Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Steven Frischling Lies on LinkedIn

We were directed to Steven's fanciful resume on LinkedIn.com. Everything is puffed up with ridiculous jargon as expected, but there are also some exaggerations and outright lies! (No surprise.)

Steven Frischling on LinkedIn.com

- Steven Frischling was fired from KLM for outright illegal activity!
- His gig with Bombardier was described to us as a "disaster," and consisted of sending a few tweets and taking some photos at a show before they cut ties with him.
- He was never employed by Kenya Airways! We imagine he picked the most obscure airline he could, thinking this resume claim would never get back to them nor would anyone be able to find out to the contrary. Apparently, he's not aware of this thing called the Internet.

We're no longer disgusted by Steven Frischling, but we are disgusted with Randy Petersen at BoardingArea.com, who continues to employ him at the expense of his own credibility in the industry.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Did Frischling Rip Off TSA Directive from Fellow Blogger?

Steven Frischling's biggest claim to fame as a blogger is posting a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) directive on his blog on Dec. 27, 2009, before it the agency released it. The directive, drafted a few days after the "underwear bomber" incident, contained new security procedures and rules. It made the news when TSA agents showed up at Frischling's house two days later trying to ascertain where he got it.

While we believe Frischling is much more famous for other things, he loves this particular story. He repeatedly references posting the directive as evidence of his street cred, and brags to the world that he "was the lead on the national news at one point." But something about this whole thing is "fishy" to us.

If you recall the story, there were actually two bloggers who had TSA agents show up at their doors on Dec. 29, 2009: Frischling in Connecticut and Christopher Elliot in Florida. Both Elliot and Frischling posted the directive and both said they received the document from an anonymous source at TSA. Let's take a look at this story from what we were able to piece together:

On Dec. 29, agents show up at Elliot's place first, and when they are gone he promptly calls Frischling around 6:30 p.m. to warn him. Frischling, according to his blog, hangs up with Elliot and looks out his window to see agents pulling up in front of his house. They come in with a subpoena demanding to know who at TSA had leaked the document.

According to Frischling's blog, the agents were there for more than two hours. So we can assume they left probably before 9 p.m.

Frischling later posts this blog describing the whole incident. He describes it in great detail, and says that when the agents left, they told him they would probably return the next morning. He then goes on to discuss the entire situation.

We never would have thought much about it at all if we hadn't stumbled upon this blog post from Jan. 2 from a website called Tnooz - "Did TSA ghost-write @FlyingWithFish tweet? Twitter coercion?"

The key issue here is that on Dec. 29, Frischling sent the following bizarre Tweet:

It appears it was sent at 7:05 p.m., which means the agents were there when he sent it. However, according to Dennis Schaal who wrote that article, Frischling later said that his Blackberry was set to Pacific Standard Time, meaning it was sent at 10:05 p.m.

Then, the very day the blog post above showed up, Frischling puts on Twitter (according to Schaal):

"The TSA Special Agents arrived before 7:00pm [on Dec. 29], left around 9:00pm, returned around 10:00pm for a while."

Huh? This was not described at all in his very detailed blog post in the early hours of Dec. 30. While there is no timestamp on that post, we can gauge when this blog was posted by when the first comments showed up - which was at 1:30 a.m. CST (3:30 a.m. EST). Why would they leave at 9 p.m., tell him they were coming back the next morning and then show up again an hour later to stay "for awhile" - this seems strange even for a strange experience. Did they miss Frischling's enjoyable company? Did they want to make sure he was tucked in? That doesn't make sense.

And if it really happened, why did he not mention it in his blog post? That is a very significant detail, to have government agents show up at your house not once but twice in the same night, and as late as 10 p.m. when they said they would be back the next day! For sure you would mention that, don't you think? And how very coincidental that he would suddenly recall this second government visit after criticism of the bizarre tweet.

We don't know the identity of the anonymous source who told Schaal that the agents "coerced" Frischling into sending that Tweet, but this whole thing stinks like rotten fish.

The burning question and the whole reason we are writing this post: Why would Frischling need to go on Twitter ask his "anonymous source" to please contact him? He would have the person's email address since he or she sent him the document. (We assume it was sent via email and not via carrier pigeon.) Therefore, all he had to do is hit REPLY and ask the person whatever it was he needed to know. Even if it was sent anonymously from a Yahoo or Hotmail email address, the address is still there.

The only way Frischling could say he did not have the email address is if he purposely deleted the email containing the document. And that notion is literally unbelievable. There is not a credible journalist on this planet who would delete the email address of an anonymous, whistle-blowing government source who had sent them a security directive. Even if, and this is a big if, he had deleted the email out of fear the government might take his computer, a sane person would have written it down somewhere, so at least he still had the address for later. There is no conceivable reason he would need to ask the person to contact him, except this was a show for the TSA and for everyone.

But we'll get back to this, because let's continue with the next day. They show up the next day to ask or demand access to his computer, even though they had no search warrant. It's unsure if they also showed up again at Christopher Elliot's house, but if not, we will assume they made similar demands on him at some point.

The facts are this: Steven Frischling, evidently a giant coward, promptly handed over his laptop to the government agents, immediately jeopardizing the identity of his anonymous source. Christopher Elliot, evidently a standup guy protecting his anonymous source and his own constitutional rights, refused to give his computer or any privileged information to the TSA agents.

Frischling, when rightly criticized for voluntarily giving up his laptop, claimed he was intimidated by the big scary government guys because his children were there. However, Elliot's children were also in his own house at the time. Additionally, we don't understand how this weak argument justifies him potentially revealing an anonymous source to the government. Did the agents have guns to the children's heads? Did Mulder, Scully and the Smoking Man show up and threaten to abduct the children for alien cloning? Like everything else Frischling says, this makes no sense.

Frischling posted on his blog that the computer did not contain the email address of the person who sent it to him. However, even if he had deleted the email or the document, there could still be traces of it on his computer that forensic experts could extract. Experts can often restore deleted files, so long as the hard drive has not completely been rewritten.

However, we assert that the real reason that Frischling did not have the email of the person who sent him the document is because nobody sent it to him. He saw it on Christopher Elliot's blog, promptly copied and pasted it into his own blog, and acted as though he also had an inside source. Only the person who sent it to Elliot would know he or she did not also send it to Frischling, and that source is obviously not going to reveal his or herself and get fired in order to expose a hack like Steven Frischling.

Another giveaway: the time the blogs were posted. We asked around the industry, and were told that indeed Elliot posted the directive first. But how long before Frischling posted it? Let's look at the available evidence. Again, the timestamps do not show up, so we have to look at when the first comments showed up. We can assume, that in both instances, the first people to comment were among the first people to read the respective blogs.

Elliot's blog post, "TSA Security Directive SD-1544-09-06 : The Fallout From NW253," received its first comment at 5:47 pm EST.

Frischling's post, "TSA Security Directive SD-1544-09-06 : The Fallout From NW253," received its first comment at 6:34 pm EST/5:34 pm CST. That's 47 minutes after Elliot's first comment.

How do we know which blog is set to Central Time and which blog set to Eastern Time? We checked it, depositing similar phony comments on both blogs within minutes of each other. Check out our test comments from "Mark" left shortly after 2:30 p.m. EST/1:30 p.m.:

On Elliot's blog:

And on Frischling's blog (he apparently couldn't read our sarcasm, as he approved the comment):

Notice that the time stamp is different - Frischling's blog is set to CST, most likely because BoardingArea.com is run out of Colorado. Elliot's is set to EST, one hour earlier than CST, which again makes sense as it's probably hosted by someone near him on the East Coast. (Feel free to test this yourself.)

OK, so we have some circumstantial evidence that Frischling's post appeared around an hour or so after Elliot's post. Maybe Elliot posted his right away and Frischling didn't. Maybe Frischling was in a meeting or something and didn't see the email right away. Maybe he was flying to 47 countries in 47 minutes. Whatever the delay, on the surface it seems feasible that the TSA source sent it to both bloggers and that's why they published it nearly at the same time.

Except there's one large snag in that theory. Check out what Elliot wrote in that blog post, before the text of the directive:

"Since the government has been unresponsive to my requests to clarify its new security measures, I thought it would be best to publish the security directive in its entirety."

This would indicate Elliot had the document for some time before he released it. Notice he refers to "requests," plural. We would guess that, before he gave up and posted it, he allowed the government at least all day if not a full 24 hours to finally get back to him with a comment.

In contrast, in Frischling's "Feds at My Door" post, this is how he described his own three-step professional process:

"I received it, I read it, I posted it."

Received it, read it, posted it. No step there for checking its authenticity. No mention of contacting TSA or anyone for a response. Received, read, posted.

