Beware: There Are Two Faces of Kit Menkin, Publisher of Leasing News

When Kit Menkin received a complaint from Steve Lopes in late 2003, Steve was one of the first to write to Kit Menkin about Norvergence. He discovered fraud. Lopes’ so-called Norvergence deal for phone service turned out to be a $35,000 “equipment lease” ($590.00 X 60 months of payments) for equipment (the Martix SOHO) worth only $200. Kit promised Steve he would ask Norvergence about his complaints. Kit wrote to Robert Fine, a Norvergence Executive (who was also, at the same time, President of the Eastern Equipment Assn).

Fair enough. This series of email exchanges found in the bankruptcy records (by the sharp eyed Eli Varenberg here at ASRL) between Steve Lopes and Menkin does not tell the whole story. However, the email between Norvergence Robert Fine and his colleagues Edward Lucas and Bob Wiseman paints the picture of what was really happening behind the scenes.

When Kit contacted Fine about Steve Lopes and his complaints, Fine had already received a bushel basket full of complaints from Lopes himself . Lopes was full of fight and was demanding to be released from his contract. Now, Fine saw, through receipt of Kit’s email, that Lopes was expanding his battlefront and was trying to get his case published in Leasing News by involving Kit.

No doubt Fine concluded then that Lopes could be a real problem with more headaches on the way, in the form of more complaints to Kit from more Norvergence customers. Norvergence had already filed suit for libel against one employee who talked publicly about Norvergence’s fraudulent scheme in a chat room (more on him another time) and had offered the $500 bounty to quell other complaining employees. “What now?” Fine undoubtedly thought, ” How can we stop customer complaints in Leasing News in their tracks, just like we did with employees?”

No stranger to using (misusing) his power in the form of money and clever schemes with brilliant twists. As the following email below from Fine to his Norvergence colleagues portrays, Fine, in concert with Kit, hatched the equivalent to a “poison pill.” From now on, Kit suddenly declared (without ever having reported what Lopes had said), all Norvergence customers who would ask for him to investigate and report on their complaints against Norvergence would have to sign a CONTRACT before Kit would lift a finger.

This contract would oblige Norvergence victims, excuse me, customers to pay 10% to a “charity” of any settlement monies that would result from his investigation and reporting on their complaint. The “charity” of Kit’s choice was not the Red Cross or Salvation Army. Kit determined that the “Equipment Leasing Foundation” that supposedly does independent research for the sole benefit of, yes, that’s right, leasing companies, would be the recipient of his benevolence. (The ELFF does market analysis reports, advises the leasing industry on current legal issues, creates tables of sales figures in various industry sectors, etc–Kit called this a “charity”).

Kit, with no sense of its unfairness to lessees, praises this scheme as acting out his interest in improving the “culture and ethics of the leasing industry.” Kit “challenges readers” to do what he is doing. And as Kit states it , he called for readers to put their “money where their mouth is.”

His wording sounded as if he clearly had taken the high moral ground–that’s the diabolical part. This plan would require victims of Norvergence’s fraud, if a fraud was exposed by Kit and a settlement reached, to pay 10% of the settlement BACK to leasing companies for their benefit. This would also be of benefit to Norvergence and Robert Fine, for even if fraud was found, confidentiality would be imposed and all anyone in the leasing industry would know is that donations were coming in to ELFF. After all, Robert Fine WAS also President of the Eastern Equipment Leasing Assn. which is tied to the ELFF.

The most brilliant part of the plan, however, was that no matter how high minded this scheme sounded, it would clearly function as a very effective deterrent. What lessee victim would EVER sign a contract that commits them to paying 10% of , what would be their money, that was wrongfully taken from them? And worse yet, this deal gives 10% back to their victimizers.

With all due respect to Kit, he is not smart enough to have hatched this scheme. The timing of when it was launched puts it completely in Fine’s court. It was a evil but brilliant way to: A. shut Kit up, where he does not air Norvergence dirty laundry; and B. shut Norvergence customers up like Lopes–all without spending a dime.

I am not so sure that the $5000 that Kit suddenly and boldly was giving ELFF at the same time of the scheme’s announcement is not from Norvergence and Fine. Like the lawsuit against the Norvergence whistle blower and the $500 per head bounty, Fine and Norvergence were accustomed to using money to strong-arm their way out of problems.

Here is Kit’s announcement of the scheme and here is the email exchanges between Lopes and Kit as well as the very revealing statement from Fine to his Novergence colleagues where he gloats:,

$Robert\$

I recently called Steve Lopes. I asked Lopes if he was aware of this 10% settlement deal Kit offered. He said “no.” I also asked him, ” What was Kit’s final word about your email complaints after he wrote to you that he would speak to Norvergence in your behalf ? ” Lopes said, “he basically told me, ‘go pound sand buddy, you’re screwed. You signed the contract. You’re obligated to pay. ‘ “

However, his bold and brave fight with Norveregnce resulted in his eventual release from his Norvergence and leasing company contract before the Norvergence bankruptcy–despite the stonewalling of Kit. Happily, Lopes refused to believe what Kit told him–a lesson many should still learn.

P.S. I repeatly asked for Kit’s clarification or explanation regarding these emails. He has refused to respond.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 6th, 2005 at 10:18 am and is filed under Year 2005. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Responses to “Beware: There Are Two Faces of Kit Menkin, Publisher of Leasing News”

private sex ads says:

March 25, 2007 at 4:39 pm

private sex ads

–>private sex ads
retro pin up girl says:

April 27, 2007 at 4:12 am

retro pin up girl

Modern view of retro pin up girl.
akon and eminem says:

April 29, 2007 at 11:17 pm

akon and eminem

news
mercedes benz birmingham says:

May 30, 2007 at 4:49 am

mercedes benz birmingham

mercedes benz birmingham company
watt says:

May 30, 2007 at 3:12 pm

watt

ka-ka-sh-ka 1610883 watt application
teenager sex says:

May 30, 2007 at 3:50 pm

teenager sex

Features of teenager sex.
car auto insurance rates says:

September 18, 2007 at 5:28 am

car auto insurance rates

viewable bush resultantly!Albanians
good visa credit card offers says:

September 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm

good visa credit card offers

profundity planetesimal tidy discernibly!hypothesizer Bolshoi
usopen odds says:

October 30, 2007 at 10:26 am

usopen odds

drifting accompaniment hexagonally adagios layers
top 10 credit cards in usa says:

January 29, 2008 at 5:38 am

top 10 credit cards in usa

stockers pitch unmistakably.trespasses!
apply for home equity loan says:

February 12, 2008 at 4:14 am

apply for home equity loan

tolerates twists exhales contagiously Slavs?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Lessee Rights Daily Almanac

Beware: There Are Two Faces of Kit Menkin, Publisher of Leasing News

11 Responses to “Beware: There Are Two Faces of Kit Menkin, Publisher of Leasing News”

Leave a Reply