E-mail dialogue--Ken swindles another father

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <010601be0d1b$928c5120$1b00000a@steven>
Subject: Re: Dean said to write.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 01:25:38 -0800
Message-ID: <36495812.68F26F6B@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C19BAC.17EEF120"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: 68a2c9302ebc02403137059d56e5c8fa
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-116.intnet.net [207.90.34.116]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, Hi. You may remember me from last year -- yeah, I'm back.
> Things are not good and I'm at kind of a crossroads of how to
> proceed. Dean Tong has reviewed my case and made several
> recommendations -- one of the first of which was to contact you. I
> was hoping we could talk or possibly I could send some materials to
> you -- in either case I will need to give you more information. My
> home phone is (removed) and my office number is (removed).
> You're three hours ahead so you could call me around 9am your time if
> you like. This is a good time for me to talk and it's not too early
> for me. Talking at work is a little hard right now but I could if I
> had to. Or, we could do this via e-mail if you like. Just let me
> know.

Dean has told me a little about what is going on. Seems like the
manure has gotten deeper. Still testing is the place to start. I am not
sure about the other case in Eugene
I may have to work on. Seems like the big talk about money was just
that, talk. So I may NOT be going.

Why don't you call me about 6:15 your time. (727) 786-6911.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <007201be0e63$3b89f280$1b00000a@steven>
Subject: Re: Attorney's
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:27:38 -0800
Message-ID: <364C25BA.19BA7146@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C19BAC.17EEF120"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: 23098f8521a1f9ef65536059bdb3c118
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-40.intnet.net [207.90.34.40]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, I am VERY concerned about what to do about an attorney. I have
> attached a copy of a letter I wrote to my attorney several weeks ago
> regarding concerns I had on past performance. This will probably make
> him look pretty bad. On the otherhand, after exhaustive searching,
> everyone I talk to in this town including my boss's best friend (a
> very admired sitting judge) -- if a man wants custody in this town,
> you work with Bill Honsowetz. However, it has been over a week since
> I've spoken to Bill and from what Dean said, it doesn't seem as if he
> is treating this as anything more than a run of the mill divorce
> case. He hasn't called Dean back and he hasn't called me back in a
> while.
>
>     Let's cross that bridge afte the testing. I know some lawyers in
> Oregon we might use. Or I can help find one. Do NOT panic!!
> I contacted some of the people that Dean suggested but don't think
> they'll work very good. One of them (Bob Larson) is known in this
> town as PigPen Larson as is somewhat of a joke. On the other hand,
> Judge Billings suggested two people: An Arlene Pratt who actually
> handled Honsowetz's divorce a few years ago and a Marc Perrin who is
> also well thought of here. Pratt handles a lot domestic violence
> issues in this town and might be a good choice. The only draw back
> would be if I have cause to sue Honsowetz for legal malpractice and/or
> carelessness that resulted in danger to my daughter (it's in the
> letter). I don't know if she could handle that ethically. I'm ready
> to do what I have to Ken. But, I have to ask you an important
> question: I am getting pretty emotionally wiped out. I started
> taking St. John's Wort a week ago to help me concentrate better and
> cope better with the stress. My sister (a recently retired nurse) is
> pushing me to see my GP about getting anti-depressants. Is this
> something that could hurt me? I'm mean in the sense that it might
> come up in court that I am on drugs for depression?? I am having a
> hard time functioning at work, etc. It's noticeable. I can do
> without it but recently I'm wondering if it might be a good idea for a
> while.
>
>     You need NOT to take anything for 24 hours prior to the testing.
> No alcohol, and no sex for 24 hours before the test. Of ANY kind if
> you get my drift. Steven, you will feel MUCH better after the testing.
> What you are feeling is natural. It happens to everyone who is losing
> their life like this. Once you have positive direction, it WILL
> change! Once you start feeling like you are winning for a change.
> Please let me know. By the way, Honsowetz's number is 541-687-9001
> in case you wanted to contact him directly. As far as the money goes.
> I have the money in the bank for what we spoke of this morning. Shall
> I bring my check book or do you prefer a different arrangement? I am
> trying to be as careful as I can about what I spend. I need to buy my
> daughter a bed this week but I am keeping my personal expenses as low
> as I can. I won't have much left after this trip to GA. All the rest
> of my money is tied up in the equity of our home.
>
>     Did you get back with Dianne? She had some problem with the credit
> card for the tickets.
>
> And lastly, please do not make me feel any stupider than I all ready
> feel. I am a good man who has consistently and unfailingly tried to
> do the right thing, the good thing, the fair thing and the just
> thing. I did what I thought was best last year -- I know now that I
> was wrong. You know from before that I am LDS as I know you told me
> you once were. I am still active, in fact am the ward mission
> leader. I am in good standing and have the full support of my bishop,
> stake presidency and former bishops -- most of whom have already given
> letters of support. My wife has stopped attending but I am as
> faithful as I can be to my covenants. I still love my wife but
> recognize that there can be no compromise here any longer. What you
> are asking me to do is VERY hard but I know I have to do it. I will
> not back down, I will not walk away. This is for my daughter who does
> not deserve the treatment she is getting from mom. She is worth
> everything I stand to loose in doing this. I will not, cannot rest
> until she is living life free to make choices for herself and with
> someone who's love she will never have reason to doubt.
>
>     I know how hard this will be for you. Again I invite to to read
> Luke 1:17 and the last verse in Malachai. You will also see the same
> phrases repeated in the book of Mormon several places more explicitly.
> I know how hard this is for you, but it is part of the "priesthood"
> responsibility as a father Steven. It is part of what you and I will
> be JUDGED on when that time comes. NO duty that we have in life equals
> our duty as a father to our children. Sometimes we have to walk
> through the fires of hell for our kids. I fought for mine and won. I
> had lots of things I had to change, one was allowing myself to get
> over the feelings of despair and defeat. And a BIG way to do that is
> to get right with heavenly father!
> And to TRUST him. Maybe seeing that if he could sacrifice his ONLY son
> for US, maybe we could trust him to see us through this.
>
>     If it helps. I had MY ordeal. I had to look HARD at myself. I had
> changes to make. Geting over word of wisdom problems with tobacco.
> And girding up my loins and getting past my own cowardice for the
> fight. And putting my trust in God. Not only did I win the custody
> fight, but God did even more. He gave me the best wife in the world.
> We've been married now for 18 years and have another daughter. I think
> back to my patriarchal blessing, given my By Elder Hinckley, at a time
> even before I started to fight for custody. The blessing told me that
> I would have my children and be a great influence on them. Well I have
> had my 3 from my first marriage, now 28, 26, and 24 tell me just how
> positively I DID influence them. There is NO way that Elder Hinckley
> could have known I even HAD children, much less the specifics he gave
> in that blessing. And it has ALL come to pass and more. He said that
> IF I perservered God would bless me beyond measure. He DID! You should
> know my wife. A woman who's worth is beyond the treasure of the
> Sultans. I has a wife who is as good as my first wife was evil. Which
> is WHY I urge you to trust God and PRAY earnestly! You have no idea of
> how GOOD it gets Steven! Doing the right thing always has rewards,
> even if they are in heaven. And I'd rather have treasure there. But
> God can treat us pretty good down here as well. I am doing what my
> patricarchal blessing SAID I would do.
>
> Please be patient with me as I learn what to do here. I am as naive
> as they come. But, I am a quick learner once the mental 2x4 is laid
> up side my head to get my attention. Help me help my daughter..
>     Best way I can do that Steven is to get you ready to fight. Of
> course, getting back to what I was told at my patriarchal blessing so
> many years ago in Salt Lake City, I guess it is my nature to be a hard
> fighter. I was told that in the pre-EARTH-existence I was one of the
> front line fighters on God's side in the war in heaven. Whatever my
> status,
> I remain a fierce fighter for God!
>