If that were really the case, and the same anonymous source sent both of them the document, why did Frischling's blog post on the directive show up only after Elliot posted it? That really doesn't make sense, if what Frischling says is true and what Elliot says is true. Either Frischling is lying or Elliot is lying. (Or it's possible they are both telling the truth but only if Elliot gave the government 29 seconds to respond to him, which we doubt.)

One of them is not telling the truth here. Who should we believe? Let us review their respective credibility:

Christopher Elliot has been blogging since 1996 (yes, 1996). According to his website, he holds a degree in humanities from the University of California at Irvine, and a masters in journalism from U.C. Berkeley. He was a Fulbright scholar and completed seven internships, including at the Los Angeles Times, The Dallas Morning News and Reuters. He is a long-term contributor to many notable publications, and is the ombudsman for National Geographic Traveler. Christopher Elliot is a fairly common name, but we are going to go out on a limb and assume he has not been the target of multiple lawsuits for fraud. As far as we know, he does not forge references from former coworkers nor has he been accused of fabricating quotes. He does not brag about himself at every opportunity, and he does not bash his clients online. (If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to contact us.)

On the other hand, Steven Frischling may possibly have a high school diploma or GED. He has no education in journalism or aviation. He was such as a disaster as a wedding photographer that he has been sued for fraud in multiple states. He apparently was so awful as a sports photographer that he needed to forge a positive reference from a former coworker. He has no long-term work references, and was fired from a blogging gig at KLM after three weeks. He is suspected of fabricating quotes from non-existent sources. He brags about himself at every opportunity, and he bashes his clients online.

So what do we think happened? Shortly after Elliot posted the directive, Frischling saw it. Jealous that Elliot had this great scoop and seeing an opportunity to claim some of that glory for himself, he quickly wrote his own intro, copied the directive from Elliot's blog and pasted into his own blog post. That is the only scenario that makes sense.

Unfortunately there is no proof that Frischling ripped off the directive from Elliot, but there is no proof he received it from any source either. We wish Elliot had buried a copyright trap in the form of a superfluous comma hidden in the text, but we would guess he is too ethical to modify the directive even in such an insignificant way.

But given the circumstantial evidence, including Frischling's odd tweet indicating he did not have the person's email address, the coincidental timing of the posts, but most of all Frischling's complete and total lack of ethics, are strongly suggestive that he did rip it off from Elliot.

And we wonder if Elliot thinks the same.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Frischling Lies Again in Attack on Nursing Home!

This is just pathetic.

Steven Frischling has taken to bashing one of his "clients" online. For the past few days on Twitter, he has been ranting about some client who is screwing him over, saying the client claimed it ran out of money, etc. That is unprofessional enough from anyone, much less from a guy who sells himself as a "social media" consultant.

But check out what the nimrod put on Facebook today:

Not only does he accuse the CEO of lying to him and mismanaging funds, he includes a link to the site, publicly identifying the company! That's a slam-dunk case of libel.

It's not even some airline but is a local nursing home. Who knows what he was supposed to do for them, but maybe it involved some kind of web design or updating their web content.

We can guess that whatever he was supposed to do, he didn't do it, because of his prior commitment to reply to every message on Twitter. And guess what, now they don't want to pay him. Outrageous!

Not only he is bashing the client, he is lying AGAIN, spinning another preposterous tale. This is classic Steven.

Although he at first implies the company won't pay him because they ran out of money (possibly because of so many new company cars), then he claims the "real" reason is because they haven't "transferred" the domain name. He says the CEO's sister is listed as the administrative contact.

Well look what we discovered in two seconds - http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/carecoshoreline.com

The administrative contact for this site is a woman named Ingrid Krampe. Who is Ingrid Krampe? It took us another two seconds to find this article on Careco Shoreline from March:

"The Waterford-based company also announced that Ingrid S. Krampe was named its new marketing and advertising executive. Krampe is the former group editor-in-chief of Studio Photography & Design and Digital Imaging magazines. She also was senior editor of Professional Photography magazine and has extensive experience in the digital-imaging field."

Not only is Ingrid Krampe in charge of marketing for Careco Shoreline, she used to work at photography magazines! She, most likely, is Frischling's longtime contact who got him the job.

We're no longer surprised at Frischling's lies, but we do continue to be shocked at his publicly plastering the Internet with these fabrications to gain sympathy for himself. He is so arrogant/idiotic he does not believe anyone will bother to check what he says.

Possibly the most disgusting part of all is that he is trying to gain public sympathy by saying these people at Careco "stole the holiday spirit" from his poor children! (We wouldn't be shocked if this was thrown in as a ploy to get people to send him money.)

We don't know what else to say except that if anyone out there is a web specialist with some free time, we know of a company that needs professional help, stat.

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Is BoardingArea.com losing its vision?

Randy Petersen owns BoardingArea.com, which hosts Steven Frischling's blog.

Many are confused as to why Randy allows Frischling to stay on BoardingArea after all this damning evidence has surfaced, in which Frischling has been accused of/exposed as a liar, a fraud and a fabricator of sources.

Randy seems like a nice enough fellow. His Twitter profile says he is, "Known as the frequent flyer guru: I can see for miles and miles and miles ..."

If Randy can see for miles and miles, why can't he see the dangers of being associated with Steven Frischling? More things are going to come out about him, and Randy's own credibility is going to be severely compromised. People are going to ask, "If Randy Petersen knew Frischling was of questionable character, why did he continue to showcase his blog on BoardingArea.com?"

We emailed Randy a couple times with the facts of what was going on. No answer. Finally we got a response on Twitter:

Really. BoardingArea.com has the same standards as Google's Blogspot? Nothing more he can think of? Let's list the strict criteria required to start our blog here: an email address and an Internet connection.

Is this the criteria to get a blog featured on BoardingArea? Well Randy, we absolutely would love to be one of your bloggers!

Here's our bio for BoardingArea.com: "FishFraud is a globe-hopping professional blogger who has racked up more than 500 billion miles since he started keeping track this morning. FishFraud's travel tends to be less than leisurely, including the time he flew to the moon and back in six minutes, or the time he pulled a jet filled with orphans and kittens across three states using only his teeth. FishFraud lives on Sesame Street, 102 yards from the Snuffleupagus Methadone Clinic."

We assume you won't ask for verification for any of our claims, considering you didn't factcheck or even spellcheck Frischling's bio (and ours is less ridiculous). At least ours has correct punctuation and no typos. (Please add that to the end of our bio as another one of our many accomplishments.)

However, contrary to Randy's assertion that anyone with a pulse can have a blog on BoardingArea, check this out:

The business travel blogs you will find on BoardingArea are the best of the best, the cream of the crop, the cat's meow ... you get the idea. Each blog in the BoardingArea network has been hand selected by our team for its quality of content, its timeliness, and, last but not least, for its entertainment value.

Interesting. So, according to a paragraph above Randy's own signature, the BoardingArea blogs are "hand selected" very carefully. Clearly the BoardingArea "team" certainly has not done a good job vetting any of their bloggers for credibility. We don't know why they considered Steven Frischling to be a business blogger in the first place. He is a self-admitted utter failure in his own photography business. His work was apparently so poor as a contractor that he was forced to forge a letter of reference from a coworker, hilariously misspelling the poor guy's name.

Randy says he can't think of any other reason he hosts Flying with Fish outside of Frischling's impressive criteria of having an email address and Internet connection. Well, we can think of a reason.

Could it be that Randy makes money off of Steven Frischling?

From a 2008 New York Times article:

Mr. Petersen says he will pay the nine bloggers to "consistently blog news and information." He is also helping them sell what he calls sponsorships and is sharing revenue with the bloggers.

Hmm, the business model for BoardingArea is unclear. Some of the blogs don't appear to have any ads on or corporate sponsors. However, at least two of the blogs, PointsWizard and LoyaltyTraveler, are full of ads and promotional corporate content. The money he could be making off these likely is directly tied to the traffic to his site.

So when Steven's latest blog is full of, let's say, sexually salacious quotes he claims TSA agents told him, BoardingArea.com is going to get a huge spike in traffic from the general population, media and those with Google News searches for keyword "penis."

Could this increased traffic he brings be Randy's reason for not disassociating himself from Mr. Frischling? That is the only thing that makes sense.

The amount of damming material that we have uncovered in the past week alone suggests that Frischling is an extremely dishonest individual who cannot be trusted. But Randy Petersen is choosing to look away.

Miles and miles in the other direction.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Frischling Refuses Verification of 'Anonymous' Sources by Huff Post

Fraudulent blogger Steven Frischling wrote an entire blog post dedicated to us and just flushed his sorry career down the toilet! (He apparently wanted our traffic to spike as well - thanks for bringing us new readers!)

