team with LifePath, where she is helping people set records again in internet marketing. She hired a full customer service and customer resolutions team to ensure that her associates were being treated as VIPs.



Wendy Stevens recognizes that complaints posted on Rip-off Report (true or not) are issues that need to be addressed and if handled correctly can be valuable learning opportunities. With the feedback generated by Rip-off Reports Investigation Wendy Stevens has made organizational changes allowing her clients a more streamlined approach to problem resolution and a total overall commitment to her client experience.

In summary, after our investigation, which included discussions with Wendy Stevens and many of her past and current associates, Rip-off Report is convinced that Wendy Stevens has been and is committed to quality delivery of services resulting in total client satisfaction.

Read more about Wendy Stevens Commitment to Excellence and Total Consumer Satisfaction and why consumers should feel safe, confident and secure when doing business with a member of Rip-off Report''s Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program. ..yes, a long name for a program that does a lot for both consumers and businesses alike.

Read about Rip-off Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program,..A program that benefits the consumer, assures them of complete satisfaction and confidence when doing business with a member business. this program works.

===================== NOW TO THE ORIGINAL REPORT THAT WAS FILED

=====================

Local Guerilla Marketing 6 Figure SchoolWendy Stevens Franklin, Tennessee

In march of 2012 I secured the services of Local Guerrilla Marketing LLC, to facilitate the production of a video commercial for my company and to promote that video on internet search engines including but not limited to Google. The company agreed to get my video to page one rankings of Google and to keep it there for the period of a year.

After producing the video Ms. Wendy Stevens announced that she was pulling away from the business due to health issues and that someone else would be taking the lead in the company. This was not true. The "new" company insisted that to receive and services paid for that I would have to enter into a new contract and upon review of that contract it did not insure the maintenance of page one rankings that I paid for. Wendy was "spinning" this as a transition of management while it was actually a ceasing of operations and another shell company being produced to absorb the "goodwill" (client base) of the previous company while scuttling the commitments and liabilities of the previous company.

I was given a financial incentive to pay for a years worth of services up front only to receive notice days later of the companies "transition to new management." If this was a management transition why new contracts??? The "new management" would simply honor existing contracts and move forward with new client agreements as they so desired.

The more that you dig the more you find on Wendy Stevens. She has been convicted of 2 Class E felonies and she was sentenced to 18 months incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction and was let out of that in favor of supervised probation. Just google it and you will see. She stole credit cards from her intimate friend while at a prayer meeting of all things. If she was willing to steel from a friend how much easier it has no doubt been to steel from others.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

April 9, 2002 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WENDY STEVENS

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County

No. II-401-124 Timothy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2001-02464-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 5, 2002

The appellant, Wendy Stevens, pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to one count of forgery involving a value of more than $500 but less than $1,000, and one count of fraudulent use of a credit card involving a value of more than $500 but less than $1,000, both Class E felonies. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eighteen months incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction for each offense, but immediately suspended the sentence in favor of supervised probation. On appeal, the appellant complains that the trial court erred by failing to grant her judicial diversion. Upon review of the record and the parties briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed.

NORMAMCGEE OGLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOE G. RILEY and ALAN E. GLENN, JJ., joined.

Judson Wheeler Phillips, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Wendy Stevens.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Christine M. Lapps, Assistant Attorney General; Ronald L. Davis, District
Attorney General; and Lee Dryer, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. Factual Background

On December 6, 2000, Joan Benton invited the appellant to a prayer meeting at her home. The meeting lasted from
8:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. Approximately one and one-half hours after the conclusion of the prayer meeting, Benton noticed that her credit card was missing from the kitchen. Benton assumed she had lost the card until, two weeks later, she received a credit card bill which reflected unauthorized charges totaling almost five thousand dollars. All of the unauthorized charges were made after Benton discovered the card was missing. An investigation determined that the appellant had taken the
credit card and incurred the charges. There were fifteen different 1 We note that there is no guilty plea transcript in the record before this court.

