ZOO WARS~SHARE WILDLY!!! This is the Most Shocking Reveal Yet!!! Big Cat Rescue vs Truth, Justice and the American Way!!

We know the WHY!!! But what we don’t know is how they have gone by for so long without anyone noticing including those of us investigating. What this blogger has learned just a few hours ago is CRIMINAL!!! It’s FRAUD!!! And comes with a warning that what you are about to read is sickening. It’s the proof we need for the IRS and every legislature across this country that demonstrates they have been lied to by an accredited GFAS/HSUS Animal Rights Extremists supported facility…There is every reason that criminal RICO violations should be sought on Carole and Howard Baskin.

What if I told you that Big Cat Rescue was PAYING for positive comments and articles…What if I told you they were likely paying for letter writing as well and signing petitions…and What if I told you I can prove it!?!

Just how DESPERATE do you have to be to pay for positive comments?!? “You are pretty desperate when you have to pay for good comments huh?
Now this is something everyone should keep in a safe place when fighting laws.

If you responded and got paid then you are actually guilty as well-Comparable, in my opinion and the opinions of others to accepting a bribe!!!

Everything that you are about to read comes from the following link that after this post, jus might come down but in a google cache’ as well as screen shot…ALL of it!!! Sure does give reason to question ANY and ALL GFAS/HSUS Accredited and Verified Accredited (PSEUDO SANCTUARIES) sanctuaries-“F” is for FAKE sanctuary!!!

http://bigcatrescue.org/ad-copy-help-wanted/

All the following screen shots can be enlarged for easier reading…All the following comments are from real people voicing their real opinion!!! Nothing is censored!!! -That’s how we roll!!!

BCR BRIBE

“Fucking ridiculous I say…sorry for my language but what have we humans come down to…this level ??…where you have to pay for comments…omg nodding head”

I had to take 5 screen shots to cover the whole thing… but I have it all. Will send when legislation comes up. If they offer this on the net…. wonder what they offer the politicians?”

“What a scam artist learned really well from Wayne and HSUS”

Pitiful thing when that is the ONLY way to get good comments about your place is to pay for it. Every dope head, alcoholic, etc., that needs a dollar will be posting.

One comment was a link to this blog (YAY!!! -You know I love that) https://topcatsroar.wordpress.com/…/ohio-testimony…/

But wait…there’s more-A lot more…

“Great way to spend those donated dollars huh? Smh”

“She picked the perfect industry to get free help so she can pocket the profit huh? In her own words. and we are exploiting the cats, lol”

Here’s her reasoning why this is OK…

Baskin reasoning

Baskin reasoning 2

So that’s where all the money donated for Tony’s new cage is going to!!!!! Hot dam. But I can’t even say nothing nice about the toilet paper.”

Baskin reasoning3

For that kind of money, Carole Baskin was willing to actually do some work.

“Fucking Bitch is spending peoples hard earned money she receives as donations for animal care and caging-PISSES me off to no end!!!”

Look at all the damn laws and regulations to take animals and stop ownership!!! She and Howie at the core of it!!! All Fish and Wildlife offices, All USDA admins, ALL senators and reps in every state and FEDERAL should see this SHIT AND THE IRS!!!”

Baskin reasoning4

“Make that money exploiting animals and than bash everyone else”

How many times have we all read how Baskin and the other Pseudo sanctuaries hope to put themselves out of business?!? Well folks, that’s a total lie and by her own post and words says it!!! “OPPS!!!”

Baskin reasoning5jpg

ALL owners of any animal hopes to have their animals with them until the day they die-Most Responsible Exotic Animal Owners that I know have a plan in place for the animals when and if that happens -Husband-Wife-Friend-G.W. Exotics or other responsible facility!!! Baskin wants those animals and/or for you to be denied what she wishes for herself.

“Don’t be afraid of the truth. Go visit animal circuses, ask questions to the people with real answers, and decide for yourself if what we do is humane. Because what activists are doing these days is slander and illegal.”

Baskin reasoning6jpg

 “Bet she calls it program expenses, and is not paying tax on it”

“I personally do not enjoy the unpleasantness of having to respond to HSUS, PETA or Big Cat Rescue’s bullying tactics. My primary concern is that the very future of species such as tigers is imperiled by organizations that engage in such activity rather than further efforts at endangered species conservation. There cyber-bullying tactics do not even help true Conservation.” 