Before we get to the point by point we were writing, we need to discuss our astonishment at the update he just added. "The Huffington Post," which yanked the article reporting on his fabricated quotes from 17 TSA agents, asked to verify his sources. He refused:

This is essentially the smoking gun that he is lying. These people do not exist and he fabricated them all.

Do not fall for his supposed journalist credo that he will not reveal his sources because he swore he would protect their identities. Having an anonymous source's authenticity verified by a professional editor is not "revealing" anything. In journalism, it is standard practice to have an editor verify the existence of an anonymous source. Until we came along, Frischling didn't know that because he has no education and no real professional experience as a journalist. He thought he'd never get caught.

Further, when we first began challenging him on the suspicious quotes -- and informed him verification is standard journalistic practice -- look at how he responded!

"Perfectly fine journalistic thing to do?" Yet three days later, when someone actually wants to review the quotes and is ready to show up on his doorstep and take a look at them in his inbox, he hides behind "protecting" sources? What does that tell you?

He is not concerned about protecting anyone but himself. The only thing he would be revealing is that these 17 agents don't exist.

Smoking gun: Frischling kills his own "career"
Considering his track record of dishonesty in business, forgery when its suits him, that all the quotes sound oddly similar and do not seem authentic on their surface, the only way he could save himself was by getting those quotes independently authenticated. He could have shut us down by letting the editor review them (if they were real). And he refused, not because he has wonderful ethics, but because he had no choice in the matter. The emails and their authors don't exist, except in his head.

Well, after the way he just torpedoed his "career" and his last shred of credibility, it's not really necessary to continue tearing him apart. But since we already wrote it, here it is!

Re: dedicating an entire post to us: This is extremely unprofessional (so we're not surprised). No legitimate journalist would do such a stupid thing. Why not? A honest journalist, if faced with such an assault upon his or her credibility, immediately would attempt to take us to court for libel/defamation of character. But Steven has not even made a peep about threatening us with a libel suit, for three reasons: 1) He doesn't have two nickels to rub together to hire an attorney, get the warrants needed to track us down and take us to court 2) he knows that everything we've said is true, and truth is an absolute defense against libel and 3) we know a whole lot more than we're posting here. And he knows we know.

First, regarding our accusation that he invented his hospital heroics, he produced a blurry photo of two segments of a supposed discharge paper. First, the paper does not look particularly authentic, has no hospital logo and of course has no doctor's signature. Second, with all his supposed fantastic photo equipment, why couldn't he take a decent picture of it? Because it's forged? Third, who the hell cares? Even if he could prove that he was in the hospital, we call BS on his claim that he yanked his own IV and walked (a story he's been circulating for years).

And continuing point No. 3, if he really made up that story, that is hardly the worst thing we accused him of. Why did he not respond to our post reporting how he forged a personal reference from a former coworker? That is seriously damaging. Oh wait, he's too busy tweeting about donuts to respond to that one.

Then he briefly and vaguely explained why he stopped blogging for KLM after only three weeks, in response to our accusations that he did something wrong to warrant being fired from the gig. He writes, "When my contract for this project was up, I ended it in a way that was agreed upon between myself and KLM." What does that even mean?

Then he goes on to "admit" he was a bad wedding photographer, only because he's up against a wall here and there is no point in trying to deny this. There are court cases on the books, and complaints all over the web from dozens of pissed-off couples he defrauded. Yes, he defrauded them. He did not "do a bad job" by turning their photos in late. He took their money, never gave them their photos and tried to cut off contact with them. To this day! Why do you think they are so furious? Was it because his photos arrived a day late? They didn't like the lighting? No, it's because they never got their wedding prints and albums for which they paid him thousands of dollars. Put yourselves in their shoes for a moment. Now imagine how disgusted they were when he claimed he had cancer, only to discover from his own blog that he was really out shooting other weddings.

It is odd that Steven is doing a mea culpa now on his train wreck of a photography career and saying he has admitted this all over the place. In actuality, only a few days ago he was claiming these women were basically bridezillas, that there were only three of them and that they even stole another person's name and used it to post a false review (which is what he actually did with unsuspecting Seth Gerard!). He also claimed there were "real" reviews that we ignored (which as we pointed out, he wrote himself) and that he "proved" a review wrong:

Look at the date -

Yet now he's pleading that he was just a bad business man. Please read the following letter from one of those brides, who felt the need to publicly respond after seeing his "so what" blog post today. Notice that he even blocked her on Twitter recently so this poor woman could not contact him there to beg for her wedding photos: My comment to Steven Frischling @flyingwithfish

This behavior and dishonesty was not 10 or 20 years ago. It was not something he did as a kid before maturing. He continues to lie even today.

Frischling claims that his documented history of dishonesty, outright fraud and forgery has no bearing on his new role as an independent "journalist" who uses anonymous sources that he refuses to let anyone verify.

We disagree.

Furthermore, we wonder how the other bloggers at BoardingArea.com feel about having their blogs listed alongside his? Can any idiot get a blog on BoardingArea?

Monday, December 06, 2010

Frischling misspells name in forged reference

What an absolute moron. This guy's combination of stupidity and arrogance astonishes even us.

The back story: When dozens of pissed off (defrauded) brides and grooms began ripping Frischling apart on business review site Yelp, he responded by immediately spamming the site with fake, positive reviews of his own. Everyone knew he was creating them himself, but there was no proof. Even today he points to these references as valid, complaining that this blog compiles the negative reviews while "leaving out" the many good ones! (We're so mean.)

Well, we took a closer look at these and guess what? Not only did he invent fake people, he forged a review from a very real person he actually worked with.

Steven, if you are a legitimate, credible person with a solid work history, why would you need to do something so disgusting?

Check out this glowing review:

On the surface it seems legitimate, right? One very large problem. Seth's last name is Gerard, not Girard.

Seth Gerard left the University of Massachusetts in 2007 to become assistant sports information director at Georgia Tech. His email is listed in the university's directory - anyone can contact him and ask if he wrote this review and truly recommends Steven Frischling. (We are guessing he would not.)

We imagine that as soon as Gerard discovers this, he will quickly contact Yelp to get the review deleted. (To see it for yourself, click here and scroll down to "Filtered reviews," enter the CAPTCHA and then get to page 2 or 3. By the way, filtered reviews are there because most likely they are the person's first and only review and thus suspicious, although Frischling campaigned to Yelp to get dozens of legitimate reviews deleted/filtered.)

Other reviews are suspicious too. Simple Google searches tell us these people/companies don't exist.

Whirllie? This doesn't even seem like a real name. A people search reveals there are zero people named "Whirllie" in the United States. No luck with international searches either. The closest spelling we can think of would be Werle.

Another one that seems legitimate, right? Wow, an international reference! But we can't find any trace at all of a company, conglomerate, firm, etc called "OPRI." Can you?

Another one we can't locate. Perhaps "Renew Marketing" specializes in marketing Amish barn raisings and thus has no website or digital trace.

Not only are these people unverifiable, all the reviews are written in the same exact style - just like the comments from the supposed "17 TSA agents."

Steven Frischling has no problem lying and fabricating people when it suits him. And yet he feigns shock when we suggest he might be fabricating quotes from his "anonymous" sources. Steven Frischling is a person with zero creditability.

If you believe the "anonymous" quotes he compiles on his blog, we have a wonderful bridge to sell you!

Saturday, December 04, 2010

The bullshit hospital story Frischling refuses to confirm

In addition to "reporting" on his travel blog, Frischling loves to blab bizarro stories to anyone who will listen! While nobody has time to wade through his nearly 36,000 inane Tweets (by the frequency of his tweets, he's not working or even traveling all that much), we only had to scroll back a few days to find this laughable series of updates that he claims he was sending from a hospital's "critical care unit" on Thanksgiving 2010.

As we've been informed, his bragging that he removed his own IV and left is an old story he's told many different people for years! He specifically uses the phrase, "remove my own IV and walk out," three separate times, which suggests he's fixated on that imagery. We suppose he's fascinated with the idea because he thinks it's something a George Clooney-esque action hero would pull on screen, while in real life, only a sociopath would do such a thing. (We can assume the hospital he was "stuck" in was not burning to the ground.)

Obviously this tale of intravenous bravery didn't bring him instant worldwide fame the first few times around, so he decided to rebroadcast it to get attention on Twitter during a slow day (possibly to offset the sad reality that he had nowhere to be that day).

Well, we immediately called bullshit on this pile of fish crap and asked him to tell us which hospital he was in. We informed him the whole world would be able to call and check on his condition and confirm he indeed was "treated and released." Naturally this freaked him out. He refuses to answer nor even acknowledge we've asked this question.

It's not that he's ignoring us on Twitter. For the past week he responds to us repeatedly and continues to make claims about his journalistic integrity and how he's the Scoop McGee of airline travel, etc. He insists he never made up a single quote and that all his supposed anonymous sources are real.

