Is Yodle A Scam

Is Yodle A Scam

New York State – Civil Rights Law § 74

A  civil action cannot be maintained against any person, firm or corporation, for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding, or for any heading of the report which is a fair and true head note of the statement published.

This  section does not apply to a libel contained in any other matter added by any person concerned in the publication; or in the report of anything said or done at the time and place of such a proceeding which was nota part thereof.

****************************************

The following is taken from Court documents that were before theSupreme Court, the Appellate Division Third Department and the New York State Court of Appeals concerning the matter of Collins v. Yodle. I am including both my paperwork before the court, the paperwork provided by Yodle’s attorneys andthe court Decisions and Orders.

Supreme Court – 003 Collins Amend Complaint

– 060A Collins Aff 5-23-11

Appellate Court Appeal – 01 Collins Brief

Court of Appeals – 01 Collins Aff-NOM Permission to Appeal

For all court documents – Click HERE

I would suggest you first read my Supporting Affidavit to the Court of Appeals, then my Brief (01 Collins Brief) before the Appellate Division. After reading my Brief, read (86 Hummel Dec& Order) and then read the Appellate Court Order. What was in the Brief was also in my 109 page Affidavit (060A Collins Aff 5-23-11) with the exception that I did not raise the issue that I was not provided Yodle’s Service Agreement Terms and Conditions (YSATC) until the appellate court proceeding. This was addressed in my motion to the Court and in my Brief. (See, Appellate Court Motion – 01Collins NOM + Aff 7-5-12 and Collins Reply Aff 8-21-12)

The following are questions that need to be addressed and answered regarding Yodle’s operations as documented in my Supporting Affidavit before the New York Court of Appeals and my Brief before the Appellate Division and other papers before the courts. Below is just some of the issues raised in my complaint and other papers filed with the Courts.  The problem litigants have, at point, is adjudicating judges are able to make false statements of fact in their decisions and orders and no one outside the proceeding other then the litigants is aware of it. People, unassociated with the proceedings, only read the court orders. They need to read the documentation before the Court. This enables judges to fix cases.

1. Is Yodle operating a scam operation?

The first month with Yodle, I was charged $203.68 for 21 clicks which would have otherwise cost me $12.94 had I managed this on my own with Google. The next month Yodle charged me $203.10 which would have cost me about$12.89 and then $67.53 for the 3rd month which would have cost me $4.29 for a total of $474.31 which would have cost me $30.12. According to Yodle’s one page-contract, I was to be billed $750 per month for 3 months. No mention was made and I was not provided any documentation or informed otherwise that Yodle gets to keep any unspent advertising dollars. Not only does Yodle exceedingly mark-up its service from $30.12 to $474.31, but Yodle gets to keep the difference between the $1,500 paid in and the $474.31 claimed by Yodle as the cost of advertising. In short, Yodle collected $1,500 and only spent about$30.12 on advertising for me. Yodle made a preposterous profit $1,469.88 plus an additional $69 per month administration fee.

Yodle controls the amount spent on advertising. On top of the aforementioned, Yodle charged me $69.00 per month to manage my advertising account. I was charged $69.00 per month for a total of $207.00 for Yodle to spend $30.12 in advertising. This is a scam. The court orders do not address these facts, it was ignored and covered up.

During the sales presentation by Yodle’s sales agent, Brad Leitch, I was specifically informed that my advertising dollars were going to the search engines themselves. Except for a few dollars, all went to Yodle.

page 18

B:   But this is one of my personal accounts. What we do is we charge $69 a month to manage the AdWords for you.

C:   $69 to manage.

B:   AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE YOUR MONTHLY BUDGET, WHICH IS GOING TO THE SEARCH ENGINES THEMSELVES.

C:   Now that$69, does that also cover Bing and Yahoo?

B:   Yeah, that includes everything I’ve shown you, …

By stating that my advertising budget was going to the search engines, Leitch was specifically stating Yodle would spend down each month my $750 monthly advertising Budget Fee, and that Yodle would charge me whatever the search engines charged Yodle.

