Thursday, July 26, 2007

Daniel Reed Smith Wiki

This page on Wikipedia is slated for deletion in 4 days - and for blindingly obvious reasons. Since the page's subject matter is Dan Smith, from the Smith & Merritt Institute, and is thus relevant to other posts on this blog, I've decided to copy the text of the entire page, warts and all, along with the associated discussion page. Please note that I am not the author of any part of either page, and my reproduction of their information here is in no way an endorsement or corroboration of any of their content.

Daniel Reed Smith

Daniel Reed Smith is currently residing in North Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. He and Kathryn Merritt are longtime co-workers and friends who started the company Acentus. This company was based out of Salt Lake City, Utah and in 2006 was bought out by the College Partnership. Acentus was a sales marketing company that housed different accounts, the main one was Transforming Debt into Wealth by the world famous Finacial guru John Cummuta. Acentus worked off 2nd hand leads provided by The Prosper Learning Company, based out of Provo, Utah. They held the leadsource and their sales teams would solicit existing "TDIW" clients and offer them a long term coaching program which is very successful to this day.

Several members of the upper management broke off from Acentus when they suspected both Dan and Kathryn of fraudulent motives with the companies dealing with both employees and clients as well as Prosper. They ended up working for Prosper and learned that Acentus owed Prosper $2.2 million in debt, a falsehood as Acentus claimed they were "debt free". The downward spiral started when their employees started experiencing dishonest acts and most of which each obtained employment at The Prosper Learning Company with the understanding that the ties they had formerly with Acentus would be left at the door as to let the legal teams battle it out and keep the then existing relationship professional. A few former members of the Management team who had been recruited by Prosper filed a claim with the Utah Securities division in which it was claimed Acentus was committing fraud by not disclosing formal paperwork for investing with the company and becomming a shareholder. Acentus is guilty of taking money from the employees offered this deal (only management and a select few at that were offered this deal) before any paperwork was drawn up. The company was scheduled to go public on the trading market in August 2006, and then they claimed they would go public by December 2006. Both dates never happened and the company never made it public at all. One reported "shareholder" did recieve their money back but with a threat of a lawsuit, several others are in the process of getting back their money, some of which had filed together as a tag team.

Daniel Reed Smith is guilty of Tax fraud as well as Securities Fraud, he also has other fraud business practices pending filing. He is to date being sued and/or has negative claims to fraud pending in the states of AZ, CO, UT, CA and NV. He is currently married to Misty Adams Smith and resides in North Salt Lake City, Utah. A divorce for the obvious reasons above has been pending between the two. They have no natural children together as "Dan" has had a vasectomy. Dan has two other children from a first wife of whom he divorced from. She is living in a suburb of Salt Lake City, Utah. He was known to be pompus and arrogant and will try and sell you his own toilet water if it means he will make a profit of it. He was heard by several members of his company speak very candidly about his trip he took his wife on to Paris, France and on one activity there ate at the top of the Eiffel Tower in the resturant with a meal costing $700 when no one in the whole company was making a cent, even his own family members whom he fired unfairly because they called him out on his dishonesty and would not stoop to his disgraceful level. He was known in the company to be tolerant of loose morales and values with several members of his administrative offices performing sexual acts of being Swingers and all modesty out the window running a down low high priced hooker fest. Several of the company members who left the company state this is one of the main reasons they left besides not making any money. Many people are wittness to this activity and it is not yet determined if an underground prositution ring lawsuit will still be filed. Wittnesses are still being gathered for this illegal (by the State of Utah) activity. It is claimed with wittnesses that Dan did engage in this vulgar activity. No verification if Kathryn was involved as of posting date to this article.

Prosper Learning is not associated with acts of this conduct or dishonest dealings. They are in no way connected to this information other than a company both Dan and Kathryn own money to and have dealt dishonestly with.

Dan and Katheryn both wrote a book called Abundance Spend your way to Wealth, however the book was never published. They did however try and sell the book and coaching program while waiting for approvals on all legal aspects for the book and program to be approved.

It is known that Dan is trying to file personal bankruptcy and it would be a very minor sentence for even one fraud act he is guilty of to serve 7-10 years in prison for. For more information on how you can add your claim to get a lawsuit filed and join in on the complaints please contact your local BBB as well as the Utah Labor Commission and Securities Division as well as the Tax dept of the USA. Numerous claims on the internet were circulating and that is the reason for this info to be pooled together for the strength in community to bring this dishonest man down for coorporate fraud and give him the sentence he deserves-BEHIND BARS!


Talk: Daniel Reed Smith

At the attention of the over all article it is written in a way as to push blame and origin to others you have heard the allegations from. If none of the said “fraudulent acts” or “disgraceful behavior” happens to concern you directly, there is no reason for you to put your words into such a situation.

I can disclaim many of your accusations with solid facts. If you were trying to post a document so that you may reach out to others concerning what was once a blooming company, than you should not have tried to slam Daniel Reed Smith’s personal reputation in the process. It now is a trash filled nonsense article.