We're fairly surprised as we figured he would make up some kind of ridiculous excuse, like that he checked in under an alias so he could do a secret photo essay, or that the hospital was in Mali and can only communicate via the coconut telegraph, but he's too freaked out. You would think that with all the damage this blog is doing, he would take 5 seconds to discredit us in any way. The fact of the matter is he can't, because this whole thing never happened.

By the way we've also asked him to confirm where he was licensed or even trained as an Emergency Medical Technician as he's claimed, but he also refuses because, again, this is something that can be confirmed fairly easily. (Busted again).

But the hospital story is so ludicrous we felt we must capture it and post it here in all its absurdity. Keep in mind he also claimed his condition was so severe that he had to be in the "Critical Care Unit" and even intubated, yet was extremely vague about what exactly was wrong with him. Please note that we had to cut out the DOZENS of OTHER tweets he was sending out that had nothing to do with his fictional health crisis.

So Steven Frischling, please tell your audience in which hospital on which planet the following heroics happened on Nov. 26, 2010?

(Tweets cut and rearranged so they can be read in chronological order):

We're so confused. What exactly is an "ER issue?" What could be wrong that he was intubated and sent to "critical care," yet released basically immediately? Why would a rabbi have his discharge papers? Why wouldn't a nurse just take his stupid IV out so he could get dressed and ready to leave? Considering he refuses to tell anyone where this happened, what brand of idiot would ever believe this happened at all?

Argh!! I hate when I go to the hospital for a simple ER issue and they intubate me so I don't die and I have to stay all night and all the next day after two procedures and hooked up to an IV and on pain medication while the wifi kicks me out every 10 minutes, and I'm stuck there because the hospital lost my discharge papers until finally after five hours the rabbi who was searching for the foreign dignitary stumbles on my discharge papers but the doctor forgot to sign them!  Argh don't you hate that when that happens, especially on Thanksgiving?

Friday, December 03, 2010

Huffington Post Yanks Frischling Article!

Hooray Huff Post! An article using Steven Frischling as a source has been removed!

The article "TSA Agents Respond To Pat-Down Anger (PHOTOS, POLL)" originally appeared Nov. 22, 2010. Written by travel editor Kate Auletta, the article requoted 17 supposed TSA agents who Frischling claimed on his blog he had interviewed.

The article now reads: "Editor's Note: We have removed the quotes following questions about the veracity of the source who claims to have collected them." 

The Nov. 18 blog entry ("TSA Enhanced Pat Downs : The Screeners Point Of View") brought Steven a lot of attention because of the sensationalist comments from the supposed TSA agents, who are, conveniently, anonymous.

Frischling assumed he would get away with using anonymous sources forever. This is win-win for him. Not only can he make these sources say whatever he wants, it's impossible for anyone to verify their existence. But the dramatic quotes just scream "Steven wrote this" all over them. Not only are they ALL written in the same EXACT linguistic style, they just don't seem... authentic. Here are a few - what do you think?

"Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me, said in my presence as I patted passengers down. These comments are painful and demoralizing, one day is bad enough, but I have to come back tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to keep hearing these comments. If something doesn't change in the next two weeks I don't know how much longer I can withstand this taunting. I go home and I cry. I am serving my country, I should not have to go home and cry after a day of honorably serving my country."

Idiot blogger Steven Frischling: U.S. soldier's feelings critically wounded by mean comments from airline passengers!
"I served a tour in Afghanistan followed by a tour in Iraq. I have been hardened by war and in the past week I am slowly being broken by the constant diatribe of hateful comments being lobbed at me. While many just see a uniform with gloves feeling them for concealed items I am a person, I am a person who has feelings. I am a person who has served this country. I am a person who wants to continue serving his country. The constant run of hateful comments while I perform my job will break me down faster and harder than anything I encountered while in combat in the Army."

"Do people know what a Nazi is? One can't describe me as a Nazi because I am following a security procedure of designed to find prohibited items on a passenger's body. A Nazi is someone with hatred and ignorance in their hearts, a person who carried out actions of execution and extermination of those based on their religion, origins or sexual preferences.  I work to make travel safer, even if I do not agree with the current security procedures. Further more, I am Jewish and a TSA Transportation Security Officer, an American Patriot and to call me a Nazi is an offense beyond all other offenses."

"Yesterday a passenger told me to keep my hands off his penis or he'd scream. Is this how a 40 year old man in business attire acts? He'll scream? My 3 year old can get away with saying he'll scream, but a 40 something business man? I am a professional doing my job, whether I agree with this current policy or not, I am doing my job.  I do not want to be here all day touching penises."

"Being a TSO means often being verbally abused, you let the comments roll off and check the next person, however when a woman refuses the scanner then comes to me and tells me that she feels like I am molesting her, that is beyond verbal abuse.  I asked the woman if she thought I like touching other women all day and she told me that I probably did or I wouldn't be with the TSA. I just want to tell these people that I feel disgusted feeling other peoples private parts, but I cannot because I am a professional."

"I was asked by some guy if I got excited touching scrotums at the airport and if it gave me a power thrill. I felt like vomiting when he asked that. This is not a turn on for me to touch me it is in fact a huge turn off. There is a big difference between how I pat passengers down and a molester molesting people."

It's unknown if The Huffington Post took down the article only temporarily while its editors try to verify any of these sources exist. This would easily be possible. Steven could share the emails with them, and they could verify the different IP addresses and that the email addresses were genuine (and not all from free mail services like Yahoo, Gmail, etc). Or, if he claims he interviewed them over the phone (which seems far-fetched, as the language reflects written English instead of spoken English), he could share his tapes with them. This would not be the same as "outing" a confidential source, but is standard journalistic practice. (If Steven worked for a legitimate publication and cited anonymous sources, he would have to do the same thing with his editor.)

More likely, the Huffington Post realized it been had and the article is gone for good. Thank you.

Dec. 7 Update: The Huffington Post travel editor contacted Steven Frischling to ask if she could independently verify the quotes, and he refused, despite an earlier statement he had no problem with anyone verifying them. Click for more info.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Frischling caught in another lie on Twitter.... when will it end?

Frischling caught in another lie! Oh what a tangled web we weave!

When we began posting about all the complaints and lawsuits against Steven Frischling, the failed wedding photographer turned phony travel blogger, he starting telling everyone he stopped shooting weddings in 2007. He claimed this at least three times:

However, that's another outright lie!

We knew 2007 didn't sound right after reading more recent complaints online. From his own old blog, here's one well into 2008!


We've taken a screenshot of this too in case he quickly deletes this. And anyway if so you should be able to find it in archive.org or Google cache.

Plus, this very wedding in March 2008 was what spawned the "open letter to Steven Frischling" plead from the crushed bride who never, probably to this day, received the photos she paid him for.

You would think that you would remember something as significant as the year you closed your own business. But as usual he is lying and doing a shitty job at it.

Funny today he accused of us of doing a poor job of fact checking. He should do a quick fact check on his own lies, though it's a lot to ask of him to keep all his stories straight....

UPDATE: Frischling responded to this entry on Twitter saying  basically oh yeah it was 2008 and he mixed up the date. Essentially, he could not keep denying he was shooting weddings in 2008 because we'd already proved he did. We call bullshit that he mixed up the date - how could you not remember the year you shut down your extremely troubled business, when it was only two years ago? And you recalled this wrong date on three separate occasions over two days?

Instead, he remembers, he was just trying to make it seem a lot longer ago than it was to distance himself from what he's done. He wants his Twitter audience to think it was a long time ago, so they buy his claim that it doesn't even matter now.

Why does he keep responding to us on Twitter on these minor things, but won't answer our simple "truth challenges" we posed repeatedly? He could totally discredit us if he just responded and confirmed these stories! But he won't because he's can't offer us any evidence that confirm these specific stories. This fish is caught in a net of his lies.

We've also challenged him to respond to Jeremy who left a comment below. No answer.

See our answer to Jeremy and our pop psychology analysis of what the F is wrong with Steven Frischling.

The weird, brief blog at KLM

We got an email suggesting we check out Steven's brief blog at blog.klm.com. We'd already found it in a Google search but didn't examine it closely because it seemed more of the same like his current blog - insipid and with obvious tips on the surface, full of bravado and extreme claims when you look closer, and truly bizarre when you stop to wonder what kind of person would write such weirdness.

But after going through the blogs, there were a few nuggets of hilarity that we can't help but highlight!

