Avid Amiri from Internet Enterprises

[benitez17]

Avid, you mean " if I BELIEVE future blogs, forum, etc. are in violation of the law the same procedure will be followed"... I do believe your statements that this forum is in violation of the law has yet to be backed by the courts.

That's what I am getting at. It's not as simple as Avid bringing the full force of the legal system crashing down on every site where a declaration was made by an anonymous poster that he doesn't like.

I think Clinton knows that there is a chance that he could lose a trial, or he wouldn't even consider removing this thread, but there is also a good chance that he would win a trial and could counter-sue for expenses and damages.

Imagine this process times 100 or 1000, where some of the parties have been down this road before and can bury Avid's legal team in paperwork that would take them lifetimes to process. I think that's what Avid is facing if he continues to push this issue too far. If he wants to bankrupt himself by tracking down every potentially negative comment about him on the Internet, that's his choice, but it's not one I would make.

Imagine what would happen if all 25 people who filed a complaint with the BBB were tracked down and they testified at a trial where that information could become part of the public record. I don't think that would be beneficial for Avid or his business.

[Clinton]

You encourage a poster to “sue the pants off him (the seller)” because you claim it was misvalued

My post urged the poster to "sue the pants off them" if they've fiddled the accounts. When you sell sites is it your position that nominal costs such as value of the time required to run the site not be taken into account?

The site generates 6k per month net profit but you say the multiple is 150 x? Clinton, the math here is wrong. At 6k per month, the site makes about 60-70k per year (yes, I checked with the listing itself and the information for the site) so how do you come up with the 150x? With all due respect a monthly versus annualized calculation is an easy one to make

Unlike with B&M businesses, websites are generally valued in multiples of monthly not annual income as their relatively high risk leads to sale prices that are often a fraction of a year's earnings. That's the convention on these boards and elsewhere. Your usual customer may not be experienced with the market for websites and you may well be accustomed to using annual multiples in your conversations with them.

With all due respect, what is your background, what are your credentials, what deals have you done, who have you consulted for, what sites other than this one have you built or sold? I found a computer store that you own called http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/ but it doesn’t actually seem to sell anything. It states that as its intent but all I see are ads. I don’t want to be critical of your work and perhaps you have built some amazing sites but so far I cant find anything.

I'm not selling anything. I don't need to convince anyone of my competence as a webmaster or a "professor" or a successful entrepreneur.

Let's keep this thread on topic. Feel free to start another thread if you wish to discuss something else but please read the Forum Rules first. I've now released, unedited, your last post that the system held up for moderation. I've not deleted any of your posts yet though they have been several borderline violations including violations of Rule 10. Do not question my moderating decisions in the thread again.

[benitez17]

Avid,

I'm glad that the rest of your post was published so we could find out a little more about your background. I don't anyone here is doubting that you have experience building and selling large sites and some of them were highly successful. The issue is whether the people who have complained about you here were sold a bill of goods or not. Based on your comments it sounds like you are not very familiar with the valuation methods used by almost all individuals when buying and selling websites, which is a little surprising since that one of the issues at the core of this debate.

In sum, the intent of this forum per the comments of its posters, is “to put me out of business”. That is not legal or acceptable. If I sound emphatic with my responses, I have good reason to be.I understand that the legal process will take time but I am a strict votary of this process and am confident in its measured efficiency. My name is the only name I have I will do everything within the law to preserve it from the kind of derisive and patently untrue remarks detailed here. As I stated before, I will pursue all legal means to secure IP information and to prosecute in a manner consistent with the law.

Once again, I think you are exaggerating in your own mind how much anyone on this forum cares about you or your business. Can you find a single post outside of this thread or the one that this thread was split off of that even mentions you? There might be one or two that reference this thread, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the posters here don't know or care about you or your business

If you believe that general comments on this forum where more experienced members suggest that people new to the business don't spend their entire life savings on a site based solely on the guidance of the seller, recommend that people look at the going multiple for other websites when determining a fair price instead of relying on the seller to tell them what a fair multiple is, or take the value of their own time into account when determining the true costs of running a site are going to put you out of business, then your business model is reliant on working with uninformed buyers and has a major problem.

Also, even if the sole intent of this forum were to put you out business (which again, it is not), that doesn't make it automatically illegal or wrong. Sharing facts, like the fact that there are 25 complaints about a business of yours with the BBB, is not illegal, even if you don't want those facts to get out or they would harm your business. Think about the other facts and statements that would come out during the discovery process of a trial and could be part of the public record or released by a reporter at the trial.

The law makes it pretty clear 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," so if you want to act in a manner consistent with U.S. law, it appears that your most reasonable action would be not to file suit against this site.

[tke71709]

The law makes it pretty clear 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," so if you want to act in a manner consistent with U.S. law, it appears that your most reasonable action would be not to file suit against this site.

