SUED UNFAIRLY BY FLETCHER SCHMIDT?
FIGHT BACK TODAY WITH LEVERAGE LENS
FIGHT BACK TODAY WITH LEVERAGE LENS
We want to provide a factual update regarding recent developments involving Fletcher Schmidt, Haines Law Group, and their ongoing interactions with us.
Sign Removal Confirmation:
We have now confirmed that the individual caught removing our signs without permission is Elaine Saya Schmidt. You can view her publicly available website here: elainesayaschmidt.com.
Van Censorship Incident:
Recently, we noticed an incident involving our van, where Fletcher’s and Elaine’s images were censored. This raises questions about the lengths some individuals will go to obscure transparency and avoid public accountability.
Serious Issues of Concern:
These actions bring to light serious concerns regarding the conduct of Haines Law Group and Fletcher Schmidt:
1. Transparency and Public Criticism:
As public-facing legal professionals, they are expected to handle public criticism professionally and ethically.
2. Improper Removal of Signs:
Removing factual signs, especially during political seasons, raises concerns about free speech and ethical boundaries.
3. Attempts to Interfere with Business Operations: Efforts to contact our insurance company, rental van provider, and other business partners suggest attempts to escalate and complicate matters unnecessarily.
Conclusion
We believe these actions warrant public attention, as they may indicate broader issues with how Haines Law Group and its representatives handle professional responsibilities and criticism. We are committed to maintaining transparency and accountability while addressing these matters appropriately.
Fletcher Schmidt is a relentless attorney who appears to stop at nothing. Despite knowing that the companies he’s targeting had minimal involvement in his claims—their role was limited to setting up interviews without making major decisions—Schmidt has chosen them as his adversary. Even after they transparently disclosed their limited financial resources, he remains undeterred. Schmidt’s actions suggest a greater interest in dragging this small business through prolonged court battles, rather than seeking genuine resolution.
The situation escalated further. Although their first van wrap didn’t even display contact details, Schmidt proactively reached out to multiple vehicle wrap companies across Los Angeles. Reports indicate he didn’t just call once but at all hours, likely contacting every wrap business he could find, seemingly to deliver a pointed message. But what message is he trying to send? That he’s prepared to go to any length to complicate their lives?
Adding to this, Schmidt even admitted to arranging for the towing of their first wrapped van, turning it into a spectacle. His actions suggest a disregard for proportionate response or consideration of the case's actual details. Instead, it appears he’s focused on winning, even if it means disregarding fairness.
For others who may have encountered Fletcher Schmidt’s particular brand of “justice,” we invite you to come forward. It’s time to bring attention to tactics that seem more aligned with intimidation than integrity.
This is the location of our first wrapped van that was proudly towed by Fletcher Schmidt. Notice he put his car collection here after to prevent our new van from returning.
This photo shows an individual stealing our sign on 11/10/24 that said Fletcher Schmidt Sues Mom and Pop Businesses. A police report has been filed, and an active investigation is underway. If you can help identify this person, please contact us immediately.
72 Hours After Calling Out the Sign Theft, We Received This Veiled Threat from Fletcher Schmidt:
“If your objective is a swift resolution of this lawsuit, your conduct is counterproductive to that end.” – Fletcher Schmidt
Translation: Stop speaking publicly, or I’ll drown you in court costs.
1. Can you explain why you filed this under PAGA? PAGA is widely criticized as it allows attorneys to take majority of the fees in instead of individual plaintiffs.
2. What is the advantage of suing someone with no assets?
3. When you get a judgment for the recruiting company, will you run it or layoff the temps?
4. Can you address concerns that your legal tactics prioritize profit over the interests of the plaintiff - For example, you could have sent a legal demand allowing the plaintiff to get the lion’s share, instead of following a class action lawsuit where the attorneys will now get the biggest payout.
5. What safeguards do you put in place to protect jobs? It is expected that many people will lose their jobs - not because of paying the plaintiff, but because of paying the millionaire attorneys.
WE USE FACTS AND PUBLIC PRESSURE TO PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES FROM PREDATORY LAWSUITS.
Copyright © 2024 Fletcher Schmidt - All Rights Reserved
Usamos cookies para analizar el tráfico del sitio web y optimizar tu experiencia en el sitio. Al aceptar nuestro uso de cookies, tus datos se agruparán con los datos de todos los demás usuarios.