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <002c01be0edb$9da7d040$9d03fed0@steven-leuck>
Subject: Re: Address - Important
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:36:28 -0800
Message-ID: <364C27CC.C0881481@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C19BAC.17F69240"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: 7e9d0d9f5ccc6e7864c70dbcf7222339
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-40.intnet.net [207.90.34.40]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, I walked off without your address this evening. My brother is
> fedexing the money to you tomorrow morning and I don't have the proper
> address for him to send to. Could you e-mail it to me very 1st thing
> in the morning? I am leaving about 7am west coast time so if you
> could e-mail it 1st thing I should be able to get it to my brother
> before I leave for Seattle to see Dean Tong. Thanks.
>
> Yours,
> Steven Leuck
> Eugene, Oregon
> e-mail address removed
> www.Leuck.net

3980 Orchard Hill Circle
Palm Harbor, FL. 34684

Fedex is good, Post Office BAD!

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <007301be0f16$084fd7a0$9d03fed0@steven-leuck>
Subject: Re: Flight
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:29:58 -0800
Message-ID: <364C5E85.B82BA4A0@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C19BAC.17F69240"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: b185bc79233d57f14376c290029e0aab
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-254.intnet.net [207.90.34.254]

Dianne's number (727) 786-3336

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, I can't tell you how much your long response to my letter helped
> me. More for later. I will call Dianne but I do not have the number
> at home. I will be leaving here as soon as I get out of the shower
> which should be about 10:30am your time. If you can e-mail me back
> her number I will give her a call as I drive up. The card number I
> gave her has all my money in that account so there shouldn't be a
> problem with it unless we got a number screwed up or possibly a y2000
> problem - it expires in 2000 and I've had trouble getting that through
> a couple of times. Just send me her number.
>
> Yours,
> Steven Leuck
> Eugene, Oregon

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <008301be0f1b$def0a8c0$9d03fed0@steven-leuck>
Subject: Re: Have her call me
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 08:32:12 -0800
Message-ID: <364C5F0C.BA76C272@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C19BAC.17F69240"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: 48dcdcf024cf2f49ca71bba3bf4e562b
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-254.intnet.net [207.90.34.254]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, I gotta hit the road. Have Dianne call me on the road. The
> cell number is: (removed). It periodically turns itself off so I
> have to keep a close eye on it. If she gets the answering service be
> sure to tell her to leave a message with the phone number so I can
> call her back. Thanks!
>
> Yours,
> Steven Leuck
> Eugene, Oregon
> e-mail address removed
> www.Leuck.net