Supreme Court – 060A Collins Aff 5-23-11

Appellate Court Appeal – 01 Collins Brief

Court of Appeals – 01 Collins Aff-NOM Permission to Appeal

For all court documents – Click HERE

2. Is Yodle reporting all of its income?

Yodle claims it made 88 million in 2011 according to Inc. 500.In its paperwork to the court, Leitch in his Affidavit to the Court states that Yodle has over 21,000 live campaigns. It was further documented Yodle charges between $500 to $5,000 per campaign. $500 x 21,000 = $10,500,000 dollars per month of advertising at the lowest rate. This would be over $126,000,000 per year in revenue using the lowest amount Yodle charges per campaign. Now, assumethe rate I was charged of $750 per campaign, this would be 15.75 million per month or $189 million per year. What happened to the 38 to 101 million (120million – 88 million) or more dollars? It should be noted I am using Yodle’sfigures. As you may perceive, Yodle is scamming tens of millions of dollars from their clients. With this much unreported money by Yodle at stake, you would think that they have probably figured out how to make this money vanish or disappear. Yodle’s reported and claimed income does not add up based upon the above.

The above does not take into account the $69.00 per month for21,000 campaigns which is $1,449,000 per month or $17,388,000 per year Yodle charges to manage the advertising campaigns.

If you take the $200 per month I was charged by Yodle times the21,000 campaigns is $4,200,000 per month x 12 = $50,000,000 per year.$50,000,000 plus the $17,388,000Yodle collects to manage the advertising you get a total of $67,388.000 which is a lot closer to what Yodle is claiming for income. By increasing it to an average of $275 x 21,000 x 12 = $69,3000,000 +17,388,000 = $86,688,000 which is even closer.

This now raises the questions:  Is Yodle only declaring the income it receives from the managing of its accounts and what it charges its customers for the clicks? IsYodle declaring the unspent advertising dollars that it has collected and is not refundable to the client? What is Yodle doing with all this unspent advertising money? In short, Yodle is declaring only about $275 per campaign it is charging between $500 to $5,000 for.

3. Is Yodle illegally recording phone conversations

between their clients and the clients’ customers?

The documentation shows that my phone calls with customers were illegally recorded by Yodle. I specifically addressed this issue by sending them 2 e-mails demanding that they were not to record my phone calls and had Leitch agree to use my phone number instead of Yodle’s tracking phone number on Yodle’s mirror image web site.

The court stated, “The transcripts of the telephone conversations establish that plaintiff was aware of and agreed to defendants’ actions”. This statement by Judge Hummel is totally and utterly false. No wherein the transcripts did I agree to the recording of my phone calls as documented below and more fully detailed in the full transcripts provided. The court completely ignored the statements and facts provide within both of my e-mails and the transcripts where Yodle agreed to use my phone number and Leitch stated Yodle was using my phone number.

B:   … Now the call, as far as where they’re going to come into, you want them calling into the 0380 number, correct.

C:   Right.

B:   Well, remember we’re going to purchase the tracking number for you, so it can be either one. Just for the tracking number that they see and dial.

C:   I’d rather just use my 518-274 the local number.

B:   Okay, that works.

Leitch is clearly stating that I wanted my client calls being made to my phone number and not to Yodle’s tracking number. The only way Yodle could record my phone conversations is with Yodle’s tracking phone number. I wanted my clients privacy protected and that is why I wanted my phone number to be used.

The e-mails stated:

“Please do not continue with the mirror image of my website that was set up using makedivorceeasy.org or recording my phone conversations.”

“You do not have my permission to record any of my conversations with anyone and you do not have my permission to use a mirror image of my web site.”

Read the transcripts provided by Yodle:

Supreme Court:     054 4-6-10 transcript

0554-8-10 1st transcript

0564-8-10 2nd transcript

For all court documents – Click HERE

This clearly shows that Judge Hummel lied when he stated that I agreed to using Yodle’s tracking phone number and the recording of my phone calls. If they agreed to use my phone number, how would I have known Yodle was using a tracking phone number? No where in the transcript, which is being provide within, can Judge Hummel show or document where I agreed to the recording of my phone calls. Further, why did Judge Hummel ignore all of my documentation concerning this issue? This would be an issue for a jury to decide.

Note: I had no proof of the recording of my phone calls until Yodle’s attorney Neil Rivchin of O’Connell and Aronowitz admitted in court papers that Yodle was recording my phone calls.

Penal Law § 250.00 Eavesdropping and in particular §250.05 and250.10 which was argued in the supreme and appellate courts.

“Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment.

Yodle never had my consent to record my phone conversations with clients based upon the sales presentation transcript and the e-mails I sent to Yodle. On what basis or theory would I want Yodle recording my phone calls withclients? I took direct action to protect the privacy of my clients.

What is Yodle doing with these recorded conversations?

