Survey Results:  “Let Us Know the Name”

90% of those who responded believe Jim Raeder should divulge the name of the culprit who sent malicious e-mails to his funding sources, leasing associations directors, and other leaders in the leasing industry regarding his company. 

4% said “no,” with many of them “conditional,” meaning they could be viewed as also saying “yes, “ but under conditions, such as irrefutable proof, filing in court, or conviction in court.

 6% fell into the “who cares?” or “none of the above” category.  Many of these made comments, but “confidential,” meaning not for attribution.  Several believe it is an ex-employeeand that is why he will not come forth with the name. In addition to the rule of supplying a legitimate e-mail address (which some of them were not,) any comment had to be signed to be including in the survey results.

Over 410 responded

“ (I) think that publishing the name of the culprit will serve as a deterrent for future abuses. I also think that the industry & public should be forewarned of someone (in this industry) who would act so unethically. There may be business (right now) considering deals with that company and/or person - who may rethink the relationship on account of this.

valerie@leaseteam.com

“Raeder should flush him out… if for no other reason than to protect his fellow lessors from potential trouble in the future. You and Raeder would have no problem posting Bob Fine's mug all over the internet to ‘warn' other lessors – why keep this under wrap. My belief is that he is bluffing and doesn't really know who it is. If he did, he would bring it to light to further support it was an ex-employees ill will and there is no truth to the emails. Kit, I at truly disappointed in the bio you put in your news letter today. I see a lot of negate comments about the Leasing News, most of which I discount as rumor, but this time you truly have stepped over the line. The bio you have published doesn't even resemble news..... you say Raeder has never advertised on your web site – please, the whole page is an ad for Raeder.  Mark Haycock, CLP”

“Kit is sure sounds like the Leasing New is a mouth piece for Preferred Lease. You clearly are biased, whether what is said about them is true or not. You don't come across as impartial. Are you a tabloid or a place for legit news? thanks”

cortlove2000@yahoo.com

(Many of such comments we contacted directly by e-mail to explain our position again. We made our opinion well-known; not only by pursuing this story, but by stating bluntly that Raeder should divulge the name of the person and their company.  Yes, we are biased as he does not want to name the person and thus the survey to find out what Raeders think. editor)

“We have become a society that loves to back stab and won't stand up and stand behind our convictions. We're becoming too much like our politicians. Its time it stopped. George K. Booth”

gkbooth@blackrockcapital.com

“If this were a misunderstanding of some sort, I would have voted "NO". However, by not divulging the name, we send a clear message to all. "it's ok to lie and harm others through those lies" It's not right. When a person or a group of people lie to the public to meet their own ends, the public should be made aware of the lies and the liars. Our litigious society has become so fearful of lawsuits that we aren't even allowed to give someone an accurate recommendation for a job for fear of lawsuits. This doesn't protect us, it protects the "bad guys" and I'm sick of it. Hell yes.....name names. Thanks, Doris Tamboryn”

 overtam@aol.com

“An outstanding YES! If there were others that expressed the same information I could see a trend. but it looks like that is not the case. We all have disgruntled ex-employees, it's the cost of doing business and hopefully they are very small number. but sounds like some chicken %$& action that should be brought to the forefront.”

    gsaulter@chaseindustries.com 

The overwhelming number of those who voted “yes” did not make any comment.  If there was a comment, it generally was one word, such as: 

“Divulge”

   bkropschot@kropschot.com

A good number of those who did write in comments, had conditions on them, such as:

“Only if Jim has SOLID UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE”

llachance@bankers-capital.com

“Only after he is satisfied with his due diligence in the matter.”|
         barrettm@exchangebank.com

Half of those who voted “no,” could also be construed as “yes,” such as:

“Jim sounds like a solid hard working individual. He should not stoop to the level of the covert coward of Kinkos. Personally I would advise him to do his best to stay focused without being distracted from growing his business. If he has real proof I would turn it over to a good attorney. After he wins publish the results on leasing news for all to see. Ed Castagna Nassau Asset Management”

ecast@nasset.com

    Many of the no's also echoed those who choose “none of the above, such as “who cares?” “Give it a Rest.”

Perhaps the best response in the small “no” category:

“Mr. Raeder is entitled to pursue his accuser in the manner which he feels is appropriate and it appears he is contemplating some legal recourse against the individual. His position should be respected. Whether or not the leasing community at large knows the culprit is not as relevant as the fact that we are aware that there are less than reputable individuals in our industry. As leasing professionals we need to discredit these people by raising the standards that we personally operate under. By doing so the "less then desirables" will be seen by funding sources, vendors, competitors and clients for what they truly are ... hacks.”

              tficca@usxl.com
       
Now to the main purpose of the survey:

What will Jim Raeder's reaction be to the overwhelming number of his colleagues who believe he should divulge the name of the person.

For the record, we will attempt to obtain a statement from the person named, who is on the credit card receipt, video tape, and identified by the Kinko's clerk as the sender of the e-mail.