So…what does the law have to say about this kind of thing?!?

Actually, this is considered a very serious offense…

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/02/26/companies-could-face-suits-for-paying-for-positive

Companies could face suits for paying for positive online reviews

Glowing online consumer reviews are music to any company’s ears. But some companies will go farther than others to procure such positive comments.

For instance, in March 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Legacy Learning Systems Inc., the maker of a popular series of guitar-lesson DVDs, would pay $250,000 to settle charges that it deceptively advertised its products by paying online marketers to pose as ordinary consumers and write positive reviews of its products.

Experts say such settlements are a precursor to more FTC action in the future. Gartner Inc. analysts predict that in the next two years, the agency will pursue litigation against at least two unnamed Fortune 500 companies for paying for false reviews.

Peer Pressure

According to a recent Gartner study, tainted consumer reviews of businesses and products will account for between 10 percent and 15 percent of all online critiques by next year.

The trend is disheartening to consumers, but it’s also concerning to in-house lawyers. “This is something that could seriously hurt your company’s reputation,” says Jenny Sussin, senior research analyst at Gartner.

Still, some companies are pressured to buy online critiques because consumers heavily rely upon peer reviews to make their purchasing decisions.

“Sixty-three percent of consumers are more likely to make a purchase from a site where there are user reviews,” says Sussin. She adds that “50 or more reviews on a product can mean a 4.6 percent increase in conversion rates,” which are the proportion of site visitors who take action beyond just viewing a site’s content.

“Businesses have substantial financial interest in making sure that they have a robust portfolio of consumer reviews, given that so many people are checking them,” says Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School. “There needs to be a critical mass of reviews so that consumers believe they have credibility, and the reviews need to be favorable so that it looks like the business is a good provider.”

Goldman says businesses also like the idea of having their offerings “go viral.” “They want there to be an organic groundswell of consumers excited about their offerings and evangelizing them to their peers,” he says. “Some businesses think they can jump-start that process by having it look like ordinary consumers are raving about a product and hoping that that catches fire among other consumers and then snowballs from there.”

Facing pressure to establish a strong consumer following, businesses will post ads on sites such as Craigslist, Amazon Inc.’s Mechanical Turk, Freelancer and Fiverr seeking people who will write short, positive endorsements, for which they will fork over anywhere between $1 and $200, Sussin says.

The Government’s Take

In 2009, the FTC published a guide governing endorsements and testimonials in which it clarified that paying for positive reviews without disclosing that reviewers had been compensated is deceptive advertising, and it will prosecute such practices in the same way.

“The FTC has made its position entirely clear,” Goldman says. “Consumer reviews need to represent the authentic view of the people providing them. The FTC has decided that it’s going to fight the battle of trying to maintain content authenticity online. As a result, they are looking for opportunities to punish folks who are not playing by those rules.” 

Aside from FTC action, Cooley Partner Janet Cullum says companies could face consumer backlash. “The FTC may go after a company for fake reviews, and then right away, consumer class actions could be filed on top of it,” she says. 

Companies also could face suits from competitors claiming they’re hyping themselves online or paying reviewers to write negative critiques of competitors’ products or services.

[BLOGGERS NOTE:  And what about all the people who lost ownership because Baskin pushed for regulations and laws based on FALSE information?!? What about the animals seized in a raid?!?]

Varied Liability

Goldman says that in the U.S., review sites can’t be held liable for any fake, paid-for reviews posted to them. That’s because 47 U.S.C. 230, a statute Congress passed in 1996, essentially says websites aren’t liable for third-party content.

U.K. agencies, however, have penalized sites for containing false reviews. In February 2012, after a four-month investigation, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that TripAdvisor’s lack of user-verification steps allowed reviewers to post nongenuine content to the site. The agency ruled that TripAdvisor’s U.K. site could no longer claim that its reviews were honest or from real people. The ASA took similar action in November 2012 against the U.K.-based airline review site Skytrax, finding that the site couldn’t assert that its reviews were “checked” and “trusted” as it had claimed because it didn’t take “all reasonable steps to ensure that reviews were checked, trusted and made by ‘real’ people with ‘real’ opinions.”

“If review sites are advertising that they’re credible, but they’re not actually policing reviews, that could be a problem overseas,” Goldman says. “Here in the U.S., that’s probably still protected by Section 230.”