Yodle claims 21,000 advertising campaigns. Is Yodle’s serverlarge enough to handle all these thousands of daily recorded phone calls? IsYodle using the search engine servers? Is it possible, Yodle is utilizing theNational Security’s Agency’s (NSA) server to handle the recording of all thesephone conversations?

Yodle claims it has campaigns for doctors and lawyers. DoesYodle also do advertising for political organizations? Are they collectingindividuals private and confidential information and storing it on Yodle’s orsomeone else’s server(s)? What exactly are they doing with this information?

Has Judge Hummel violated Penal Law §175.40 – Issuing a falsecertificate?

A person is guilty of issuing a false certificate when, being apublic servant authorized by law to make or issue official certificates orother official written instruments, and with intent to defraud, deceive, orinjure another person, he issues such an instrument, or makes the same withintent that it be issued, knowing that it contains a false statement or falseinformation.

Class E felony

In my 109 page Reply Brief before Judge Hummel, I fullydocumented the false and/or misleading and/or contradictory statements made byYodle and its employees. I stated the false statement and the reason why thestatement was false by either referring to the transcript of the salespresentation or other documents before the court. Judge Hummel in his order (70Decision and Order 9-14-11) stated “Plaintiff complains in a series ofconclusory allegations, innuendoes, and rhetorical questions thatdefendants’defrauded him.” Judge Hummel went on to state:

“The Court begins its analysis of plaintiff’s opposition to thesummary judgment motion by noting that defendants provided transcripts of theirconversations with plaintiff showing that most of plaintiff’s conclusory andfactual allegations in support of these causes of action are baseless, false,and/or misleading. Plaintiff’s 109 pages of opposition to defendants’ motionfor summary judgment is noteworthy both for plaintiff’s unsupported conclusorystatements and his consistent failure to address the relevant questions andevidence presented in support of defendants’ motion. Plaintiff has presented noevidence to contradict defendants’ transcripts of his telephoneconversationsdemonstrating that plaintiff knew all about Yodle’s services, that plaintiffknew that he was entering into a three-month contract with Yodle and agreedtothe creation of a “mirror image” of plaintiff’s existing web sitethat would use a slightly different web address and contact telephone number,that e-mails, telephone calls, and messages to these new addresses would thenbe routed to plaintiff’s existing e-mail address and telephone number,Plaintiff has presented no evidence to contradict the transcripts showing thatplaintiff knew that he would be contractually liable for three months ofservice and agreed that he would be charged the first month’s fees of $69.00 aswell as the $750.00 advertising budget in April 2011. Plaintiff does notdispute that the transcripts show that he knew that the new web site would tobe created, partly developed, and tested prior to May 3, 2010.”

I documented above about my phone calls being illegally recordedand how the Yodle scam works. I will address below the illegal intercepting andreading of my e-mails. On pages 11 to 22 of my Affidavit to the Court ofAppeals concerns all of the false statements made by Leitch in order to induceme to sign the contract. All this was ignored by the courts. Why is JudgeHummel and the other judges covering up the illegal actions of Yodle and itsscam operation? Judge Hummel and the other judges are fully aware the only Documentsthat are going to be read are the court’s Decision and Order and anyone readingit is going to take the judge’s word that he stating the facts correctly. Thisiswhy judges are able to get away with fixing cases.

Did Judge Hummeland the other judges also violate my rights to due process and equal protectionof the law?

As documented in my Reply Affidavit to the Supreme Court, myBrief to the Appellate Court and my Affidavit to Appeal to the Court of Appealsall of the documentation concerning Yodle’s and its employees illegal actionsagainst me were completely ignored by the Courts. Further, the courts ignoredall case law presented as precedents in my favor. This is not the only issueJudge Hummel lied about. Another big issue was the court having jurisdictionover Leitch and Long. Of course, Judge Hummel ruled in their favor, even thoughthe case law presented as precedents supported my contentions. Judge Hummelcompletely minimized Leitch and Long’s actions, regarding the recording myphonecalls, intercepting and reading of my e-mails and the material falsestatements made by Leitch to me in an effort to ease my concerns I raised withhim and to have me agree toYodle’s Services as documented in the courtdocuments see Court of Appeals 01 Collins Affidavit pages 11 to 22.

Supreme Court – 003 Collins Amend Complaint

– 060A Collins Aff 5-23-11

Appellate Court Appeal – 01 Collins Brief

Court of Appeals – 01 Collins Aff-NOM Permission to Appeal

For all court documents – Click HERE

4. Is Yodle illegally intercepting the client’s

e-mails from their customers andreading them?