First, the entire blog lasted only three weeks. What happened? In his final post, he claims it was all a test run, but no other bloggers replaced him. And there was no mention of it being a trial when he first started blogging. It's like KLM just canceled any and all involvement with him and quickly dropped the idea of having a blog. Why they haven't deleted the whole thing, I'm not sure. Having a blogger for only three weeks is bizarre. After I started reading it though, I imagine KLM became uncomfortable with him or even suspicious of some of his stories. We're not surprised his one gig with a legitimate client lasted only not even a month.

Second, the whole stupid thing is a giant, immature suck up to KLM. There is not even a veiled attempt of pretending he's not kissing their ass. But yet he claims to have journalistic integrity! No true journalist would be associated with such a thing. In fact, the first few blogs were sheer, outright KLM promotion that probably they did not even ask of him. But Steven always lays the bullshit on thick.

- In his review of airline food, he says the donuts at KLM's lounge at their headquarters in Amsterdam are so amazing that he frequently flies out of his way to Amsterdam just to have them! Ask any business or professional traveler about this suggestion, and they would laugh you silly. While frequent travelers may enjoy being on the road, anyone with a life, family and friends, and real responsibilities is not going to needlessly lengthen their trip, at unnecessary cost to himself or his "employer," for some donuts. Only an unprofessional hack would try such a thing, but he claims he does it regularly!
- For Christmas he says he got what he had wanted all his life: a model KLM airplane!
- There was an entire post dedicated to KLM's luggage tags! This from a "travel analyst"?!
- One day he had nothing better to do than post this crap that even the shittiest advertising intern would laugh at:

"Traveling from Glasgow to Hong Kong for Chinese New Year? KLM can do that.

Flying from Cardiff to San Francisco to see the famous Fog over The Bay? KLM can do that.

Headed out from London to Rotterdam for a day out with the in-laws? KLM can do that."

Oh, the journalistic credibility!

As usual there were extreme stories and fantastic claims:

- "I was about to fly roughly 20,000 miles in less than 72hrs" are your eyes rolling too?
- "While packing my backpack up to catch my flight I did learn a few interesting things through this man’s loud mobile phone conversation.  I learned that this Englishman deals in foreign real-estate, I found out that this guy really hates his brother-in-law… and for some reason I managed to be informed that he has dermatologist appointment coming up for a growth of some sort on his right shoulder." Again, not really believable. Sounds like dialog a bad TV sitcom writer would dream up.
- "By checking in online airport thieves can have their boarding pass for a 9:00pm flight 24 hours before boarding the plane, and get through security when the security check point opens at 5:00am. The thieves spend their day people watching and using the underestimated art of observation. They are looking for body language, items out in the open, people who seem unfamiliar with security procedures and those who seem confused and easily distracted by dealing with all the procedures for crossing through security from the ‘public side’ to the ’sterile side’ of an airport. The “professional airport thief” has a subtle way of getting in line behind their target. You won’t know the thief is there until they are gone."

OK we're no expert fliers, but at every airport we've been to, we haven't been allowed through security if our flight is not within four hours.

"In the course of a day a skilled thief can go through security at an airport, such as Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) or  Paris’ Charles de Gaulle Int’l Airport (CDG), upwards of a dozen times."

WTF? Why would you need to be checking in and out of security if your big scheme was to get through it 16 hours before your flight? Wouldn't that make you more suspicious? What idiot besides Steven Frischling would think up such a scenario?

"If your bag is pulled for secondary screening (and mine are 90% of the time) be polite to the agent and NEVER act confused by this. If you act confused or become forgetful as a result of your bag being pulled for secondary screening you open yourself up to becoming a target again. This is a clear sign to the airport thieves that you are inexperienced and can easily be distracted."

This is so stupid it speaks for itself.
Oh and your bags are pulled 90 percent of the time? Unless you only fly Bogota-to-Miami or your first name is Osama, I can't imagine anybody's bags are pulled at that frequency.

Thirdly, if you've arrived 16 hours before your flight and have already one through security "upwards of a dozen times," what else can you do to pass the time? Why not sit in a corner like Steven Frischling, who brings professional drum sticks everywhere so he can pound on his bag to the voices in his head?

Steven never leaves home without it
"Drumming on my bag?  Just what it sounds like, I often pack a pair of drumsticks in my bag (I like Neil Peart Pro Mark 747s … no shock I use 747  sticks, eh?).   Drumsticks take up virtually no space, allow me to work off my energy and keep me entertained.   To prevent me from annoying those around me, I usually find a corner and use the back of my bag as my drum pad.   I find the back of most bags ideal because they are padded, the padding not only protects the contents of my bag throughout my stream of hits, flams, rudiments, fills and rim shots…but the padding also muffles the sounds of my drum sticks."

This is even stupider. What kind of moron over 8 years old would sit in the corner at the airport and drum on their bag without being high as a kite? I highly doubt he even owns drum sticks, yet this suits his vision of himself as some sort of rock star. But I doubt even Neal Peart himself would be caught doing something so idiotic.

(By the way, why is he still editing his stories on KLM? The latest story was edited on Friday, almost a year after it was written.)

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Faux blogger Steven Frischling brags he carries knives on planes all the time! HAH!

Steven in his dreams
Firstly, he has not responded to any of our challenges to verify very simple claims (big surprise), like the name of the hospital where on Thanksgiving he supposedly heroically removed his own IV and walked out. He claims on Twitter he addressed everything we said but in actuality did not address any of it. Check for yourself.

Secondly, he just bragged that he flies with a knife in his carry-on bag and so do thousands of others "on a regular basis" - highly dubious!!!!

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@fotodave Oh ... you can. Keep in mind I fly with a knife and so do thousands of other people on a regular basis in our carry on

What kind of moron would try to bring a knife on a plane these days? What purpose does this serve and why does "a travel strategist" need a knife anyway? You can bring one in your checked luggage. You cannot, repeat, cannot bring anything in your carry on beyond a plastic or maybe a butter knife on a plane. (Google "can you carry a knife on a plane" or see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5065786 or "Man charged with trying to bring knife onto plane"). If there is a way you can legally bring a knife in your carry on then please tell us how because every search we've found indicates you cannot. And, why does he claim there are "thousands" of other idiots even trying?

(And yes we've also made a screenshot of this tweet in case he tries to delete it.)

Update: FishTard obviously reads our blog as he responded on Twitter and pointed this article of his: http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/2010/02/12/travel-essentials-swisstech-utili-key/ about flying with a miniknife disguised as a key. 

First, we asked how someone can LEGALLY travel with a knife. In that blog he even admits it's not allowed, and several people comment that TSA is hip to that and confiscated theirs. If TSA is aware of this scam and checking keys for the Swisstech, this is further proof FishTick does not fly as frequently as he boasts. Especially after he bragged about it online (or maybe nobody at TSA reads his stupid blog because they know he's no frequent flier).

Secondly, why does Frischling refuse to answer our simple truth challenges? This entire blog is devoted to exposing him as a pathological liar. If he really wanted to discredit us, then he would take the two seconds to answer those simple questions whose answer ANYONE can easily verify. His silence is proof he's a phony.

We ask again: 
Where were you an EMT, as you said you were in 2007?
Which hospital's "Critical Care Unit" were you in on Thanksgiving, as you claimed on Twitter, where you supposedly removed your own IV and walked out?

Monday, November 29, 2010

Steven the lifesaving hero?! (BS challenge No. 3)

Didn't intend to blog so much but the funniest emails keep coming in with more tall tales. Check out this hilarious blog from a young/dumb photographer who had the amazing "opportunity" of spending the day with Steven in 2007.  She clearly buys everything he told her, which apparently included his tales of photographing for newspapers at age 11 on his bicycle and working as an an emergency medical technician (unsure if it this was also at age 11 and on a bike)!!!

She mentions "Steven's fearlessness as a former journalist (and EMT)..." (from Not So Still Life Photography blog)

So in addition to being a "globe trotting" award-winning photographer and fearless journalist, he's also a lifesaving EMT! He's practically a super hero! Holy stink, Fishman!

(Also hilarious are that the only comments on the blog over the past three years are from brides he defrauded and someone else who said he's a liar.)

So Steven, in which state were you an EMT? There is education, training, testing and certification required - they don't let just any idiot ride around on ambulances (which is why we're sure you never did).

Even if your imaginary EMT certification has expired, you would still be on record as once having a license. Which state was it? (More like, which planet?)

Fish challenge No. 3: We challenge you to tell us which state(s) you worked (or were certified) as an EMT.

Warning to national media regarding Steven Frischling

We contacted national media outlets to warn them about associating with Steven Frischling, including ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, NPR, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the LA Times, US News and World Report, Associated Press, and USA Today.

An edited version of our warning (leaving out sensitive information) is below:

Dear media,

I'd like to warn you that an individual who recently has been used as a news source on airline travel is a fabulist and fraud in the vein of Stephen Glass.