 Analysts say FTC will pursue cases against those who compensate for false critiques

The Government’s Take

In 2009, the FTC published a guide governing endorsements and testimonials in which it clarified that paying for positive reviews without disclosing that reviewers had been compensated is deceptive advertising, and it will prosecute such practices in the same way.

“The FTC has made its position entirely clear,” Goldman says. “Consumer reviews need to represent the authentic view of the people providing them. The FTC has decided that it’s going to fight the battle of trying to maintain content authenticity online. As a result, they are looking for opportunities to punish folks who are not playing by those rules.”

Aside from FTC action, Cooley Partner Janet Cullum says companies could face consumer backlash. “The FTC may go after a company for fake reviews, and then right away, consumer class actions could be filed on top of it,” she says.

Companies also could face suits from competitors claiming they’re hyping themselves online or paying reviewers to write negative critiques of competitors’ products or services.

Varied Liability

Goldman says that in the U.S., review sites can’t be held liable for any fake, paid-for reviews posted to them. That’s because 47 U.S.C. 230, a statute Congress passed in 1996, essentially says websites aren’t liable for third-party content.

U.K. agencies, however, have penalized sites for containing false reviews. In February 2012, after a four-month investigation, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that TripAdvisor’s lack of user-verification steps allowed reviewers to post nongenuine content to the site. The agency ruled that TripAdvisor’s U.K. site could no longer claim that its reviews were honest or from real people. The ASA took similar action in November 2012 against the U.K.-based airline review site Skytrax, finding that the site couldn’t assert that its reviews were “checked” and “trusted” as it had claimed because it didn’t take “all reasonable steps to ensure that reviews were checked, trusted and made by ‘real’ people with ‘real’ opinions.”

“If review sites are advertising that they’re credible, but they’re not actually policing reviews, that could be a problem overseas,” Goldman says. “Here in the U.S., that’s probably still protected by Section 230.”

 

Advertisements

~ by topcatsroar on July 26, 2014.

5 Responses to “ZOO WARS~SHARE WILDLY!!! This is the Most Shocking Reveal Yet!!! Big Cat Rescue vs Truth, Justice and the American Way!!”

  1. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/samsung-fined-paying-people-criticize-htcs-products/story?id=20671547

    Well what do you know-Samsung was fined for paying people to criticize HTCS products…A NFP is no different than any other business -as a matter of fact is held to a higher standard…Not exactly what is seen from Big Cat Rescue!!!

  2. I am with you. She is nothing but a manipulive liar. I have given that witch a negative review everywhere possible! Yelp, and anywhere possible! I want the world to know a actual authentic review and the evil she is up too. I might hace gone to far by throwing the due date of my Savannah in her face, and how poorly her hybrid ban bombed in California. I am sorry that real experts are not awed by opinions and actually know the difference. I stand with you, and will continue the fight against the evil that is BCR, PETA, and HSUS!

    • Thank you for all that you have done to expose the truth about Carole Baskin and her SCAM-tuary/SCUM-tuary!!! Helping to educate the public to the lies, fraud and deception is not always an easy thing to do…I always recommend ‘Googling’ BOTH Big Cat Rescue and Wildlife on Easy Street…Carole Lewis/Don Lewis as well as Carole and Howard Baskin!!! The truth is out there for anyone searching for it. -B

  3. She messed with my beloved kitties, and I worried this ban might pass. I can empathize with owners of more exotics pets. How must Tony’s owner felt with BCR trying to legally steal his tiger! How would someone feel if you knew their was a possibility that your beloved pet would end in a old landfill to be cared for with a narcissistic witch like Baskin. I do not know about tigers but my Bengals would not adjust well to the loss of their other feline companions and her human family. If transferred to a sanctuary, they would most likely die of a broken heart, because my cats need to be with their family. Badkin’s crusade to destroy private ownership and to make exotic and human interaction obscene is immoral. Interaction and education is what inspires young people’s interest, and fuels future conservatation. Though I am not a big fan of Sea World, but seeing sea animals up close helps future generations care about these animals. If AR groups have their way all interaction with animals will come to an end. Stupid sheep like people do not understand this. They believe all the half truths and lies fed to them by PETA, HSUS, and BCR. I am awake and I see!

  4. […] https://topcatsroar.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/zoo-warsshare-wildly-this-is-the-most-shocking-reveal-y… Follow BCR Watch blog posts! http://www.bcrwatch.com/blog Go to 911AnimalAbuse.org […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: