PIRTEK USA v. Lager Series: DISCLAIMER & Clarification

NOTE TO THE HONORABLE Michelle V. Larson, United States Bankruptcy Judge:

I plan to write a series of posts based on the public documents of PIRTEK USA v. Lager available on PACER.

I am not a party to this litigation, but Plaintiffs have referenced my name, website and writing hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the 1000+ pages submitted to your court. 

Many of these references contain misrepresentations, innuendos and outright lies about my writing, my motives, and my professional relationships with Mr. Lager, which changed during different periods in the last 10 years.

As Plaintiffs will likely copy, paste, submit & decry every word I write in an effort to unfairly weaponize them against the former franchisee they are bent on destroying, I felt it necessary to provide this clarification & disclaimer:

1.  Neither Jim Lager nor his attorneys requested, sanctioned nor participated in the drafting these posts.

To the contrary, I am jeopardizing my relationship with my friend & colleague, who is already under stress, by posting on this matter.  However, I feel compelled to continue my coverage of this dispute because it uniquely illustrates the significant problems regarding private mediation/arbitration, confidentiality agreements, lack of franchisee control over ownership changes and general lack of franchise industry oversight and enforcement.

2.  I have no intention (or illusion) of influencing or affecting your proceedings

Plaintiff’s counsel will likely try to characterize my upcoming articles as a violation of your directive for Plaintiff & Defendant to refrain from publicly communicating.  They have tried to characterize me as an attack dog and/or puppet rather than the independent, self-determined journalist I have been for the past 20 years. 

Each post I have made regarding PIRTEK USA has come with an invitation for them to provide corrections, clarifications, rebuttals or statements of opinion.  They have declined to engage or participate in the Court of Public Information & Opinion, which is the court I’m focused on.  I’m merely an interested observer of your court & legal proceedings

3.  I have no desire to influence PIRTEK USA’s behavior by disclosing negative information

If ever I thought there was a possibility that PIRTEK USA, Glenn Duncan, Kim Gubera, Michael Joblove, arbitrator David Kauffman or any others might be shamed into acting more ethically or compassionately, that time is long past.  It’s clear that their only interest in my writing is how they can deceptively attribute it to or spin it against Mr. Lager.  Questions or valid points I raise are simply ignored.

As you said, the toothpaste is out of the tube.  And Plaintiff’s attorneys are the ones, ultimately, who did the squeezing.

4.  I never received a request to give a deposition.  I never made ANY attempt to evade service.

In Doc 38-3 Filed 01/20/23 Appendix ISO MSJ – Part 2, a Mr. Blynn states that Plaintiff’s counsel had tried, unsuccessfully, to serve me with a subpoena.  (“Q. He’s aware that they tried to serve him with a subpoena?”).  There are deposition pages and a referenced exhibit missing that I could not find.

To be clear:  Plaintiff’s counsel is either being disingenuous about their attempt to serve me or they somehow found the world’s worst process server.

I work from home.  I live on a busy, public road.  I typically spend at least an hour per day outside, working in the yard and tending my chickens (yes, literally).

I’m a gigging musician and my performance schedule is posted publicly .

I’m puzzled by their claim that I could not be served.

If they did indeed want my input on their claims, on my writing, on the timing of my publications – or if they need clarification on my opinions – I will do my best to oblige them in the series to come.

Respectfully,

Sean Kelly

Publisher, UnhappyFranchisee.Com

Founder & Owner, Relentless, Inc.