After having agreed to use my e-mail address on Yodle’s mirrorimage web site, Yodle ignored the aforementioned and used its own e-mailaddress for me. The e-mails from customer’s came from slong@yodle.com insteadof from their e-mail address. The customers e-mail was stated in Long’s e-mail.Other documents from Yodle came from noreply@yodle.com.

Long, my Yodle account representative, claimed he never read mye-mails and that Yodle never intercepted my e-mails. The question is, how didLong forward the e-mails to me without opening the e-mail? Once he opened thee-mail to send to me, the message was there for him to read. If Yodle did notintercept my e-mails, how did Long get them?Yodle had the e-mail go to Long,and then Long forwarded it to me. There is no other reason for Yodle to sendthe e-mails to Long other then for him to read and audit them.

What is Yodle doing with these e-mails? Are they giving them tothe NSA or another government agency?

Supreme Court – 003Collins Amend Complaint

-003 Exh 13 Long e-mail 5-14-10

-003 Exh 14 Long 2e-mail 5-14-10

– 060A Collins Aff 5-23-11

Appellate Court Appeal – 01 Collins Brief

Court of Appeals – 01 Collins Aff-NOM Permission to Appeal

For all court documents – Click HERE

5. Is Yodle tracking payments or contributions

made on mirror image web site

It should be noted that my web site has a place for someone topay for my service. This would, as well, have been on Yodle’s mirror image website. There are a multitude of questions to be answered here. Is Yodle keepingtrack of these payments and how much the payment is? What if these payments areto political organizations? What is Yodledoing with this information?

6. Is Yodle being truthful when it states:

We optimize your media budget withour proprietary

Click RankTM bidding software to reduceyour click costs?

When you figure in that Yodle keeps the unspent advertisingdollars and my click costs went from an average of 87 cents per click to $9.67per click and then to over $35 while Yodle was claiming it was optimizing mymedia budget to reduce my click costs. Yodle was optimizing my media budgetright into Yodle’s pocket. Yodle pocketed $1,469.88 of the $1,500 collected foradvertising.

7. Does Yodle provide the advertising coverage it tells

the client it will during thesales presentation?

The answer is no. Several times, during the sales presentation,I was told that my advertising would cover the state of New York including NewYork City, Manhattan and the Bronx. After I filed the lawsuit, I discoveredthat Yodle used its own geographical modifiers. In doing so, my advertisingcoverage didn’t even cover the entire capital district area. After I signed theone page e-contract, Leitch attempted to reduce my advertising coverage area.After the lawsuit was filed, I discovered he reduced my coverage areasignificantly from all of New York State to an area that didn’t even cover thecapital district area. This was done without my knowledge or consent.

8. Is Yodle using its geographical modifiers to sabotage the client’s advertising campaign?

Yodle claims the average client has between 500 and 900 keywordsto help get clicks. The number of keywords is determined by multiplying the 14keywords and the 64 geographical modifier terms. Therefore, it would appear Ihad had 896 search terms. This gives the client a false sense of security thatYodle is doing a lot for them. The geographical modifier terms restricts,limits and/or reduces the advertising coverage that I would received Alsomany of geographical modifiers were redundant. For example,Yodle usedRensselaer County. Yodle then used Troy, 12180, 12182, Rensselaer, etc. All arein Rensselaer County. Yet for Albany County, Yodle did not use Albany County,butrestricted the search to few areas of Albany County. So, the search wasrestricted to where you lived in Albany County. Where you lived in AlbanyCounty determined whether the searcher found my ad or not.

Supreme Court – 060A Collins Aff 5-23-11

Appellate Court Appeal – 01 Collins Brief

Court of Appeals – 01 Collins Aff-NOM Permission to Appeal

For all court documents – Click HERE

9. Does Yodle provide to its client’s Yodle’s

Service Agreement Terms andConditions (YSATC)

before or after the signing of thee-contract?

I did not raise this issue in the Supreme Court, but I did raisethe issue in a motion and before the Appellate Court and in my Brief to theAppellate Court. You will see that Yodle tries to claim that I was served withYSATC as it is listed as “e-sign disclosures”, but YSATC makes no mention ordistinction that it is the e-sign disclosures in the e-contract. Even thee-sign disclosures were not provided to me.

Further, the one e-contract sent to me did not make any mentionof YSATC and it was not part of the e-contract and it was not an attachment tothe e-contract or e-mail.Yodle took my copy of the e-contract and attachedYSATC to it and claimed it was all one contract. Is this Yodle’s Bait andSwitch?