I’ll correct you on just a few “facts” you have written about. You wrote, “One reported shareholder did receive their money back but with the threat of lawsuit,” the said “shareholder” did not receive the money back because of a lawsuit threat. If you or the “shareholder” truly believes the money was returned over bullying, you are mistaken.

You wrote, “Their [Acentus] employees started experiencing dishonest acts and most of which each obtained employment at The Prosper Learning Company with the understanding that the ties they had formerly with Acentus would be left at the door as to let the legal teams battle it out and keep the then existing relationship professional.” Although I know you may believe many of the previous Acentus employees that chose to work for The Prosper Learning Company left ties at the door, it’s apparent that is not true. Leaving ties would most likely include not contacting employees still working for Acentus to recruit, illegally. Yes, a non compete was signed by most if not all of the employees that were once with Acentus. Also, since the “professional” relationship you stated as a then existing one, I can only be lead to believe that they are no longer associated with one another. If that is the case, then why is it that you have taken the matter to yourself and not just let the legal teams battle it out? It seems that no matter what the relationship status, legal teams seem to be what should be on hand, not someone with a grudge and a quick-to-judge personality writing this document slandering Daniel Reed Smith’s name.

You wrote, “He is currently married to Misty Adams Smith and resides in North Salt Lake City, Utah. A divorce for the obvious reasons above has been pending between the two.” First of all, there is no logical reason for stating where they reside. Second of all, you have no clue as to why the two may or may not have a pending divorce. The second sentence calling the divorce over “obvious reasons stated above” in your text still cracks me up. The third paragraph in your document is all together hilarious. It’s as though you were there on top of the Eiffel Tower looking at the receipt for their supposed $700 meal. I’ll correct you sentence by sentence starting with, “They have no natural children together as Dan has a vasectomy.” How do you know if Dan has a vasectomy or not? If you were so close to Dan as to knowing something like that for fact, why are you wasting your time writing this? If he does, how is that any of our business? Again, there is no reason to state where anyone resides. Dan would not sell you his own toilet water if it means he’ll profit from it. Whoever told you all this garbage would sell you THEIR toilet water because it favors them. Your accusations are, after all, shit. Dan’s family members had their reasons for leaving. I’d like to hear from the administrative staff about a so called hooker fest involving Daniel Reed Smith, because I can then call them liars. I don’t believe anyone from the administrative staff to say such crude lies. I believe them to be better people than that. I know for a fact neither Daniel Reed Smith or Katheryn Merritt to be involved in an underground prostution ring, or engage in any of the alleged vulgar activity. If such activities did occur, it was not known to Daniel Reed Smith.

I hope you have sent a copy of this to Daniel Reed Smith and Katheryn Merritt. If you can say it here, you can say it to them. Without mentioning anything about your grammer I’d just like to tell you that the Tax department of the USA, is also widely known as the IRS. Where else may we find these allegations on the internet? Here is a better question, where may we find the truth circulating around on the internet? Like they say, there’s two sides to every story.
Susan Peters 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)S. Peters

4 comments:

Ben said...

Die Eigenheit inspite of your lame disclaimer at the top of this you clearly have crossed the line and proposfully posted slanders material on your blog. You are violating googles blogging privacy and content policys not only that but have stepped into liability of a slander lawsuit. You don't need to search the internet very far to see that bloggers still have liablity to refrain from posting slander on thier blogs. ShoeMoney.com is getting sued just for allowing outside people post such content on thier blog you my friend went out to and posted it yourself. Is this past time really worth getting sued over?

Einzige said...

Aside from the fact that everything in the quote may be true (I don't know - do you, Ben?), it's trivially easy to prove that I am not the author of any of the blue text.

I doubt seriously that you're a lawyer (as you don't know the difference between slander and libel, for one), and I'm reasonably sure you don't work for Google, either.

To top it off, Dan seems likely to be pretty busy with another lawsuit right now, so I seriously doubt that he's really going to give a crap about what gets put up on a piddly little blog that gets less than 50 readers a day. A suit needs to show actual damages. Arguably, Dan's reputation is already in the sewer, anyway.

So, thanks for your concern, Ben, but given all that, I think I'll be all right.

Jim Lippard said...

Ben:

While the republication of slander and libel is generally itself defamation, this is not the case any more in the online context, thanks to the last-surviving piece of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts ISPs *and users* from liability for reposting defamatory material. I suspect this will ultimately get fixed through legislative action to restrict it to providers, but as of today it holds. See the cases Zeran v. AOL, Aquino v. Electriciti, Blumenthal v. Drudge and AOL, and, most significantly, Barrett v. Rosenthal.

Jim Lippard said...

BTW, it's a horribly written Wikipedia article and clearly comes across as written by a disgruntled person. It would have been far more powerful if it had actually been written in an encyclopedia entry style, with references to support its allegations--which I suspect is quite possible, given what we've already seen at this blog about the Smith and Merritt Institute. The guy is clearly a scumbag.