-2-

unauthorized charges on the bill; however, only one of the charges occurred in Williamson County.

All other charges occurred in Davidson County. The Williamson County offense resulted from the appellants charges of $768.46 worth of merchandise at Cool Springs Target in Franklin.

As a result of the charges, the appellant pled guilty in the Williamson County Circuit Court to forgery involving a value of more than $500 but less than $1,000, and to fraudulent use of a credit card involving a value of more than $500 but less than $1,000.1 The plea agreement left all sentencing determinations up to the discretion of the trial court.

At the sentencing hearing, Benton testified to the facts underlying the offenses.

Benton related that the appellant was the only individual to go into her kitchen during the prayer meeting, after which meeting she discovered the credit card missing. Additionally, a security camera at Target recorded the appellant using the card. Benton told the court that she felt extremely betrayed and violated as a result of the offenses. She also observed that the appellant did not seem destitute at the time of the offenses. Notably, the appellant lived in a lovely home with a swimming pool, drove a nice vehicle, and sent her children to private school. Benton informed the court that the appellants
previous attorney, John Nefflin, had contacted Benton and her husband in an effort to resolve the case out of court. One week prior to trial, the Bentons received a letter which the appellant denoted as her attempt to apologize. Benton further related that the appellant had not been prosecuted for the Davidson County offenses and she thought it unlikely that the Davidson County District Attorney Generals office would initiate charges against the appellant.

Kim Camp testified on behalf of the appellant. Camp related that she had known the appellant for eight or nine years and considered her to be a faithful, loving friend. Camp indicated that the appellant had a troubled marriage which ended in a bitter divorce. Nevertheless, she stated that the appellant remained concerned about providing a stable environment for her two children.

Camp also knew that, prior to these offenses, the appellants mother had passed away and the appellant had witnessed a
horrendous car accident in which the appellants daughter, Haley; the appellants best friend, Alice Freeman; and Freemans son, Will, were involved. The crash ultimately claimed the life of Freeman. Camp asserted that these events were traumatic for the appellant, rendering her emotionally devastated. Camp theorized that the trauma of these events compelled the appellant to return to past patterns of unwise behavior. Regardless, Camp asserted that the appellant recognized her
wrongdoing and was seeking help from friends, doctors, and counselors. She maintained that the appellant had recently obtained a dream job and had moved into a good neighborhood. Camp conceded that, at the time of the offenses, the appellant was not destitute and was living beyond her means. Camp further admitted that the appellant had also previously stolen her credit card and made unauthorized charges on two occasions.

Next, the appellant called DavidPratt, the probation officer who prepared her presentence report. Pratt related that the appellant owed $768.46 restitution to Citibank for the

-3-

Williamson County case. In response, the appellant immediately tendered to Pratt a certified check for the full restitution amount.

The appellant also presented the testimony of Joe Chilberg, a long-time friend of the appellant. Chilberg testified that the appellants life had been tumultuous for two to three years prior to the incident, and the appellant was more than remorseful. He had recommended to the appellant that she seek counseling and soon thereafter the appellant followed Chilbergs advice.

The appellant testified on her own behalf. She related that she was a thirty-eight-yearold mother of two children. She
explained that she had recently accepted a position as the development director for the Nature Conservancy of Tennessee. The appellant indicated that she had been through a difficult divorce and lost her mother and her best friend, all within the last few years.

She stated that she considered Benton to be a friend and, on December 6, 2000, went to Bentons house to pray. She claimed that, during the meeting, she began to feel anxious and pressured and took Bentons credit card. She used the card to purchase necessities and Christmas presents for her family and other friends. The appellant admitted that her behavior was ridiculous and over the top. She further acknowledged that she was sorry and was seeking help. Contrary to Bentons
testimony, the appellant contended that the reason her previous attorney, Nefflin, contacted the Bentons was to explain that the appellant was responsible for all of the unauthorized charges on the credit card. Moreover, the appellant maintained that she had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had previously taken anti-depressant medication. She also asserted that she wanted to get involved in a mental health inpatient program to help her understand why she committed these acts.

