LuLaRoe Retailer issues death threat

LuLaRoe Retailer issues death threat

One would think that selling LuLaRoe would not involve thinly veiled death threats. You’d be dead wrong.

In October 2017, “The Lab”, which is a LuLaRoe husband and wife team, told their Facebook live sale viewers to go “sick ‘em” (it should be “sic”) referring to the LuLaRoe Defective group on Facebook. The LuLaRoe Retailer Agreement is in the wife’s name.

“The Lab” had been the topic of numerous posts in the Defective group, due to their poor customer service and the husband’s degrading attitude towards his wife. Phil is the “front man” of “The Lab” and hosts most of the live sales. Several posters in Defective had mentioned the costuming that Phil likes to wear, and it is indeed an unusual costume. If you’ve ever seen one of their lives, Phil dresses in two or three shirts, a vest and a bandana under a Trilby: think Kevin Federline. Also, he wears man-liner, which in my opinion, should only be left to Johnny Depp.

“The Lab” apparently had their Facebook LuLaRoe group members infiltrate the Defective group in order to report anything back to them that was mentioned; they have approximately 31,000 group members. This is a common occurrence within Defective – group members infiltrate Defective to take screenshots of conversations and report them back to the person being talked about, to get in that retailer’s good graces. Teacher’s pet, anyone? “The Lab” then posted this video. A few minutes in, “The Lab” calls Heather out by name (incorrectly, but I digress.….).

Here’s what seems to escape “The Lab” – the admins and moderators there post anonymously for anyone that asks. They protect the member’s privacy when it’s requested of them, due to the rampant tattling and “mean girls” syndrome that is prevalent in the LuLaRoe culture. Most members submit items to post, with identifying names and faces redacted, so the admins of the group may never know who is actually in the information sent to them. In this case, the admins of Defective didn’t really know who “The Lab” was because items provided to them are redacted.

Some members of Defective are still active retailers, coming to find the truth instead of the sunshine and rainbows that is constantly spouted by their uplines, hence the need for identity protection. The admin team only moderates the group for rule violations: you can speak your mind in Defective without fear of retribution from the admins unless you break one of the rules. Defective is a necessary place to vent, for a good deal of people.

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to us by our constitution. It cannot be considered libel if it is true. When people express their true opinions of how they were treated by someone, this is not libelous. See definition below.

Slander and Libel Definition

What is Slander? What is Libel? Libel and slander are both types of defamation. Libel is an untrue defamatory statement that is made in writing. Slander is an untrue defamatory statement that is spoken orally. The difference between defamation and slander is that a defamatory statement can be made in any medium. It could be in a blog comment or spoken in a speech or said on television. Libelous acts only occur when a statement is made in writing (digital statements count as writing) and slanderous statements are only made orally.

Apparently, this upset “The Lab”. On October 26^th 2017, “The Lab” saw fit to send all the admins of Defective a cease and desist order, along with a person that was no longer a member of the group but has written about LuLaRoe in the past. But I need you to see this for what it really is. THIS IS CYBERSTALKING. “The Lab” veered wayyyyyyyyyy out of their lane and cyberstalked these women, spending countless hours to find their addresses and names, if they were other than the names displayed on Facebook.

Now one of the steadfast mantras in the LuLaRoe CULTure is to “stay in your own lane”. What that means is to ignore all the negativity, put your head in the sand, and “work your business”. Basically, ignore anything that isn’t sunshine and rainbows.

Not only is this downright creepy, but it truly is cyberstalking and it’s also doxing.

Doxing is a technique of tracing someone or gather information about an individual using sources on the internet. Its name is derived from “Documents” or “Docx”. Doxing method is based purely on the ability of the hacker to recognize valuable information about his target and use this information to their benefit. It is also based on the idea that, “The more you know about your target, the easier it will be to find his or her flaws”.

I wouldn’t title Phil a hacker in any sense of the word, but with the internet and companies selling private information, it isn’t horribly difficult to find out someone’s information on the internet. That is unfortunate. Also, the information that you find on the internet isn’t always updated or accurate information. It may be previous email or postal mail addresses.

“The Lab” emailed every single email address that they could find during this doxing campaign. One of these letters was emailed to Julie Dean, an admin of Defective. “The Lab” also emailed it to Julie Dean’s ex-husband, who she hasn’t had any contact with and previously had a three-year restraining order against; in effect, giving her ex-husband Julie’s current address. If you have a restraining order against someone, which a judge MUST approve, it’s usually for a damn good reason. “The Lab” could have very well put Julie’s life in danger. I’m sure that this wasn’t even a thought in their heads. Julie no longer fears for her safety and the issues have been addressed, but when the letters were sent, “The Lab” didn’t even think about consequences such as these. They were strictly out for revenge.

The letters were sent via certified mail, and “regular way” mail. What in the HELL is “regular way” mail? The letter sent to Jenna Dale was addressed inaccurately and due to the unstable behavior exhibited by “The Lab”, Jenna has expressed concerns for the innocent party to which it was sent.