Unfortunately the law, to my limited knowledge, is different in the UK where the publisher (forum owner) is also liable in these cases. What will probably happen though if this lawsuit goes ahead is that US bloggers will start to post about it and then the cat will really be out of the bag especially once they start posting things that are from the trial or phrasing them as "such and such reported that Avid did this" which is completely allowed under libel laws so there is nothing that can be done about them (IANAL).

Avid should have just hired a good reputation management company to take care of this instead of running to his lawyers to sue someone with deep pockets. I assume he thought that Clinton was your average webmaster without two nickels to rub together.

[benitez17]

Unfortunately the law, to my limited knowledge, is different in the UK where the publisher (forum owner) is also liable in these cases. What will probably happen though if this lawsuit goes ahead is that US bloggers will start to post about it and then the cat will really be out of the bag especially once they start posting things that are from the trial or phrasing them as "such and such reported that Avid did this" which is completely allowed under libel laws so there is nothing that can be done about them (IANAL).

Avid should have just hired a good reputation management company to take care of this instead of running to his lawyers to sue someone with deep pockets. I assume he thought that Clinton was your average webmaster without two nickels to rub together.

I know UK libel laws have a lower burden of proof but I wonder if Avid could successfully sue Clinton there because Avid is in the US, the hosting company for this site (and presumably the server as well) are in the US, and it is likely that the comments Avid finds offensive were made from the US.

It sounds like you and I have the same opinion about how this is likely to spiral out of Avid's control if he actually files suit. Avid presents himself as a wealthy individual, and I have no reason to doubt him, but he could find himself having to take on corporations that make him look like a pauper if the story about a trial became popular and he wants to continue to try to remove any negative information about himself from the Internet.

[tke71709]

It sounds like you and I have the same opinion about how this is likely to spiral out of Avid's control if he actually files suit. Avid presents himself as a wealthy individual, and I have no reason to doubt him, but he could find himself having to take on corporations that make him look like a pauper if the story about a trial became popular and he wants to continue to try to remove any negative comments about him from the Internet.

He doesn't even need to have large corporations (e.g. news agencies) take him on, the moment that the blogosphere starts ranting about his trying to censor comments about himself on a forum/buy off a forum owner to get it off the front page of Google is just to going to result in a slew of blog posts and the such showing up on the front page of Google for which he will have no legal recourse.

[benitez17]

He doesn't even need to have large corporations (e.g. news agencies) take him on, the moment that the blogosphere starts ranting about his trying to censor comments about himself on a forum/buy off a forum owner to get it off the front page of Google is just to going to result in a slew of blog posts and the such showing up on the front page of Google for which he will have no legal recourse.

He would still have the ability to threaten legal action, which is enough to get many people to back down, and he says he is committed to tracking down every potential instance of libel against him. Even if I grant him that it is possible to sue hundreds of sites acting independently (I don't think he can, but I have been operating under that assumption since it sounds like he really plans to take this route), some of the people and businesses he would have to sue have much deeper than him and a vested interest in fighting the suit, and I don't see how that ends well for him.

[mgallone]

I know UK libel laws have a lower burden of proof but I wonder if Avid could successfully sue Clinton there because Avid is in the US, the hosting company for this site (and presumably the server as well) are in the US, and it is likely that the comments Avid finds offensive were made from the US.

Unfortunately, in my limited knowledge of UK libel law, I don't think it makes a difference where the comments were made. I've heard of cases where two parties, both from outside the UK, met in court- because apparently anything that appears in the UK is subject to our libel laws (or something like that).

[christopheravell]

It has been commented that I have been over zealous in my responses. Only one comment here, the intent of this forum per the comments of its posters, is “to put me out of business”.

I think when you are saying forum, you mean thread... And when you mean thread you actually mean a couple people who have posted on the thread. Saying the intent of this forum is to put you out of business is obviously incorrect.

Per your comments Clinton, on the litigation that is pending, the pre-trial period expired just about a week ago. However, I have no doubt in the causes of action in the case. Please don’t think we have rethought our case. Your suit is on hold as my lawyers in the United States have subpoenas for IP information out to a previous blog (Wordpress) where Alexjn attempted to launch a defamation campaign. Other monikers have also been used by her and for the love of the pursuit of truth these are being investigated. When I have this and can prove nexus I will move forward in process with the UK suit. For general information, it is worth noting, however, that the blog was based around just two central points 1) that I was never really a graduate professor and had made this up (although 2 minutes of research would have proved otherwise i.e. calling the Gore Business School and asking, etc., see Utah Business Magazine article, http://www.allbusiness.com/north-ame.../870619-1.html) and 2) that I had a negative rating with the BBB. (Please note: the spurious and defamatory blog was taken down by Wordpress some months ago within a week or two of its initial posting).