Finally, she expressed her desire to make full restitution.

On cross-examination, the appellant told the court that, prior to her death, Freeman had obtained a credit card account in Freemans name with an additional card issued to the appellant so the appellant could use the card in an emergency. However, the appellant confessed that, after Freeman was killed in the car accident, the appellant used the card to make irrational purchases, including the purchase of a chair for Freemans husband. The appellant quickly asserted that Freemans husband was reimbursed for the charges. The appellant further admitted that, while living in Maryland several years before these offenses, she took a credit card from Mr. and Mrs. Chamberlain and used the card without their prior approval. Additionally, she acknowledged that she had used the credit cards of two other friends, Camp and Mr. and Mrs. Bach, without obtaining
their permission.

Based upon the foregoing evidence, the trial court denied the appellant judicial diversion, noting that the appellant had an extensive history of this type of crime. The trial court then imposed a sentence of eighteen months supervised probation. The appellant now appeals the trial courts denial of judicial diversion.

II. Analysis

The appellant claims that the trial court erred by denying her judicial diversion. With respect to judicial diversion, TennesseeCode Annotated section 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (1997) provides:

-4-

If any person who has not previously been convicted of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor is found guilty or pleads guilty to . . . a Class C, D or E felony, the court may, without entering a judgment of guilty and with the consent of such person, defer further proceedings and place the person on probation upon such reasonable conditions as it may require, and for a period of
time . . . not more than the period of the maximum sentence of the felony with which the person is charged.

We observe that judicial diversion is similar in purpose to pretrial diversion and is to be imposed within the discretion of the
trial court subject only to the same constraints applicable to prosecutors in applying pretrial diversion under [Tennessee Code Annotated section] 40-15-105. State v. Anderson, 857 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992).

On appeal, [t]he lower courts denial of judicial diversion is subject to reversal on appeal only if that court abused
its discretion. State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). As a consequence, we may not revisit the issue if the record contains any substantial evidence supporting the trial courts decision. Id. Moreover, [t]he same guidelines are applicable in diversion cases as are applicable in probation cases, but they are more stringently applied to those seeking diversion. State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448, 456 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000).

The trial court must consider all of the following factors in determining whether to grant the appellant judicial diversion:

(a) the accuseds amenability to correction, (b) the circumstances of the offense, (c) the accuseds criminal record, (d) the accuseds social history, (e) the status of the accuseds physical and mental health, and (f) the deterrence value to the accused as well as others. The trial court should also consider whether judicial diversion will serve the
ends of justice the interests of the public as well as the accused.

State v. Lewis, 978 S.W.2d 558, 566 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Additionally, the trial court may consider the appellants attitude, . . . behavior since arrest, . . . home environment, current drug usage, emotional stability, past employment, general reputation, family responsibilities, and the attitude of law enforcement. Id. The record must reflect that the trial court has taken all of the preceding factors into consideration. Electroplating, 990 S.W.2d at 229. Furthermore, [t]he court must explain on the record why the [appellant] does not qualify under its analysis, and if the court has based its determination on only some of the factors, it must explain why these factors outweigh the others. Id.

The trial court thoroughly considered the factors concerning judicial diversion, remarking that, at first blush, the appellant appeared to be an appropriate candidate for diversion.

The court noted the following factors weighing in favor of the granting of judicial diversion: the appellants amenability to
correction, her social history, her lack of prior criminal convictions, her good attitude toward dealing with her problems, her family responsibilities, the attitude of law 2 These are not the only factors applicable in deterrence cases. See Hooper, 29 S.W.3d at 10-12. However, these are the only factors applicable in the instant case.

-5-

enforcement, her acknowledgment of responsibility, and her remorse. See Lewis, 978 S.W.2d at 566. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellants [g]eneral reputation seems to be good, other than she steals from her friends.  The court also observed that the appellants mental and physical

health weighs both ways, and concluded that the appellants emotional stability was questionable.