Please also note that “The Lab” does NOT list their own attorney’s information on this letter. You know why? No attorney worth a damn would issue such a letter for such an asinine reason. The statements within the letter are false and cannot be proven.

After the cease and desist letters were sent, the admins of Defective thought it prudent to alert the group members of what had transpired, for their own protection. Redacted screenshots of the letters were posted in Defective and a conversation about them ensued.

“The Lab’s” infiltrators took screenshots of the conversations and of course, sent them to them.

On 11/03/2017, a Defective group member alerted Heather Blithely that “The Lab” had posted a video stating that they would “pursue avenues to remove, exterminate and fight those who…”. You can view the video below.

Definition of exterminate:

exterminated; exterminating

transitive verb

:to get rid of completely usually by killing off

Exterminate is a VERY strong word that had very definite connotations. Its single, solitary definition is “to kill”. Phil’s wife could be heard off screen, stating that “exterminate is a bit strong.” Phil then back peddles to include the word “legally”. There is NO WAY to LEGALLY exterminate a person. It’s illegal as hell.

After several Defective group members expressed concern over Heather’s safety, she called her local police department and filed a report with them. Since this took place over the internet, the police advised Heather to file with the FBI as well. You can see the report below.

After the filing of police and FBI reports, Heather contacted LuLaRoe Home Office and copied their legal department with evidence that she had regarding the situation. You have seen the evidence here: this is not “imaginary” evidence and the things that were said by “The Lab” are very real and VERY threatening.

LuLaRoe’s first reaction was to completely deflect the issue by stating they could not find this retailer name. Folks, IT IS NOT A COMMON LAST NAME. Get real. LuLaRoe tried to sweep this under the rug and assumed that Heather would leave it at that.

When Heather’s complaint was read by Bob Loll, he responded. You can see his response below.

I find his response odd. He asked that if the FBI had any findings, to please let him know. It seems to me that LuLaRoe was only going to be concerned if there were findings from the FBI. Mr. Loll states that if LuLaRoe found that “The Lab” made an illegal threat, it could be grounds for cancellation of their Retailer Agreement. Mind you, he said COULD BE grounds for cancellation. If a direct threat to “exterminate” is not illegal grounds, I have no idea what the fuck is.

In Heather’s last communication, she told LuLaRoe compliance that she had contacted the police and the FBI and filed a report. LuLaRoe never responded again.

The nonchalant way this situation was handled is abhorrent.

LuLaRoe has now SET A PRECEDENT. They have SUSPENDED retailers (when they were not even the ones named in the retailer agreement) for “conduct unbecoming a LuLaRoe retailer”. The NDSS debacle that happened last week is downright disgusting – and it’s a horrific show of ignorance and insensitivity. The Budenbender’s should have had their contract terminated – a 30-day suspension is insufficient.

However, and I think you will agree, death threats are much more heinous and much more serious. LuLaRoe did not feel the need to examine this complaint any further and let it drop, completely.

Does LuLaRoe really have so little regard for human life that they didn’t feel it necessary to investigate this fully? Did they secretly hope that this death threat would shut up and stop the Defective group from outing LuLaRoe’s constant lying? WHAT TYPE OF RESPONSE WOULD THEY HAVE HAD IF A PERSON HAD BEEN KILLED BY A RETAILER OR THEIR SPOUSE???

They would have “assumed innocence”, as they always do. It would have been an “unfortunate event” that has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

But you know what? It would have been “negligent homicide”. Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who, through criminal negligence, allows another person to die. Negligent homicide may be a lesser included offense to first and second-degree murder, meaning that all of the elements of negligent homicide are elements of those more serious charges.  There is a myriad of other charges that could have been brought against LuLaRoe, should this have transpired.

A LuLaRoe Retailer issues a death threat and this is LuLaRoe’s pathetic response. I am continually disgusted and appalled by the disregard exhibited by LuLaRoe regarding this situation and many, many others. LuLaRoe does not have your backs, as they always say. Unless you’re going to count that knife in it.

ALL CONTENT QUALIFIES UNDER FAIR USE POLICY.

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING, PYRAMID SCHEMES, AND TACTLESS AND INSENSITIVE SELLING METHODS, BLATANTLY HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A ‘FAIR USE’ OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML

IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND ‘FAIR USE’, YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.

THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES A “FAIR USE” OF COPYRIGHTED CONTENT. SECTION 107 OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT STATES:

“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 106 AND 106A, THE FAIR USE OF A COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING SUCH USE BY REPRODUCTION IN COPIES OR PHONORECORDS OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS SPECIFIED BY THAT SECTION, FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM, COMMENT, NEWS REPORTING, TEACHING (INCLUDING MULTIPLE COPIES FOR CLASSROOM USE), SCHOLARSHIP, OR RESEARCH, IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT.”

THIS BLOG AND MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL, IN GENERAL, MAY CONTAIN CERTAIN COPYRIGHTED WORKS THAT WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER(S), BUT WHICH I BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH ARE PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE REASONS NOTED ABOVE.