Appellate Court Motion: -01 Collins NOM + Aff 7-5-12

-05 Collins Reply Aff 8-2-12

Read Reply Aff first as it addresses Yodle arguments

For all court documents – Click HERE

10. Brad Leitch’s Knowingly Falseand/or Misleading Statements made to to induce me to sign contract.

April 6, 2010 Transcript

1. Leitchfirststated that he was “from Google” and then stated that Yodle was “broughton by Google literally to manage the campaigns” of Google AdWordscustomers.These statementswere false because Leitch was not affiliated with Google.

Leitch contradicted his above statements in his Affidavit whenhe stated:

“Respondent Yodle is a Google AdWords reseller. This meansthat Yodle contracts,for a profit, with its own clients to design for the client ageographically focused advertising campaign that is intended to increase the percentage of directphone or e-mail contacts its clients receive from persons doing internetsearches. … When I spoke to Plaintiff, I informed him that Yodle is a GoogleAdWords reseller ….”

The statement is clear, that Yodle contracts with its ownclients, not Google Adword clients and Yodle is not “brought in to manageGoogle AdWords accounts” as he told me.

2. Leitchstated that “in your market in New York City it’s probably going tobe maybe anywhere from three to five dollars per click”. However, for theCapital District area, I was charged an average of $9.70 per click, which isbased on what Yodle charged for the clicks, and there was no advertising in theNew York City area as promised. The Capital District area would be lessexpensive than the New York City area to advertise in, not double the cost.

That on April 6, 2010 Leitch sent to me by e-mail an article byForbes magazine on Yodle in order to give Yodle credibility. Forbes is aleading business magazine with a very high reputation which Yodle uses to itsadvantage.

Supreme Court:     054 4-6-10 transcript

For all court documents – Click HERE

April 8, 2010 First Call Transcript

3. Leitchstated that Yodle’s position is to avoid the number one $5 clicks over here and go after the number 4 click over there for $2.50 and by doing this wouldbemuch better and this is what Yodle is constantly doing.

Yodle was charging an average of $9.70 per click that I waspaying 87 cents for. Yodle is claiming that without Yodle’s system, I would be paying double or $19.40 on average per click. However, Leitch’s abovereferenced statement is false.

4. Leitchstated “we definitely want to increase the number of keywords you have and also increase whereyou’re pushed out to as well. As far as placement goes, does that make sense though”? Infact, my advertising area did not even include all of the Capital Districtarea. Further, more than 75% of the keywords used by Yodle were usedtorestrict, limit, and/or reduce, the number of clicks I wouldreceive.

5. Leitchstated that Yodle was working to promote phone calls and they are not workingto promote people to just go on to the web site and do things, theywerepromoting the phone call itself. Yodle took direct action to sabotage the number of clicks I wouldreceive and thereby reducing the number of calls I would get so thisstatementis false. Further, Yodle took no action to promote the actual phone call afterthe person clicked on my web site.

6. On page 18of the transcript (A – 123), Leitch stated that Yodle charges $69 per month tomanageAdWords, Bing, Yahoo and “that includes everything I’ve shownyou”.Leitch then states “And of course you have your monthly budget,which is going to the search engines themselves”.

According to Leitch’s statements and the e-contract, I was to bepay $69 per month for Yodle to manage my account and Leitch is specifically”representing” the $750 budgeted for advertising was to go to the searchengines, the advertisers. In fact, it will be shown that over 98% of theadvertising budget went to Yodle and not the search engines as claimed byLeitch. His statement that the advertising dollars were going to the searchengines is false and that Yodle charges $69 per month to manage the accountandeverything he showed me was included in the $69 was false.

7. I stated Iwas looking at $210 to start off with ($69 x 3). Leitch stated that was for themanagement fees for someone to manage the account. Leitch then stated “ofcourse your budget is your budget like it always has been, But we’re going tospread it around to Yahoo and other areas to. The “other areas” was98% or more of the advertising budget dollars going to Yodle. This should havebeen disclosed by Leitch.

8. Leitchtoldme that he was going to use my phone number and e-mail address on the form onYodle’s mirror image web site. This is a false statement by Leitch as heknewhewas not going to use and did not use my phone number or e-mailaddress on Yodle’s mirror image web site.