Yes, but none of the forum moderators here are questioning your education and, see your own words below, you DID have a negative BBB rating.

The BBB has retracted their negative rating. (See http://www.bbb.org/utah/business-reviews/online-shopping-sites/two-rivers-in-salt-lake-city-ut-22170808). After reviewing the documentation, they have issued a “No Rating” and in a manner consistent with BBB procedures the listing should be removed altogether in a successive update. It seems this rating was the basis of the attacks and was used as an external source of evidence to corroborate that I was a “bad” person. I have to thank Alexjn for bringing this listing to my attention so I could be made aware of this and get the BBB the documentation they needed to get it rectified. That is one bit of good she has generated and I thank her.

I am sorry Avid, but again YOUR actions have brought more suspicion than that of your accusers (in my opinion). Where normally I would look at the BBB retraction and consider it to be evidence that perhaps it was incorrect or contrived, seeing that your modus operandi is unleashing the hounds I now look at it and think "they removed the rating due to threats of legal action"... Or perhaps they were offered money.

As far as an earlier comment, my lawyers have no objection to my defending myself on this forum while it is up. In fact if there is any objection, it is in my telegraphing too much of my legal strategy and providing posters with warnings of my position (I suspect before they have a chance to provide even more material.) Please do not be mistaken, there are laws there are being broken here and the intent is spread derogatory opinions about being “sleazy and indecent” and “to put Avid out of business” so I will take appropriate action.

Well, if not your lawyers, certainly your "PR guy" must be crying in the corner! I doubt I am the only one, but my opinion of you has been less built around what some anonymous post on the internet claimed than it has around your reaction.

Before I may have thought "I will have to investigate the claim this guys makes (anonymously on a forum) before doing business with Avid", now my thought might be "I would never want to do business with Avid. If I have any problems I will not be able to share my experiences with others without being legally assaulted."

...When I was investigating before purchasing a $10k+ site from you I would have said, "wow, for a guy who sells such high priced sites there is very little bad press about him... that is a great sign" -- instead I'm thinking "wow, for a guy who sells such high priced sites there is very little bad press about him... and now I know why!"

You see, now when I notice that there is little bad press about you I might assume it is because you threatened those who spoke against you --- or perhaps you just paid someone off and they removed the bad press.

As far as other points, if I have violated a previous agreement with a buyer than it is well within your rights to come file a legal action. In fact I would encourage it. We have a legal system in place specifically to handle dispute resolution in a procedural manner. If you bought a site from me and are dissatisfied or feel that a contract or agreement was abrogated than I would encourage you to take advantage of this system.

The problem is Avid, perhaps they cannot AFFORD to go through a legal process with you. I have never seen your contract but it may even stipulate that all legal disputes are to be handled in YOUR STATE. Perhaps they do not have the means to pursue this -- or perhaps their attorney has advised them that it would cost them too much time and money to recover their funds. Do you REALLY want your potential buyers to read this? Anyone looking to buy from you now knows if they have a problem with you, they should be prepared for a legal battle. I would then have to recommend any future buyers of your sites be sure that the contract allows for filing suit in their local jurisdiction! (DOES IT?)

I am 100 percent confident I have never violated any previous agreement or contract and never sold anything I did not agree to sell and don’t do business that way. Moreover, I am also confident in the relationships I have cultivated with former clients and the experiences they have had with my sites. This forum keeps referencing “networks” of disgruntled buyers. I have two anonymous posters that have made a series of false and defamatory comments, that can easily be proven as such, that then disappeared into the cyber abyss. When asked to validate themselves they disappear. They have not listed their names, the sites they have acquired, or anything substantiating. Once again, please come out from the shadows and list the URL or your name so we can have an open dialogue.

Ok... So what are you waiting for? Prove it. If the claims are false and can be easily proven so, why use an expensive legal system, a barrage of threats, and attempted payoffs? Doesn't it make sense that instead of threatening the owner of this forum you simply provide your proof. Since this is all about protecting your name don't you think you would have been better served...

SENSIBLE ROUTE:
False accuser: "Here is what Avid did to me"
Avid: "Here is the proof I didn't"
Forum readers: "Look at this proof, clearly the false accuser is lying. Thanks Avid for clearing this up.

YOUR ROUTE:
Accuser: "Here is what Avid did to me"
Avid: "I will pay you to take down this thread. Or, I will sue you if you do not."
Forum readers: "Umm...?"

[

What I do know concretely is that I have consortium of very happy buyers that communicate with each other, exchange retailing advice, conversion suggestions, etc. They also stay in contact for ongoing debriefings and strategy help from me. The first of these relationships goes back to the first site I ever worked on and sold to a buyer, Susan Berberik, with a site called pottytrainingsolutions.com.

Great. I am sure I speak for most here that say we would love to hear from them! Heck, I am confident Clinton would even let them put in nice links to their sites.