According to his various websites, Steven Frischling claims to be a "globe hopping professional photographer, airline emerging media consultant working with large global airlines" who has "racked up more than 1,000,000 miles since he started to track his mileage in 2005."

In reality, he is a failed photographer who has invented an online persona to seek attention and profit. He has been expelled from professional organizations for his behavior and has no long-term clients or references. I believe he has used his inflated resume to gain contracts with notable corporations and publications, but given further scrutiny, there is a suspicious lack of long-term credibility in his employment history.

I'm alarmed to see him being quoted by national media in several recent articles. I have no doubt that his recent claim to have "interviewed 20 TSA agents" is an exaggeration or pure fabrication.

DO NOT use this individual as a source UNLESS he can verify every detail he is "reporting" to you, by producing credible witnesses, receipts and credit card statements, audio tapes of interviews, etc.

While much of the blog (fishfraud.blogspot.com) serves to make fun of him, this notice is very serious. Please pass this information on to your reporters, and urge them to do background checks on ALL bloggers used as sources.

I wish to remain anonymous because he is a bizarre individual, and I do not want him to show up on my doorstep. However, you may contact me at fishfraud@yahoo.co.uk if you need additional information.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Does truth matter to you?

I want to point out a well-written blog by ValetNon, who brought up this Frischling fiasco in a post called "Is There In Truth No Beauty?"

ValetNon is interesting because he's probably the typical Fish follower: He doesn't know him personally, nor does he really care about him, but finds his comments on travel entertaining. It seems like ValetNon actually took the time to read all the stuff compiled here, and just doesn't really know what to think. In fact, he wrote that for all he knows, Steven Frischling could be running this blog himself for attention! While that was good for a laugh, it made it clear this guy is smart because he questions.

The reason people get duped is because they don't question. For most things, why would you? If you've never met a pathological liar, you don't know that such people exist. In your naivete, you assume people lie to get out of things or to steal; you don't know they lie simply to lie or to make themselves more interesting. When people tell you stories or say they've been to a certain place or met a certain person or tell you a story, you most likely take them at their word. And on the Internet, your interactions with people are so superficial that you really can't be bothered to do any fact checking.

In his blog, ValetNon writes:

"I am sitting on a red couch, typing this out on my laptop. The TV is on, but the sound is down. At the moment, a Mercedes commercial is on TV and CBS has just gone back to the Texans-Titans game. 

You can’t verify this, by the way. And, in the end, does it really matter what’s true?"

In this case, no, of course it doesn't matter. However, you are not posing as a photojournalist. Here would be the Steven Frischling-ized version of his day sitting on the couch:

"I shot back-to-back football games in two states one day, despite being sick with 103 temperature and earache that made me totally deaf!  These two guys got in a huge brawl and as they were being dragged out, I went in to get a wide-angle shot and got too close as usual. I ended up getting 16 stitches in my head. Man, I tell you, they just don't pay photogs enough these days to put up with what we do in the trenches" (followed by a long rant about safety or something)

If you read this online, you're going to sympathize and think wow what a story. And if you're a photographer, you're going to think, right on! But are you going to demand medical records to prove he got stitches? Ask to see travel receipts or itineraries to prove his two games in one day story? Ask to speak to witnesses? Of course not. Why would you not take him at his word? That's why Steven's audience is entirely online.

From the messages I'm receiving, Steven's not really as respected as he claims to be, but he does have a few thousands followers on Twitter who are ignorant of his issues. Apparently a lot of people in the travel industry think he's a joke/idiot.

The point is, he's passing himself off as a photojournalist. He apparently even is quoted in the media (most disturbing). He spins elaborate tales to seek fame, and most importantly, influence that he hopes will pay off in financial contracts. While his opinions may be genuine, the fact is the majority of what he claims to base his opinions on are pure fiction. 

If the truth doesn't matter to you, then by all means, Steven Frischling is the guy for you.

Public challenge to Steven Frischling: Prove you're not a fraud

@flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
For those asking about what is going on, read my last 40 tweets. I need to get back to work, since my TSA coverage hasn't been challenged

Yes we ARE challenging it. You make up almost everything. You live in a fantasy world of your own creation.

Our first two challenges:

1) You claim to have racked up more than 1 million miles. We challenge you to back that up with evidence.

2) You claim to have been in the Critical Care Unit of an unnamed hospital over Thanksgiving. You claimed you oh-so-bravely removed your own IV and left because they were taking too to find your "discharge papers." We challenge you to back that up with evidence. What was the name of the hospital?

Most likely you will refuse to produce evidence on grounds of personal privacy. If so, we will then challenge the people at Boarding Area, where your blog lives, and suggest they ask for their own proof to validate anything you have ever written.

I bet 99 percent of it can't be verified. Steven Frischling is the Stephen Glass of travel blogging: A seemingly charming guy who spins entertaining stories that seem valid on the surface, but are in reality, wild exaggerations or outright fabrications.

But even that comparison is unfair to Stephen Glass, who actually graduated from UPenn and was employed full-time at a prestigious publication. Steven Frischling never graduated from anything and his professional claim to fame is having an internet blog and a Twitter account (so prestigious).

UPDATE: Silence from Steven on this simple challenge to verify one recent Tweet, though he continues to Tweet about this blog every six minutes. Surely he would at least say the name of the hospital he claims he was in, but he won't because he fears anyone can call and find out he was never admitted and made the whole story up. Anyone can call a hospital and find out what someone's general condition is (eg critical, fair, treated and released) by providing first and last name. His silence proves he's a liar.

Steven's pathetic tweets #idiot

First, I have received several interesting emails that unfortunately can't be posted as of yet, as they deal with ongoing investigations against Steven Frischling. And they have nothing to do with his wedding photography fraud. This guy is in serious trouble.

But the main point of this post is to laugh at how Steven is trying to defend himself via Twitter and doing a terrible job at it. Let's take a look at it. (We've taken screenshots of everything in case he tries to delete the tweets later and claim he never said that.)

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
I think my hater is I think this is aviation security related.They mention weddings but attack my TSA coverage & a photo biz that isn't mine

Hah, we're not related to aviation security. But fortunately we now have the attention of some people in that industry, many of whom found you "fishy" to begin with.

Secondly, Shoreline Photography IS your photography business. How can you claim it's not when 1) You registered the domain name 2) it has an identical template to your own website at stevenfrischling.com 3) Who is this supposed award-winning photographer describing if not you, and if the photographer is so great, why isn't he named? and 3) some of the photos are of your own children. You are disgusting.

Would you like us to contact Connecticut's Secretary of State's office to determine exactly who is associated with Shoreline Photography?

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
Is it funny or sad that many of the comments quoted on the Fish-Hater blog are unnamed? Unnamed is easy ... since they can't be verified

That's why we're posting links to court cases, which can be verified. People have sued you for breach of contract. Additionally, we found these court cases because Connecticut and New York offer public searches available online for free. Vermont, Rhode Island etc don't offer this service. How many lawsuits against you are in their systems?

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@jbernie No, I am pretty sure nothing on that site related to airlines & security ... but that image they have violates my copyright

Our linking to a photo on your own site is your only legitimate complaint? How about we use this photo to represent your stank instead?

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@FishFraud The address listed for that web address is not one I live at ... and I left the WPJA in 2007. Nice detective work!

It's the same, identical address listed for your personal website. (Though it's definitely probable you were evicted since then!) And you left the WPJA? Or you were thrown out?

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@FishFraud Also leaves out the positive reviews on Yelp & that my positives come from more consistent users than the 30+ fake negatives

As noted repeatedly, the positive reviews on Yelp are suspicious and all come from accounts opened around the time of posting and most don't review anything else. (Signs you planted them.)

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@FishFraud wants to call me out that I did poorly in the wedding photo business & yes, I did.My work flow was flawed & caused major problems

You've done poorly in all your business endeavors. You have no long-term clients and have been unable to sustain consistent employment. Additionally, you've been ejected from professional organizations and sued for fraud.

You claim to be a professional, "globe trotting" photographer, yet you admit your "work flow was flawed & caused major problems." How professional can you be if you can't even shoot weddings? You have weeks or even months to turn the job around. What is so hard about it? What did you find so challenging? At the end, some people didn't even care if you made them the nice book you promised. They were simply begging for their raw images on CDs and they would have left you alone if they had gotten even that.

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@thewinchesterau This person leaves out all the positive reviews & cites one negative review area where I publicly proved the review wrong

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@thewinchesterau In the review I proved wrong,citing the bride's own blog, turned out someone else posted the review using the bride's name

This is so stupid. You never proved any review wrong, yet now you claim the review was posted unbeknownst to the actual bride, by someone posing as her? Do you think everyone is as stupid as you are?