9. Leitchthenstated that “we’re going to be doing is we’re going to be setting upkeywords with zip codes, Manhattan, Brooklyn, a lot of different combinations”thenstated “So you know you’re saying you feel like the geotargeting,people are only calling you from Brooklyn, we want to make sure you’regetting calls from all of New York State, not just Brooklyn”.

These statements are false as the advertising coverage given byLeitch and Yodle to me didn’t even cover the Capital District area and therewere no keywords or zip codes for Manhattan or Brooklyn or for all of New YorkState. This is deceit and fraud and a knowingly false statement.

10. Leitch stated “wecan always change the budget to get more aggressive, you’re covering all ofNew York State.Again, this is false, my ads were not even covering the Capital District areabecause of Yodle’s geotargeting.

11. LeitchstatedthatYodle was going to start the advertising on May 3, 2010. Yodlestartedbefore that date and I was not informed of this.

12. I asked Leitchifhe paid the advertising directly to the companies. Leitch stated thateverything gets paid by Yodle and “of course we take your investmentandinvest it for you”. Yodle invested more than 98% of the myadvertisingbudget in Yodle and not advertising. This should have been disclosed to me andthis was a fraud for them to do so as Leitch and the e-contract both statedthat my management fee was $69.00.

13. Leitch then goeson to state that Yodle has “75 different outlets and there is no way wewould be able to just have you automatically billing on all those 75outlets”. This statement is false. According to Yodle’s print out ofcharges, I was only on four outlets and from these I got 21 clicks, an averageof 5 clicks per outlet which included Google.

14. Leitchstated ..”Now the call, as far as where they’re going to come into, you wantthem calling into the 0380 number, correct? I replied yes.

Leitch asking me if he wanted the clients calling into my phonenumber 0380. Based on this question, I believed my phone number was beingplaced on the mirror image web site. However, Leitch knew he was notgoing to use my phone number on Yodle’s mirror image web site as he was the oneimputing the information as he was talking to me.

15. Leitchcontinueswith:

B:   Okay. Justwant to make sure, and if you scroll down, you’ll see the $750 monthlybudget, works the same as it always has with AdWords, and you have the $69 management fee,it’s pretty basic ….”

Leitch sent me an e-mail dated April 6, 2012 concerning CourtCunningham’s statement in Forbes Article:

Yodle’s payment plan works like a calling card. After a $447initial fee, business owners set aside anywhere from $900 to $5,000 per monthin an account to be drawn down as the clicks accumulate.

However, both statements are false. Yodle’s monthly budget doesnot work like Google AdWords where a customer can give $100.00 and eachtime your web site is clicked on Google charges you for that click and deductsit from your account. When your account is running low, you add to it or justlet it run out. There is no management or monthly fee. Yodle on the other hand,works on a different method. They collect $750 for the month, spends $200leaving the customer with a balance of $550. Yodle then collects another $750spends another $200 leaving the customer with a balance of $1,100, and finallycollects another $750 and again spends another $200 leaving a remaining balance$1,650. Yodle also collected the $69 per month for managing the outrageouslyinflated $200 that is spent on advertising. When the three month contract isup, the customer is not entitled to the $1,650 in their account. Yodlekeeps the money unless the customer wants to continue to pay them $69 per monthto manage their account and collects another $750 in advertising. This shouldhave been disclosed.

16. Yodle also useson its web site its ranking with Ink.500 showing that it is in the top 35companies in the United States with 49.5 MILLION is sales in order tomakeYodle’s services seem legitimate. (It is now over 88 million)

Supreme Court:     055 4-8-10 1sttranscript

For all court documents – Click HERE

April 8, 2010 Second Transcript

At this point, I had just signed the e-contract as documented inthe first transcript of April 8, 2010.

17. On page 1 Leitchstated:

B:   Yeah, soreally I wanted to make sure we had this targeted correctly. You said you feltlike most of your customers came from all of New York State, or do you have a certain mileageradius that you work in?

18. On page 2 Leitchstated the following:

B:   Okay. Do youfeel like most of your customers come from New York City or do most of themcome from Albany and that area?

B    That’snice, that’s a nice feature, I guess what I’m trying to figure out is with thebudget that we have, how large of an area do we really need to target, soI’mtrying to figure out if we would be better focused just in the Albany and peoplethat I feel like would actually drive to see you if your chances would  be better that way, or if we justfocused on New York City itself too.

C:   I mean, I amgetting calls from there.

B:   Yeah, But do youfeel like your chances of landing a client in New York City are just as high asthey would be in Albany?