I gave Dianne the number, she said she wished you had just given me
the card # it would have helped

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <00fe01be0ffd$0ff660e0$9d03fed0@steven-leuck>
Subject: Re: Done.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 01:24:17 -0800
Message-ID: <364E9DC1.B7F001DB@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01C19BAC.1839B5C0"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: 300b5aff983a7b2d32df80da052e582e
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-83.intnet.net [207.90.34.83]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, I talked to Dianne last night and she was able to clear
> everything right away. Everything is set. Do you want to give me a
> time and place to meet? I assume we will be meeting in the
> airport? Yours,
> Steven Leuck

Yes, I am not sure when you get in, but it will be WAY before I
do. I understand you are taking a "red-eye" which means most likely
you'll get in around 7 AM.I don't get in till about 11. I'll give you
the flight info if you don't have it when I get it from Dianne
tommorrow. Meet me at my gate. I am about 5'10" 280. Will have a black
pullalong garment bag with a black leather briefcase on top. Why on
Earth did you pick Montgomery Ward cars? It is a bear to get to them.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <015201be10b3$df685660$9d03fed0@steven-leuck>
Subject: Re: Done.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:47:00 -0800
Message-ID: <365002A4.294F0CAD@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01C19BAC.1839B5C0"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: e692dd83fcec93fd2567236a17f156e9
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-226.intnet.net [207.90.34.226]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, I am 6'2" and weigh about 290. I have brown hair and a short
> trimmed beard. I almost always wear a smile. I'll be casual in new
> blue-jeans. I didn't pick MW rental cars -- Dianne/Monique did. I
> only asked for inexpensive. Don't worry, Sounds like we both need the
> walk. Steven

I am not worried about the walk but the "time." As I recall they
have no booth in the terminal and their place is miles off the airport
property. Never used them before, but think we drove past their place
once.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <016b01be10f9$72dade00$9d03fed0@steven-leuck>
Subject: Re: About tomorrow
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 03:05:02 -0800
Message-ID: <365006DE.E410D05C@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C19BAC.184156E0"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: dcc466365e2e7648841535179d999447
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-226.intnet.net [207.90.34.226]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken, Is there anything specific that I need to bring with me tomorrow
> evening when I take off for Atlanta? If there is, you need to make
> sure I know tonight as I'm going into the office about 5:00am and I
> won't be coming back here for anything. Also, do I need to dress for
> anything except casual? Be sure to let me know because that's all I'm
> bringing - I'll be travelling very light.

Bring your file, especially any psychological stuff, reports from
DSS etc. And remember dress is CASUAL. No drugs, no booze, and no sex of
"ANY" kind!
Meet me at MY gate since you are gonna be there hours before me. Get
some sleep on the plane.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
References: <00fe01be0ffd$0ff660e0$9d03fed0@steven-leuck>
Subject: Re: Done.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:04:46 -0800
Message-ID: <3650BD9E.B3DCD0A@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: f186ff9c52ceeddaaa28a6520726ce6f
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-181.intnet.net [207.90.34.181]

Steven.

Perhaps you spoke to Alan Roth. If so, speak to Bob Murrah in
Roseburg, Oregon,
(541) 430-5933 and ask him for the details.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>,
        <DeanTong@aol.com>,
        <pangk@aol.com>
References: <018a01be0d8d$c66dff80$1b00000a@steven>
Subject: Re: Dean said to write.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:41:19 -0800
Message-ID: <3650C62F.2EF91251@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C19BAC.184A7EA0"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: 9fec6a2efd65afc0e1450598bb4072ea
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-77.intnet.net [207.90.34.77]

Steven, here is mY STANDARD contract. Note the provisions.

ALso if it was Dan Antoni, maybe you should get some other opinions.
Dan and his lawyer are their own worst enemies. Or do you consider a
physical assault on a female attorney guardian ad litem to be
appropriate? Or wonder why she's be against you?
You might find out why she had to get a restraining order to keep them
away from her!
You can call Bob Murray (541) 430-5933, he's right there in Oregon.

Steven EVERYBODY in business has some unsatisfied clients. It is
better to see IF those complaints are justified or not. In any even, as
I told you, I will make good the days
later when you give me the word. Steven, you should have asked for
references. Try calling Bob and Mary Trump in Elgin, OR. (541)
437-4001. MAYBE you'd feel a bit better if you had been less emotional.
I'm STILL here for you.

From: <PangK@aol.com>
To: <e-mail address removed>
Subject: DR. Adams
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 04:38:32 -0800
Message-ID: <be261d41.36516e48@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0037_01C19BAC.18521FC0"
X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170
X-UIDL: 6d1809f9cae9df97223801dcb8ac180a
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

You know Steven, I'd have given the complaint you heard much more
credibility
if it had not condemned Doctor Adams even worse than me. Take a look at his
CV
and then you tell me, who has more credibility here. The anonymous guy who
badmouthed Dr. Adams and I or us.