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@thewinchesterau I had a disagreement with 3 brides who found each other on The Knot who created 30+ fake names for Yelp reviews

That is ridiculous. Who, looking at the evidence, would believe such a story? That a mere three unhappy brides would conspire to take down your professional reputation? I don't see these people conspiring to take down their caterer or the people who delivered their flowers. This is highly implausible.

The truth about your reviews on Yelp is exactly what it appears to be: heartbroken brides who are angry because they were defrauded by a con man who took their money and never delivered their photos. These reviews are backed up by the evidence in your court cases (including failures to appear on your part) and the solid F rating you have from the Better Business Bureau.

flyingwithfish Flying With Fish
@user47 Would you vote for me?I wouldn't! It's convenient those I sued were left out as were the positive reviews. Oh well

False. We included the links to the cases in which you brought suit, and noted they were dismissed. And stop mentioning the positive reviews because nobody buys them.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Steven Frischling DBA Shoreline Lifestyle

Beware, Steven is trying to still work as a photographer under at least one other business name. On the surface the business makes no mention of him, which makes sense since his reputation under his own infamous name is ruined.

"Shoreline Lifestyle Photography" (http://www.shorelinelifestyle.com) was supposedly created by Steven's wife, Susannah. Here is the description in the "About Us" section of the site. Glaringly absent is the name of this supposed fantastic, award-winning photographer she has an "exclusive" contract with:

"As a mother raising three small children along the Eastern Connecticut Shoreline I was unable to locally find the type of personal, and candid, photographs I was interested in for my family. Utilizing my years of experience working with professional photographers I created a plan to locally offer relaxed and personal lifestyle family photographs that are about my clients, their families and their personalities.

To achieve the highest level of photography standards, Shoreline Lifetyle Photography has an exclusive contract with a local Shoreline resident photographer to produce all the images for our clients. Our photographer has created every image you see in our photo galleries.

Shoreline Lifestyle Photography's exclusive contract photographer provides our clients with more than a decade-and-a-half of experience creating images for major international news outlets, Fortune 100 corporations, and has worked with private commission clients around the Globe. Our exclusive contract photographer's accolades include awards from The Associated Press, the National Press Photographers Association, the New England Press Association and the New York Press Association. His work has appeared in Life Magazine's Year in Pictures, Time Magazine's Year in Pictures, and Life Magazine's Annual Photo Album and has been ranked among the Top 35 Wedding Photojournalists in the world by the Wedding Photojournalists Association."

In typical Frischling fashion, most of the accolades are exaggerations or outright lies. Check http://www.wpja.com/wedding-photographers/connecticut-photojournalist.htm to see that Steven Frischling is not listed for Connecticut or any state for that matter. (Wouldn't he be listed if he were truly among the top 35 in the WORLD?)

To see who is behind Shoreline Lifestyle, simply look it up on network solutions:


   S.E. Frischling, LLC
   18 Atttawan Rd
   Niantic, Connecticut 06357
   United States

   Registered through: EpicDomains.com
      Created on: 28-May-09
      Expires on: 28-May-11
      Last Updated on: 21-May-10

   Administrative Contact:
      Frischling, Steven  steven@stevenfrischling.com
      S.E. Frischling, LLC
      18 Atttawan Rd
      Niantic, Connecticut 06357
      United States
      (413) 626-2369

   Technical Contact:
      Frischling, Steven  steven@stevenfrischling.com
      S.E. Frischling, LLC
      18 Atttawan Rd
      Niantic, Connecticut 06357
      United States
      (413) 626-2369

Identical registration to: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/TheTravelStrategist.com

   S.E. Frischling, LLC
   18 Atttawan Rd
   Niantic, Connecticut 06357
   United States

   Registered through: EpicDomains.com
      Created on: 13-Jun-08
      Expires on: 13-Jun-11
      Last Updated on: 14-Jun-10

   Administrative Contact:
      Frischling, Steven  steven@stevenfrischling.com
      S.E. Frischling, LLC
      18 Atttawan Rd
      Niantic, Connecticut 06357
      United States
      (413) 626-2369

   Technical Contact:
      Frischling, Steven  steven@stevenfrischling.com
      S.E. Frischling, LLC
      18 Atttawan Rd
      Niantic, Connecticut 06357
      United States
      (413) 626-2369

Steven Frischling's sad attempts to defend his behavior! LOL!

One of Steven's wedding victims just pointed me to the following blog exchange. It's pretty hilarious actually, as Steven attempts to defend himself against the facts, specifically the solid F rating he has from the Better Business Bureau. He basically says the only mistake he made was not weeding out the demanding brides. He claims that everything will soon be cleared up in his favor, and then starts claiming he had cancer. Yet a year or so later, nothing has been cleared up. Instead he no longer pretends to be photographer and now pretends to be a "travel strategist."

Taken from: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7553278593406733377&postID=6417193555303801040

(Our comments in red)