Leitch had just spent over an hour with me telling me that myadvertising coverage, at a cost of $750 per month, was going to be all of NewYork State, that advertising would be in Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, etc.Relying on those statements, the Forbes article, Inc.500 listing, Yodle’s website and other statements made by Leitch above, I signed the e-contract. Leitchnow wants to restrict and/or reduce my area for advertising to the Albany areawhere people will drive to see me.

These statements by Leitch are what started to raise suspicionthat Yodle was a scam operation. Leitch stated one thing while giving his salespresentation, then things begin to change after I signed the e-contract.

Without the transcripts voluntarily provided by Mr. Rivchin, Iwould not have been able to prove my allegations against Yodle and what Leitchactually told me.

19. I was told thatYodle just charges $69 to manage the advertising account and all of the advertisingdollars go the search engines or advertisers. Long in his first e-mail to me onApril 8, 2010, just after I had finished with Leitch, stated the following:

Earn $200 for referring your friends to Yodle:

Sign up for our referral program here. (only takes a minute.)

According to Leitch and the transcript, Yodle charges $69 permonth for managing the advertising or $207 for a 3 month contract and all ofthe advertising dollars go to the search engines. Yodle cannot afford to spend$200 for a new client when it is only charging $207 for 3 months to manage theaccount. Leitch trying to change the appellant’s geotargeting area from all ofNew York State to the Capital District area and now Long stating you get paid$200 for a referral certainly raises the issue of Yodlebeing a scam.

20. Leitchstated”Okay, that works” to me stating I wanted to use my 518-274 localnumber after Leitch mentioned using Yodle’s tracking number. LeitchusedYodle’stracking number knowing full well that I did not want to use thetracking number and wanted my own phone number.

21. Leitch then askedthe question: “And the e-mail address you actually want the e-mails goingto, would be makedivorceeasy at aol? I responded with, “Yeah.”

Leitch did not use either my phone number or e-mail address thathe stated he was going to use on the mirror image web site. Leitch deliberatelyand knowingly lied to me which was ignored by the state courts.

Supreme Court:     056 4-8-10 2ndtranscript

For all court documents – Click HERE

22. Leitch in hisAffidavit stated:

Plaintiff is basing this lawsuit onallegations in his Complaint that I represented to him the Yodle advertisingcampaign would generate more Clicks for him and cost him less per Click than Google AdWords advertising he hadbeen doing himself, that I represented to him that Yodle would spend downeach month his $750 monthly advertising Budget Fee, and that Yodle would chargePlaintiff whatever the search engines charged Yodle (Exh., “I”,¶11). This isabsolutely false.

Yodle’s web site states:

We optimize your media budget with our proprietary”Click Rank™” bidding software to reduce your click costs ….

Leitch on April 8, 2010 during the sales presentation stated thefollowing:

page 18

B:   But this isone of my personal accounts. What we do is we charge $69 a month to manage theAdWords for you.

C:   $69 tomanage.

B:   AND OFCOURSE YOU HAVE YOUR MONTHLY BUDGET, WHICH IS GOING TO THE SEARCH ENGINESTHEMSELVES.

C:   Now that$69, does that also cover Bing and Yahoo?

B:   Yeah, thatincludes everything I’ve shown you, …

By stating that my advertising budget was going to the searchengines, Leitch was specifically stating Yodle would spend down each monthmy $750 monthly advertising Budget Fee, and that Yodle would charge me whatever the search enginescharged Yodle.

I had the problem that I had no proof as to what was said to meby Leitch during the sales presentation until Mr. Rivchin voluntarily providedme with the transcripts byYodle of the conversations between myself andLeitch. I knew that Leitch would deny everything and claim he never made suchstatements, just as he did in his sworn affidavit claiming he never told methat all of the advertising dollars were going to the search engines. Thetranscripts clearly shows that Leitch made knowingly false statements and/ormisleading statements to me in order to induce me to sign the e-contract.

Leitch’sstatements in his sworn affidavit violate Penal Law §§ 210.00 and 210.10relating to perjury.

11. Yodle’s False and/or Misleading

Statements on its Web site

1. Leitchhadme read Yodle’s web site which states that its “Click Rank™” bidding software was going to reducemy click costs”. This was false.

We optimize your media budget with our proprietary”Click Rank™” bidding software to reduce your click costs ….

Did Leitch falsely state in his affidavit:

Plaintiff is basing this lawsuit on allegations in his Complaintthat I represented to him the Yodle advertising campaign would generate moreClicks for him and cost him less per Click than Google AdWords advertising ….