This is in rich text format so ANY word processor can read it.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>,
<DeanTong@aol.com>
References: <009a01be124e$3c843940$1b00000a@steven>
Subject: Re: What to do.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:04:25 -0800
Message-ID: <3651E4D9.491F4DE4@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: ad3796ab292ec05ceed80562408a1609
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: as-clw-10-206.intnet.net [207.90.34.206]

Steven Leuck wrote:

> Ken,
>

> As a contractor I would never, EVER care to work with a vendor who has
> treated me the way you have. And yet you think I should. Life is too
short
> for these kinds of relationships. You gave me every reason in the world
to
> second guess my decision to work with you -- I guess you "second guessed"
> yourself right out of the work.
>

Mr. Leuck. I don't know any vendor who would have accepted the hostile
approach you used with me yesterday. I made you the offer that is just and
reasonable given the conditions. Your demeanor on the phone struck me as
game
playing. You failed to mention several facts to me that I only learned from
Mr.
Tong this morning about your situation. If anyone should feel taken
advantage
of, it's me. I acted in good faith throughout.I am sorry you don't recall
our
conversation when I explained to you my business policies and why I have to
bill
for canceled time. Just as many other professionals do. Had your approached
me
in a reasonable time before my scheduled departure I would have been more
willing to consider some sort of refund. But calling at the last minute as
you
did, doesn't, not to mention that your reason was not reasonable as well.
Some
"unnamed"
party told you "something" bad about myself and Doctor Adams. No opportunity
to
defend myself to answer anything. Just a demand that the trip be canceled
and I
return the funds. You have my number. But don't call unless you can be calm
and
are willing to listen as well as accuse and berate me.

> Please mail my refund less your honest fees to Steven Leuck,
> (address removed)
>
> One thing I am getting good at through all of this is filing complaints
with
> the proper authorities. The interesting thing is that it doesn't take me
> long at all to do.
>
> Steven, the answer is no. Whatever inclination I had to do a refund
you
> have killed. I don't deserve these insults. I am not the person who caused
the
> problems you face. But somebody who could help you with them. Had you
bothered
> to contact ANY of the people whose names I provided to you, you might have
> come to a different conclusion. Since the command is to turn the other
cheek
> 70 times 7, when you decide to become more rational and reasonable, and
try
> speaking to me as a more mature adult instead of with threats we might
work
> something out. You do NOT get my attention with threats Steven. I react to
the
> environment I am forced into. You are making a mistake here, and your
> judgement of me is not appropriate. When you can speak to me as a
gentleman,
> we can speak. Until then there is nothing to speak about.

>
>
> Steven A. Leuck

From: <DeanTong@aol.com>
To: <e-mail address removed>
Subject: Re: Fw: Ken's letter
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:10:10 -0800
Message-ID: <46b64dbd.365256b2@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
X-UIDL: a1b6bc194afa786348d7ad0544c55dfb
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

In a message dated 11/17/98 1:22:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
e-mail address removed
writes:

<<
Dean, I trusted you and I still trust you. I would like it very much if
you
would speak to him about refunding my money save about $500 for his time.
I
doubt he's spent anything near enough time to justify this but I'm trying
to
do the right thing. You work with these people (Pangborn and Jamieson) I
should think you have an interest in seeing them treat people right.

I get NOTHING for referring a case to the A-Team! That would be fee
splitting
under the law and Pang and Jamieson would be in hot water with the Florida
Bar
if they did so. And, I do NOT refer ALL cases to the A-Team.

Your case seemed like a MUST for the A-Team, because they provide DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE testing other legal teams cannot provide! And, Pang recently beat
up
on a social worker in an Oregon case. He is allowed at Counsel table in
oregon
at Depositions, and as such can be VERY persuasive to social workers,
guardians-ad-litem, and therapists! He does the GRUNT work! Yes, he can be
and
IS at times a jerk with an obnoxious bedside manner. BUT, BUT, BUT, he's the
BEST in the business!! And, he almost ALWAYS wins his cases! As such, I
think
it is incumbent, for your daughters sake, you put your differences aside,
and
your references aside (which should have been done BEFORE you paid him any
$$$), in your daughters best interests, and get the testing done!

For EVERY bad reference on Pang, I can give you 9 EXCELLENT ones!

Dean Tong
<A HREF="http://www.abuse-excuse.com">The Abuse Excuse</A>

Randi has already told me that she is pulling her references to his web
site because of several complaints like mine. You need to understand that I DID
check some references on Pangborn and I found a lot of people that were
very leery of him, his practices and his manner. He's demanding that I tell him
who they are. You think I'd unleash Pangborn on these people after the way
he's treating me! Even some of the people at the seminar I saw you at did
not have anything nice to say about him. I went with this on your word and
I'd appreciate a little help with this. >>

From: <DeanTong@aol.com>
To: <e-mail address removed>
Subject: Re: Pangborn
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 22:36:54 -0800
Message-ID: <173e0cf4.36526b06@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
X-UIDL: 39900da4f034f9a822326ad18ab099a2
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

In a message dated 11/17/98 9:41:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
e-mail address removed
writes:

<< I really expected a lot better from you -- especially after meeting you.
I
never said anything about "splitting" fees -- I only knew that you worked
in
conjunction with him. Indeed, for the most part I went to him because you
said to. Now I'm wondering why you're SO defensive about this.