As I have stated before, I do not have a magic wand, and do not have 100% predictability for every site I have developed. In cases where a site has underperformed for some reason, I am open first to additional help or work being performed on the site at my cost, a partial refund, or even the conveyance of additional sites on a complementary level based on the issues pertaining to the site. Honestly, I don’t know how many sellers make this kind of effort. One thing that I can guarantee is that if I see a buyer putting work and effort into their site I will continue to assist them and give them ongoing guidance at my cost. If there is a buyer who wants to push that work onto me, and then blame me for a site that isn’t making them as much money as they want, that is not fair and I am not open to that. I received the below letter from a buyer recently outlining his experiences which I think illustrates this philosphy:

I agree totally with you here Avid. I have sold site to a couple of people who basically expected a money exchange. I give you $1000 now and you give me $1000 week for life... Ok? They buy a site and do NOTHING. They become leeches, taking, taking, taking. No responsibility, no accountability, and if things don't work out the way THEY think it should go, they look to you for all the answers.

As I mentioned, though you never contacted me, I would like to take (buy) one of your sites for a ride. SERIOUSLY. (Clinton, can I journal my experience in a special section here?)

If I am impressed you can be assured I will shout it from the rooftops. But, the more you talk here, the less interested I become. Because if I am not impressed, I know I better keep it to myself! Of course I would come to you first and only complain to others when/if I felt abandoned and lied to -- not if I just decided to spend my efforts elsewhere.

There is one thing that needs to be cleared up. The role of Clinton as a moderator and the owner of this forum. As a moderator it is fine that his comments be measured and impartial. As the owner of the forum however when he republishes material that is defamatory he is as liable as the individual who posted it. This is an important distinction that needs to be made.

As a moderator, I appreciate Clintons remarks but have to admit I don’t understand the impartiality and fairness of a moderator who says that he doesn’t want members to overuse my name because it has an effect on search engine ranking when in the next sentence he actually provide instructions on how to develop external links through social media sources, etc. in order to improve the rankings for search engine purposes.

I somewhat see what you are saying here. I think one potential (legal) mistake Clinton has made is in actually editing and removing some comments and threads -- even ones that possibly are within the forum rules. That can give the appearance of being less "neutral".

[3Six]

tke and benitez, you couldn't be more right. The one thing Avid would achieve more than anything else is drawing attention to the negative press.

Avid, you're on to a losing battle, mate. Suing Clinton or the forums may sound like a smart move till you play it out a few months down the road. Let me paint the picture for you. There'll be threads in other forums talking about Clinton's battle with Avid Amiri. Bloggers love this kind of stuff. There'll be mention in both public and private locations online about someone going to silly lengths to take a thread down. That generates curiousity about the thread and people will want to know what the fuss is all about. Internet users from far and wide will come to hear of Avid Amiri and read the gossip, chatter, facts or rumour all over the place from social networking sites to blogs. Opinions will solidify. I suspect those will take the form of small forum owner standing up to big business bullying, or a non-profit community defending itself against a rich business owner trying to throttle negative publicity about his dealings. That's just how buzz on the internet works. The headline of "forum owner allows a defamatory post" doesn't have the same kerb appeal, doesn't have the same buzz factor. This would end up taking a life of its own.

And the whole first page of Google could be taken over by pages negative about you and your company, and that's without anyone consciously doing SEO. You could end up with negative mentions on thousands of sites that you and all your millions couldn't do diddly squat about.

Take tke's suggestion and hire a reputation company, pronto! You're going to be neck deep in the shit soon the way you're going, and it'll be all your fault.

The practical play-out of your legal actions would be that you either win or lose. If you lose, this thread would stay. If the unlikely event you win, the site (or just the content!) could simply move elsewhere, it's pretty easy. So whether you win or lose, you lose. How much of money are you putting on this bet again?! And how did you get to make so much of money without the sense to recognise a bet where the odds of winning are zero?

Clinton, you want publicity for the forum and more members? This is your chance. Blow the whole issue into centre field. Issue a press release about the impending legal action. Take out ads in all the main business for sale and website for sale locations about how these forums champion the little guy and keep him safe from unscrouplous dealers. Start a Facebook campaign raising money for legal bills. It will also serve to draw attention to the forum. Coral cache this thread, allow archive.org a copy, allow other caching sites to help themselves to content, allow mirrors of this entire forum's material in countries within and outside the reach of the law. Long before the first legal document lands on your doormat you could make the entire action a worthless exercise.

You could also do a "Support EP" widget and ask members to assist by featuring the widget on their sites. That works a treat with bloggers. Point the widget to a NEW thread talking about how and why you're getting sued, not this thread. Nobody can complain about that. This is the kind of opportunity for publicity that many small website owners simply dream about. Sieze it.