How do you reduce click costs, without reducing the cost of theclicks?  Remember my click costswent from an average of 87 cents to $9.70 per click. Leitch had me readYodle’sweb site.

Yodle’s “Click Rank” bidding software does notreduce your click costs as stated on Yodle’s web site. It is a tool used by Yodleto restrict, limit and/or reduce the number of clicks a customer willreceive by reducing the amount of money Yodle will pay per click by putting adollar amount they will spend for each click.

2. Yodle’s web site states:

“GET MORE CALLS AND E-MAILS

Advertising in the sponsored sectionof search engine results is one of the fastest and most measurable methods forgrowing a wide presence online for your business, and it is an importantelement of the Quick Results Package. Yodle has strategic partnerships with all the major search engines,including Google®, Yahoo!®, Bing®, AOL®, and Ask.com®.  In aggregate, our partners make up morethan 90% of all search traffic.”

In the April 8, 2010 transcript Leitch states:

B:   This showsobviously we know what we’re doing, there’s over 21,000 live campaigns we have for our clients now, anddown here you have different partnerships.

So I want to make it makes sense to you who I am. I’m yourliaison for all of your online advertising under one umbrella.

Yodle’s web site states: Advertise across our network of partnersites: Google, Yahoo, Aol., Bing, Ask.

Google Adwords Frequently Asked Questions provided by Yodle andMr. Rivchin after the lawsuit was begun states: Beware of SEOs that claim to guarantee rankings, allegea”special relationship” with Google, or advertise a “priority submit” to Google.According to Google, they do not have “strategic partnerships” a/k/a “specialrelationships” with anyone as claimed by Yodle and Leitch. Google states“Every advertiser pays the same price for AdWords’. We don’t give discounts toanyone.”

What is Yodle’s partnership with the different search engines? Iwas not allowed this in discovery. Does this relationship have to do with theillegal recording and intercepting of e-mails and the storage of thisinformation on the search engines servers?

12. Example of case law ignored by Judge Hummel and the courts.

According to Hoeffner v. Orrick, Herrington & SutcliffeLLP, 2008 NY Slip Op 51795U, New York courts have generally followed therule that — where a transaction has been induced by fraud, and the defraudedparty is unable to establish any actual damages — the party which committedthe fraud “is liable to the defrauded party, to pay, at least,nominaldamages” (Northrop v Hill, 57 NY 351, 354 [1874]; see also ClearviewConcrete Prods. Corp. v S. Charles Gherardi, Inc., 88 AD.2d 461, 470, 453NYS.2d 750 [2d Dept.1982]; 60A NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit § 257).

Supreme Court – 003 Collins Amend Complaint

– 060A Collins Aff 5-23-11

Appellate Court Appeal – 01 Collins Brief

Court of Appeals – 01 Collins Aff-NOM Permission to Appeal

For all court documents – Click HERE

13. Is theremore to what Yodle is doing?

My Reply Affidavit to Hummel, my Brief and Reply Brief to theAppellate Court and my Motion for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appealsare more detailed in information then what is stated here.

The following pertinent questionsneed to be answered:

1. What isYodle doing with all of these recorded phone calls and intercepted and reade-mails?

2. Taking intoaccount the number of 21,000 campaigns Yodle has and the thousands of phonecalls and e-mails, does Yodle have a big enough server to keep all ofthisinformation or is Yodle storing this information on Google’s server or theserver of the NSA.

3. Why wouldJudge Hummel cover up the illegal activity of Yodle.

1. a.Did some Government agency tellJudge Hummel how to rule?

1. DidYodle pay Judge Hummel off with a portion of themillions of dollars they are scamming from their clients?

1. c. DidJudge Hummel get his Federal magistrate’s job as a reward for covering upYodle’s illegal activities?

1. Istheir something else missing in this matter?

4. From thebeginning, all Rivchin would offer to settle the lawsuit was to refund my moneyto me. This is even after I had the proof of the illegal recording of myphonecalls, the illegal intercepting and reading of my e-mails, and had the proof asto the scam Yodle was perpetuating on its clients.

5. Did Rivchinknow how Judge Hummel was going to rule from the beginning? What part, if any,didRivchin play in Hummel’s and the other subsequent court rulings?

6. Who wouldhave the authority or power to get several judges to over look corruption andthe illegal recording of phone calls, intercepting and reading e-mailsandother illegal acts?

For all court documents – Click HERE