Ken has gone out of his way to show his true colors -- If I can't get any
relief on this $3,000 (even partial relief) I sent to him I fully intend to
make sure he feels it. I guess I should have known better. I sure wish I
had taped that call to him when I told him I had concerns about coming out.
I think it would have surprised a lot of people how he treated me.

Dean, I could never put those kinds of differences aside -- the man was a
total a** about it. He never gave me a chance to talk -- all he screamed
on
and on about was "his" money.

This is fine -- I'll make sure I get FULL value for my money. I am sick
and
tired of the people who appear to be waiting in line to take advantage of
me. It's really starting to tick me off that my parents raised such a
trusting and gentle person. I guess P.T. Barnum put it best - I'm just the
latest "one" to be born. Thanks for not much Dean. I guess I should have
expected this too. >>

I do NOT work in conjunction with Pangborn. WE work independently! I think
you
are missing the point. You have to put your emotions aside. You have to put
your co-dependent tendancies aside. You must believe in OUR direction and
guidance. We are ONLY looking out for your best interests and your
daughters,
too. Pang enforces HIS Contract as he sees fit. Again, you should have
sought
out references BEFORE you paid him. I work differently. For $400 you've got
me
until the cows come home.

But, I truly believe the BOTH of you have let your narrow read of this
scenario to cloud your judgments.

Dean Tong
<A HREF="http://www.abuse-excuse.com">The Abuse Excuse</A>

From: <DeanTong@aol.com>
To: <e-mail address removed>
Subject: Re: Pangborn
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:54:04 -0800
Message-ID: <5af8db55.3652c36c@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
X-UIDL: 8cb91e080a25da7591208e6fec3cd56b
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

In a message dated 11/17/98 11:10:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
e-mail address removed writes:

<<
I think you are missing the point. Calling me co-dependant and emotional
certainly doesn't help matters. There was NO contract. Ken said "send the
money RIGHT now -- FedEx". >>

*Most* men with Borderlines ARE C0-Dependent! Ask Randi! That is a fact.
Unfortunately, *that* does become a problem which manifests itself, too.

Pang has his OWN Retainer Agreement which he should have faxed to you prior
to
you employing his services. In the same vein you should not have retained
Honsowetz without seeing, first, his CV.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>,
<DeanTong@aol.com>
References: <009a01be124e$3c843940$1b00000a@steven>
Subject: Appointment
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 07:27:36 -0800
Message-ID: <36558A68.692EB61C@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: e8868924f0141c2f30641e82ed537af2
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
X-Auth: aa-clw-3-112.intnet.net [207.90.1.112]

I will be happy to resechedule your appointment for testing per your
instructions at any time you feel ready.

From: <DeanTong@aol.com>
To: <jefflaurenjohnson@email.msn.com>
Cc: <PangK@aol.com>,
<e-mail address removed>
Subject: Re: Thought you should know
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:15:07 -0800
Message-ID: <4c587a5e.3655bfbb@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 226
X-UIDL: 69a0cff79ee01f97dc551ee56eb946d8
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

In a message dated 11/20/98 11:01:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jefflaurenjohnson@email.msn.com writes:

<< Dean,

One of the men on the non BP list has had a bad experience with a Dr. in
Atlanta. I am not sure how you can effect the outcome of this but I
thought
you should know. I feel this could reflect badly on you to the others on
the list. Many emails about this guy begin pushy and refusing to give back
$3000 to the man. We have all been watching Steven take the first step for
all of us. If he has a bad experience I am affraid this could have a
negative effect on you. Please let me know if there is anything I can do
to
help you in any way.

JEFF JOHNSON
(813) 422-7224 >>

Jeff:
I did NOT take Steven Leucks monies, other than the fee I require
for my Consultative services which is $400. I provided that service to Steven. I
referred Mr. Leuck to Mr. Pangborn, the man in question, but in no way,
shape, or form, compelled him to retain the man. As I understand it, Pangborn has a
NO REFUND policy as stated in his Retainer Agreement. No, he will not refund
the monies. But, he'll still provide Mr. Leuck with ~3 days of his time for
the same. And, that is money well spent, considering Mr. Leucks plight.

Concerning a *guilt by association* tag, I'm not worried about it. Thanks!
When it comes down to *crunch time*, there's nobody better than Pangborn!