In turning to the factors weighing against the grant of judicial diversion, the trial court placed significant weight on the fact
that the appellant abused a position of private trust and also recognized the need for deterrence, specifically noting that the appellant had previously committed acts similar to the instant offenses. Ultimately, the trial court found that to allow the appellant to continue this type of behavior without sanction would not serve the ends of justice for the appellant or society.

The appellant complains that the majority of the factors to be considered in determining whether to grant judicial diversion weigh in her favor; therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying diversion. Specifically, the appellant argues that
[a]t the hearing, proof was introduced th[at] the Appellants name was on [Freemans] card . . . and she was a joint card holder. As far as the other incidents [of unauthorized credit card usage] are concerned, the record is mostly silent. What is obvious from the record is that no criminal charges were ever filed. Perhaps the other parties forgave her for what she
allegedly did or perhaps gave her permission after the fact. The record is silent in this regard and the Court can not draw facts out of thin [air].

We acknowledge that much of the appellants history is positive and, at first blush, indicates her favorable candidacy
for judicial diversion. However, we agree with the trial court that the need for deterrence is a significant factor in this case. Our supreme court recently outlined several factors to be considered in determining when deterrence is correctly employed to deny
probation. State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 10-12 (Tenn. 2000). We note that [d]eterrence in judicial diversion cases is to be
considered in the same manner as it is in probation cases. State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 959 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). However, the applicable guidelines are more stringently applied to diversion applicants. State v. Holland, 661 S.W.2d 91, 93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983). The following factors may indicate a need for deterrence:

(1) the defendants crime was the result of intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct or was otherwise motivated by a desire to profit or gain from the criminal behavior [and]

(2) the defendant has previously engaged in criminal conduct of the same type as the offense in question, irrespective of whether such conduct resulted in previous arrests or convictions.2 Hooper, 29 S.W.3d at 11-12. From the appellants own testimony, it is clear that she committed the instant offenses intentionally, admitting that she was concerned about providing Christmas presents.

3 See Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-118(a) (1997) ([a] person commits the crime of illegal possession of a credit or debit card who, knowing the person does not have the consent of the owner or issuer, takes, exercises control over or otherwise uses such card or information from such card.)

-6-

Additionally, at the sentencing hearing, Camp conceded that the appellant took her credit card and used it on two occasions without Camps permission. Moreover, the appellant confessed that she used the credit cards of Mr. and Mrs. Chamberlain, Mr. and Mrs. Bach, and Camp without their permission.3 Furthermore, the appellant testified that Freeman obtained a credit card in Freemans name with an additional card for the appellant to use only in case of emergency. After Freemans death, the appellant admitted that she made irrational and wrong purchases, specifically buying a chair for Freemans husband. Like the trial court, we find disturbing the appellants frequent return to this same criminal behavior.

Our supreme court has noted:
Repeated occurrences of the same type of criminal conduct by a defendant generally warrant a more emphatic reminder that criminal actions carry consequences. Although the [probation] statute speaks in terms of general deterrence, it has been recognized that general deterrence is possible only after specific deterrence has first been achieved.

Hooper, 29 S.W.3d at 12.

Additionally, the trial court found particularly offensive the appellants abuse of a position of private trust when, under the guise of a friend seeking spiritual healing, the appellant entered Bentons home as a guest and stole from her friend. An abuse of private trust is a valid concern in determining an appellants suitability for judicial diversion. See State v. Marsha L. McClellan, No. E2000-02373-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 292, at *20 (Knoxville, Apr. 19, 2001); State v. Danielle L. Walker, No. E2000-00578-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 Tenn. Crim. App.

LEXIS 235, at *11 (Knoxville, Mar. 29, 2001). Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying
judicial diversion.

III. Conclusion

Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
___________________________________

NORMA McGEE OGLE, JUDGE