Dean Tong
<A HREF="http://www.abuse-excuse.com">The Abuse Excuse</A>

From: <PangK@aol.com>
To: <e-mail address removed>,
        <DeanTong@aol.com>,
        <jefflaurenjohnson@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Thought you should know
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 03:51:51 -0800
Message-ID: <79b14a0b.3656a957@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Casablanca - Windows sub 170
X-UIDL: f851efa98fd75da2d62568d438d37d6d
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

In a message dated 11/20/98 3:38:11 PM EST, e-mail address removed writes:

<< Mr. Pangborn never told me his fee was non-refundable (no matter how
much he argues that he did) and he never sent me a copy of his agreement until
after I decided this may not good idea. Mr. Pangborn is arguing that he
has $3,000 in damages because I decided not to come out. I argue that he has
next to none but I offered to allow $500-600 for his troubles but he simply
wants the whole thing. At this point I have nothing further to say on the
matter. My attorney has asked me not to comment further until he can review
it more and decide what to do. >>

You misrepresent several things Steven. In your public claims that I
"pressured" and "rushed" you you seem to omit that we first spoke about the
testing a YEAR ago. And that in our most recent conversations, it was over a
week, almost 2 weeks between when we discussed setting up the trip and the
date of the trip. Hardly fits you claims of "pressure" to do anything. In
fact, it was YOU who came to ME, and YOU who stressed the "urgency" of the
matter, and I couldn't work the schedule for the week you first contacted
me, but set it up for the following week. In essence, Steven, I "DROPPED
EVERYTHING" to handle what YOU represented to ME as an "emergency." As did
Dean stress to me the urgency of your situation. You also did NOT tell me
you were on probation and had accepted a plea on the issue. A fact I should
have known before we made the trip. Your claim that i did not tell you about the
no refund is simply wrong. I have told you, as I tell others about it,
"Don't send me the money unless you are realy going to make it." We had a rush
conversation on the point when you were going somewhere and and wanted to
know if I would take the money when we "got there." I made it painfully clear
that I don't work that way and WHY. And, AT THE TIME you said it was reasonable.

Despite ALL of this Steven, I have said I WOULD reschedule the trip at NO
extra charge to you. I worked to get your airplane monies back by calling
Dianne Monday night at home. And on our conversation I told you:

A. That I would reschedule the trip any time you feel ready.
B. That when you calmed down perhaps we could work something out.

And I was inclined to sit down with you when you worked through your
emotional situation. And I had anticipated contacting you on Tuesday, but found your
threatsand statements that you were going to "RUIN" me. So you got the responses
you did.

Now, Brother Leuck, I am STILL willing to do the work, or sit down with
you, BUT ....................... Not when you attack me like you have! You want
something from me, then behave in such a manner as I will listen to you! We
had a verbal contract.

Sadly there is fallout from such situations. Because of your actions, now,
I will no longer accept a case where there is not a signed NOTARIZED contract.
And now Dianne will no longer accept charges over the phone without the
person first sending a photocopy of the card, and driver's license and a statement
accepting the charges. SHE could have been on the hook for $2,500 if you
disputed the credit card charge. Actually she would have passed the charge
on to me! Had I sent you the money back I'd have been out of pocket $2500. And
this is not to mention the strain it placed on my relationship with the
doctor calling HIM late at night to cancell the testing. And HE had to call his lab
assistant and cancell with him.

In your call to me Monday evening, you were accusatory from the start
telling me how "dishonest" I had been with you. Claiming that you were told by
"SEVERAL PROPLE" of the problems that had with me AND the Doctor. You know, I might have
bought it about myself. But when you added into your accusations one of the most
respected men in the world, it was incredulous. You refused to tell me who
told you the things about me and you also refused to tell me what they said
about me. Offering me NO opportunity to defend myself. Just attacking and
refusing to listen to anything I had to say. I tried telling you that there
were people who "CLAIMED" I didn't do well for them. And that the people
saying that had actually NEVER been clients of mine. I tried to offer you
several clients I did have in Oregon. I sent you two via email. Did you
contact either? I don't think so.

Steve you may not remember me telling you fees were not refundable unless
the cancellation came 3 working days before the trip. Now it is 4 days on my new
contract. We spoke of so much and you were so emotional. But we DID discuss it. And,
Steve, I again tried to explain why I don't do refunds. Your last minute
cancellation was just not reasonable. I know I didn't explain to you that just opening a file
earns me $1,000 of any fee. It takes time Steve to do that. AND, we had spent HOURS on the
phone with each other. Do you recall how many times we spoke? Or how long?
One call was nearly 90 minutes long. I told you I charge $150 an hout for what I
do in office and flat rate at $1,500 a day plus expenses.

I have offered you that I will STILL do the trip at NO extra charge.
Although Steve, I'd be within my rights to demand another $3,000 for it. I also said that
when you approach me as a gentleman, maybe we could work something out. Your
offer of $500 is patently unreasonable. The best solution is to go ahead and get
the testing you need. As to the people who allegedly told you how BAD the doctor
is and worthless the testing is, all I can say is they are sadly wrong. You
have chose to believe things that come through a competitor of mine without
really offering me any opportunity to defend myself. Steve, sit back for a
second. Are the allegatiosn against YOU, true or false? Have YOU had the
opportunity to defend YOURSELF???? Why do you want for yourself what you
are NOT willing to grant to me? Think about it Brother! You want to sit down in
front of a Bishop on this? What is the proper way to work this out????????

No Steve, NOTHING I told you in that long email was a facade. It was all
VERY real and STILL is! I am still willing to be your brother, IF you ALLOW
me to be that! YOU can rea between the lis of the way I am coming to you.
The ball is in YOUR court!

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: <DeanTong@aol.com>
Cc: <e-mail address removed>
References: <104.f451feb.29723254@aol.com>
Subject: Re: your evidence against Dean
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:21:54 -0800
Message-ID: <3C40E132.540F3EA9@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD477 (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: e2b33ed1a5d2fa7693798df30447c184
X-Accept-Language: en
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

==============================================
From: DeanTong (deantong@aol.com)
Subject: Consult
Newsgroups: alt.mens-rights
Date: 1998/11/21

CONSULT WITH DEAN TONG

Have YOU been unjustly accused of child abuse, sexual child abuse,
child neglect, "repressed" memories, parental alienation syndrome, munchausen
syndrome by proxy (Factitious Disorder), or domestic violence? Is your
child in the custody of the *real* child abuser? Is your attorney *sitting back*
and *waiting to see what the other side does*? Has he/she penned a legal
strategy to obtain the equitable relief you are seeking?

Consultant and Book Author Dean Tong will peruse your case file and
opine on the same. He'll perform an Internet Search on the Law in your State.
He'll speak with your legal counsel. He'll query *his* experts. And, he'll
devise a roadmap in which you can prove your innocence and impeach the
credibility of your false accuser(s). His critique will take you where your attorney
has not...to justice!

"Dean has been a pioneer in this area. You can never go wrong by
listening to what he has to say. His advice will help dig you out."
- Pastor Roby Roberson of the Wenatchee Witch Hunt (WA)
(roberson@televar.com)

"We hired Mr. Tong to see if there was anything he could do for us.
He gave us alot of information to use. Mr. Tong was very helpful."
- Kevin and Louise Patch (FL) (LPatch9834@aol.com)

"His services are well worth their value." - Steven Leuck (OR)
(e-mail address removed)

If you are interested in retaining Dean Tong as a Consultant on your
case please mail a *copy* of your case file, preferably FEDEX overnite to him

to the address listed below, along with a check for $400.00. It takes Mr. Tong
7 - 10 days to complete his case analysis.

DISCLAIMER: Dean Tong is *not* an Attorney. His advise and suggestions
should be brought to the attention of your lawyer. And, he will be indemnified
and held harmless in the event you do not win your case.

Dean Tong
8102 N. Sheldon Rd.
Suite 1503
Tampa, FL 33615
813-885-6173, Ph/Fax
Dean Tong
The Abuse Excuse
http://www.abuse-excuse.com
========

Look at the Date, 1998. Do you DENY sending Tong a message that said
those precise words?

Better not try to deny it. Dean has a copy and I and others including
his webmaster saw it.

From: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
To: <DeanTong@aol.com>
Cc: <e-mail address removed>
References: <104.f451feb.29723254@aol.com>
Subject: Re: use of my name
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:10:36 -0800
Message-ID: <3C40DE8C.E6FE15CB@a-team.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD477 (Win95; U)
X-UIDL: 831ea813867a0c103e218b2d731d55a7
X-Accept-Language: en
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

DeanTong@aol.com wrote:

>> Dean,
>>
>> I noticed during a recent web search that you are using my name as
>> part of
>> your testimonials. I would like you to stop this immediately. I no
>> longer
>> am confident of recommending you to anyone. You recommended me
>> strongly to
>> Ken Pangborn who took advantage of me emotionally and financially
>> and ripped
>> me off for thousands of dollars without ONE single service being
>> provide.
>>
>> I appreciate what you are trying to do but when I contacted you
>> about my
>> problem with Ken Pangborn you turned your back on me. I feel
>> insulted that
>> you are now advertising my name in your testimonials.
>>
>> I would appreciate it if you would please remove my name from your
>> web site
>> immediately and respond to me that you have done so. Failure to do
>> so will
>> result in my taking action of my own on the web.
>>
>> Steven Leuck
>
>
> Mr. Leuck:
> I don't know where you *think* you are seeing STEVEN
> LEUCK at abuse-excuse.com, but I can assure you it is not there. It
> is possible you've seen it on usenet, but NOT through me.

Although I have not examined Dean's site microscopically, I have
seen NO such reference to you on his site. In addition Mr. Leuck, you
knew that there was a time limit on refunds, that I would not do last
minute refunds. In our conversations you said that you "understood" why
that policy existed because you had a similar policy ion your business.

You canceled less than 12 hours before I was to get on the
airplane. You refused to discuss with me the reasons or listen to
anything I said. I asked you to hold on for a day or two and allow
yourself to cool down and we could talk and work something out. You not
only refused to listen to any compromise, you then began a campaign of
libel against me on the net.

Now let me go over the underlying "reason" as you stated it to me
was that the proposed testing was "not admissible" in your area. I tried
to tell you that you had been badly misinformed. You refused to discuss
it, tell me who told you that or accept evidence I could and would have
provided that the claim was untrue. We just finished a trial in
Corvallis, Oregon and let me assure you the evidence DID come in. I'd be
happy to show you the order if you like. Dean has a copy.

Your actions were in no way reasonable. After Dean spoke to me I was
open to refunding most of the fee to you, but by then you had already
started your libel campaign against me. Which killed any sympathy I had
for you Steven.

How did your case turn out? Did you win? I can show you at least a
dozen cases we have won in Washington and Oregon since your tantrum.
Steven, you need to look at yourself for your problems. You might have
had a point if the things had been done and proved not to work. How do
you reconcile that we have used this successfully for so many people?
Just because some "competitor" made you afraid. Don't tell me that *I*
exploited you emotionally, when whoever poisoned you against our plan
they were the ones who exploited you emotionally by making you afraid. I
sure hope that that person was able to win for you in a big way.

Steven - I can tolerate you attacking me, but why Tong? And, Steven,
Dean now sends people for testing in some cases without my involvement.
He also now knows for certain that the process IS admissible. Steven,
your problem is that in order to sell your point of view about myself
and now Dean, you also have to attack some very prominent experts who
can conclusively demonstrate that your fears were misplaced. That it is
good science. I have no idea of exactly what you were told, only what
you told me.

Reply-To: <e-mail address removed>
From: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
To: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>,
<DeanTong@aol.com>
Subject: RE: use of my name
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:46:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3C40DE8C.E6FE15CB@a-team.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

Dean,

I really take offense at you passing my email addressed soley to you on to
Mr. Pangborn. I really don't want to get into any more with him or with
you... I simply wanted you to delete the reference to me that I emailed to
you.

Mr. Pangborn is now harrasing me. I don't know about him, but I kept all of
the emails he sent to me along with all of the paperwork. The email he just
sent me (below) is full of misinformation on his part. He talks about a
case in Corvallis and yet his paperwork to me four years ago said Eugene.
He accuses me of all sorts of things that just didn't happen the way he
claims they did according to what he sent me before.

I suppose the thing that bothers me most of all (and there is no remedy for
this) is that at the time I cancelled his services I acknowledged that he
had invested "some" time and effort on my behalf and I suggested his keeping
part of the money I had spent him. However, he kept it all and then started
bad mouthing me and telling me how screwed up I was (just like he is now)
and that it was all my fault and I would probably end up in jail, etc,
etc.... There were a lot of things he said which only had a goal of hurting.

The interesting this is that everything has worked out fine. I never had
any of the trouble that Mr. Pangborn insisted I would. At this point I have
50% visitation with my daughter and it in two weeks it will turn to legal
and prime custody. I have remarried and am happier than I've ever been.
Things have worked out wonderfully.

The only thing is that I am $3,000 poorer for my experience with Mr.
Pangborn and much wiser.

I would have sent anyone to listen to you Dean. If they truly required your
services I would suggest they ask you about it. But, I would never send
anyone to Mr. Pangborn. He was cunning as a snake and very flattering while
he wanted my money. Once he had my money he turned ugly and abusive. He
never once offered to return even a small portion of my money. Instead he
hurled insults and curses at me. He even abused me from the perspective of
my religion.... at first using scriptures from my own church to entice me
and then against me when I didn't keep using his services. I'm not really
sure why he's so excited right now. He's got $3,000 of my money that I'll
never get from him and he probably never spent more then 3 hours working for
it.

I am deeply offended that you would pass on to him my email to you. I asked
you a simple thing.... I wasn't going to make a big thing out of it but you
have by sending it on to him. I asked nicely. I'd appreciate it if you'd
comply with my original request.

Thank you,

Steven Leuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Pangborn [mailto:pangborn@a-team.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 5:11 PM
To: DeanTong@aol.com
Cc: e-mail address removed
Subject: Re: use of my name

DeanTong@aol.com wrote:

Reply-To: <e-mail address removed>
From: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
To: "Kenneth Pangborn" <pangborn@a-team.org>
Cc: "Dean Tong" <DeanTong@aol.com>
Subject: RE: your evidence against Dean
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 19:31:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3C40E132.540F3EA9@a-team.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Pangborn [mailto:pangborn@a-team.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 5:22 PM
To: DeanTong@aol.com
Cc: e-mail address removed
Subject: Re: your evidence against Dean

========
Mr. Pangborn wrote:

"Look at the Date, 1998. Do you DENY sending Tong a message that said
those precise words?

"Better not try to deny it. Dean has a copy and I and others including
his webmaster saw it."

Steven wrote:
I don't deny it. I simply want you to stop using my name in anything
associated with either Dean or especially you.

Steven Leuck

Reply-To: <e-mail address removed>
From: "Steven Leuck" <e-mail address removed>
To: "Dean Tong" <DeanTong@aol.com>
Subject: use of my name
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 13:55:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
X-MSMail-Priority: High
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: High
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300

Dean,

I noticed during a recent web search that you are using my name as part of
your testimonials. I would like you to stop this immediately. I no longer
am confident of recommending you to anyone. You recommended me strongly to
Ken Pangborn who took advantage of me emotionally and financially and ripped
me off for thousands of dollars without ONE single service being provide.

I appreciate what you are trying to do but when I contacted you about my
problem with Ken Pangborn you turned your back on me. I feel insulted that
you are now advertising my name in your testimonials.

I would appreciate it if you would please remove my name from your web site
immediately and respond to me that you have done so. Failure to do so will
result in my taking action of my own on the web.

Steven Leuck