Blogger flyingfish said...
John, It is interesting that you bring this up. For the past few weeks I have been working on clearing up Yelp.com and the BBB. I fully agree with you about maintaining and following up on your online reputation. Yelp.com has actually been quite helpful and should be removing all the information shortly. I have provided documentation to them regarding the complaints, and they have initially agreed that the complaints are factually incorrect. The problem in some ways with the internet is the anonymity. Yelp.com contains a complaint from a bride who ran out of money, asked me to halve the pricing of my contract, and then canceled her contract shortly before her wedding when I refused to rewrite the contract. This bride demanded her 'non-refundable retainer' be returned, and I refused. Following her canceling of her contract she reversed the charges with her credit card company. Her credit card company found in my favour reinstating the funds to my account less than 24 hours after submitting my contract and a series of dated e-mails to their complaints department. Since this series of events I have tracked down her posts and had them removed from many forums. Of course this online-complainer does not mention this in any of her posts online. This former client just rips into me because she is upset she lost her How did this bride find me on Yelp.com? She tracked down a negative entry posted by a bride who decided she wanted to be able to choose the images in her photo album; nearly a year after the album was delivered. When I create albums I let my brides choose approximately 10 images, from there it is all up to me. This bride never replied to my requests for her selection of images. I waited and waited and waited then when ahead and designed the book and sent it off. I heard nothing for almost year. What did I hear after nearly a year? A complaint from the BBB about her album and a complaint stating she never received her prints (which were shipped to her on the 14th of March 2007). This same bride also wrote up a negative review on Yelp.com. This bride's primary complaint to the BBB was that she did not like her album and that she wants me to custom design a new book with images she has selected. This is not a service I offer. I expressly do not allow my brides to play a large role in the image selection of their albums. I am absolutely not redesigning and delivering an 8.5x11 20-page leather covered book to this bride. I have a number of e-mails from her telling me how much she loved her photographs. If she complained to me about the album image selection within a month of receiving the book I would have done something. But waiting a year, then contacting me through the BBB and using Yelp.com rather than dropping me an e-mail or calling me is the sign of someone who just wants something for free. Surprisingly Yelp.com has been much easier to work with than the BBB. Two complaints at the BBB are from non-brides. They are complaints from people I have not worked with, they are ghosts are faux-complainers. As the BBB cannot verify these complaints to ensure they have been 'resolved' they will not remove them. This has been quite frustrating. I have been asked to show contracts and tracking information for two 'phantom' bride complaints. Despite my repeated enquiry of asking how to show documentation I didn't work with someone is becoming frustrating. The BBB shows that I didn't respond to these complaints. This is true, I have been unable to properly respond to these two complaints, but I have diligently been attempting to address these. As for the bride who complained to the BBB about her album, I have been submitting all the information I need to in order to have that removed. I have e-mails, receipts, tracking information and order information from my print lab and album producer. Hopefully this detailed information is enough to have her unwarranted complaints removed. So given these two websites, it appears I have 7 complaints against me. In reality I have 1. The one complaint is from a very difficult to please bride. I have been learning to weed out the difficult (to nearly impossible) to please brides because they are extremely difficult to work with. I have made this mistake a few times in my 3 years of shooting weddings. In my first two years I did a poor job at times matching up who I am to whom I will work with. I am up front with my couples, some still move forward. I have learned to say 'No' and pass along the contract info for photogs who may be better suited to these couples and their personalities. My style is informal, my images are relaxed and overall my personality does not mesh well with 'bridezilla.' So one complaint will stand at the end of me working to clean up these complaints. The internet allows people to have the personality of 20 people instead of one. I ruffle feathers. I have always ruffled feathers. I have my opinions and they can be strong. I have been known to go out on a limb or stand out in the wind and that draws attention. Some people like me and some people don't like me, that I OK. What is not OK is that the internet allows people to become unknown attackers. I have found one wedding photographer who has gone into a popular wedding website simply to create faux brides and not only trash talk me but other photographers they feel they compete with. I have had this personls 'fake bride complaints' removed a number of times. I know quite a few other photographers who have also has this person's fake-complaints removed as well. This type of anti-marketing is unfortunately not as uncommon as many would like to believe it is. Have an argument with someone? It is easy to make up a fake e-mail address, a fake user name and log into a forum as a whole ‘new person’ and begin your assault. Being unable to verify who your accuser is can be challenging, especially when defending yourself in front of a potential online audience of billions of readers. For those of your readers who do not use Google Alerts they should absolutely set up an account immediately. Everyone needs to know what is being said about them and when. I was slow to use Google Alerts for certain keywords, but now have that sorted out. With Google Alerts in place I am able to move ahead in clearing up potential roadblocks in bringing in clients and be more aware of my online reputation. -Steven Frischling
October 6, 2008 10:15 AM
Steve -- Thanks for the commentary. It surely is a cautionary tale. I've used Google Alerts for some time - interestingly enough, the police chief of St Paul - where the RNC convention was and all the protesters were arrested - his name is John Harrington (no relation), so I get his information with my alerts. Maintaining your reputation in this era of worldwide access to data means it's not something to be taken lightly, or to be ignored. -- John
October 6, 2008 2:37 PM
Anonymous Kenny said... (We highly suspect this is Steven, as it uses his typical language and vision of himself, ie referring to himself as a kid, "slugging it out in the trenches")
Bravo Steven! Bravo John! This kid, whom I don't know but have followed his career online on the forums for years has been slugging it out in the trenches and working his behind off it an example for us all IMHO. Not only has he competed with the best in this industry, he has done so while all the snot nosed upper tier have tried to squash him at every...EVERY opportunity they can and they all know who they are. Good for you Steven. I can't speak for anyone else but I'll start getting subscriptions to sports magazines again when they start using more of your work instead of the photographers they use, who use the name of their publication to flaunt(call us out)about how nothing we are when they have a bad day. A simple search will find those threads too. Integrity/Photography... I doubt it.
October 7, 2008 8:04 AM
Anonymous Kara said...
John, I am one of the brides (Miss K) that complained about Steven on Yelp.com. As he mentioned, he tried to get my review taken off of on Yelp, but they actually wrote back and told me that after careful review, they will leave my review on Yelp.com as is. You can see that my review is still there. I'm not sure if I'm the bride that Steven references as the one who "ran out of money" and tried to get a discount and renegotiate the contract because that is completely false. Steven was in breach of the contract. Period. It is important for consumers like me that have had bad experiences to alert others to be careful when selecting a vendor...especially when it has to do with one of the most important days of your life. When I chose Steven to be the photographer, I actually googled him as well but didn't see any negative or positive reviews about him, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt considering he has numerous websites out there and seemed legit. The reason why I started posting reviews is so that consumers out there can at least get one person's point of view on their experience. After that, it's up to them to decide. I agree that everyone should be aware of what is being said about them on the internet. I'm sure there are false reviews out there, which is unfortunate, but in my case, it's all true. Speaking of false reviews, I find it funny that my Yelp review has been up for 2 months now with one other bad review, but as soon as Steven sees his bad reviews, all of a sudden, there's 6 raving reviews (all 5 stars) about Steven, all with accounts created in October 2008. Hmm...fishy. In any case, I hope, my review will help at least one bride, or give some insight to Steven that he should follow better business practices and uphold his end of the contract. Thanks, Kara
October 7, 2008 10:55 PM
Anonymous Kenny said... (fake Steven again)
Dear Kara: I feel your pain. I have never known or been involved in a business or industry that lacks the most basic of professional protocols or ethics. You will find that the higher up the food chain you get in this business the more important burrito's become and the less important professionalism becomes. The old guard is dieing out but it's more about self-aggrandising themselves and their wallets at all costs and at anyone's expense and the rest are liers and theives. This is all before you even start looking at Editors, SID's, Event Planners.... Your lucky, for those of us who cherish integrity and professionalism, it's a life sentence to love photography. Be glad your not in this business, at least your feelings as an outsider read...."customer" have meaning in real life. Good luck, be well, buy a good digital camera and you can be a photographer too! Kenny
October 8, 2008 6:00 AM
flyingfish said... (... a bunch of stuff but does not back up any of it)
Kara, I understand you are upset that you lost your retainer. Please keep in mind that whatever the circumstances were for your cancellation, my contract clearly stated in the first line that retainers are non-refundable. I photographed your engagement session on the 4th of April and delivered your images via e-mail less than 48 hours later. You even received a few more images than your contract specified within that 48hr period. Following this I sent your engagement session DVD to you via USPS Priority Mail with tracking. The package was delivered to the address on your contract, and the USPS confirms that the package was delivered. Following this you inform me that you have moved to Southern California and provide me with a new address, and another DVD was sent off. You never confirmed receipt, but this DVD was sent with tracking as well. A short while after the DVD was delivered you asked about your 30-page engagement session album and I was puzzled. Your wedding album in the contract was 20 pages, yet you seemed to think you were entitled to a 30 page e-session album. When this was questioned you sent me back a contract that was not all the contract I sent you. In fact the contract you sent me back did not match the format or language of any wedding contract I have ever used. I am sure you got confused in all of this, as you are now claiming on Yelp.com that you were not supposed to receive a 30-page album, but only 30 images from your engagement session. We had a 2-hour session, in 3 locations, which you were roughly 45 minute late for and you expect 30 images from your e-session? Why were you late? Your friend was in a car accident, I then photographed the damage to her car, as well as the bus that dinged her and dealt with her insurance company for you after sending off the photos of the accident. This brings me to August 15th. 11 days before your wedding. You filed a chargeback with your credit card company for $1875, not the $2,000 that you claim. Your reason for filing the chargeback was 'services not rendered." It would have been impossible to have rendered the services as stated in the contract, as the service date for the contract was 11 days in the future. After speaking with the credit card company I supplied them with a link to your engagement session; a tracking number for your wedding DVDs; an email correspondence between us; a copy of the contract I submitted to you, forwarded from my box; a copy of the doctored contract you sent back to me in early August (again forwarded from my box); and discussing the fact that the reason you were filing the chargeback was invalid. The credit card company reviewed the documents and reversed the chargeback returning the funds to my account in less than 24 hours. If you plan to come after me you should please stick to the facts. You should keep track what stories you are telling what people and in what forum. I have screen shots of your slip up, as well a copy of the doctored contract. As for the number of positive posts that sprung up? I contacted some former brides and other clients I have worked with and they were happy to supply positive reviews. (Yeah right) Should you wish to continue this course of action I will have no choice but to sue you for the remainder of your contract, $1,875. The evidence is overwhelmingly in my favour. (Overwhelmingly in his imagination) I wish you and Howard a long and happy life together. -Steven Frischling
October 9, 2008 1:14 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said... (Probably Steven)
Guy, you should charge this woman for all your time wasted online searching for her fake complaints and damaging accusations as well as for the time to answer each time.
October 12, 2008 7:28 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
They're most likely not fake, and she is not the only one...and he knows this. That's why he's online waiting for when the people he hasn't fulfilled paid contracts with write reviews to let others know. He's so vigilant about scouting out his negative reviews because he is just waiting for the people he didn't complete contracts with (or just completely cut off all communication with...very professional) to show their face. Well, here we are.
October 14, 2008 10:59 PM
Anonymous Kenny said... (Steven again)
A false complaint with the intent to besmurch another persons reputation should be easy enough to prove through the posters isp, even if the call themselves anonymous,if I'm not mistaken. I look at it this way. If I have a contract with someone and they don't fulfill the contract I can sue them and get satisfaction. If not, shame on me. After all, it's the most important day of my life? Any laywers around to comment? PS: Get use to the silent treatment. It's almost the first thing they teach on some photography websites. Unprofessional treatment? I would have to agree but we are talking about upper tier photogs aren't we :)
October 15, 2008 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...
I am not surprised that negative reviews are now surfacing for fishfoto, and I don't believe they are false. Steven is quite arrogant and it's only natural for him to try and squash any negative thing said about him out there. If you're not careful Steven, the fact that you try to remove all negative posts will ALSO become a part of your online personality, which will be even more damaging than the reviews themselves. I found this blog on a simple Google search of fishfoto reviews. I'm not sure your responses help your case. (Which makes me wonder if one day this blog entry will cease to exist as well.) Quite simply if you want to maintain a stellar online reputation, try maintaining stellar customer service and a good reputation off the internet first. If the reviews were all false, then why are there so many of them from different brides with similar but not exactly the same experiences? Maybe you need to stick to editorial and let the weddings go. You don't appear to have the sensitive heart necessary to photograph weddings.
December 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
*Sigh of relief*....I am glad to see that people can see through him, despite his efforts to save face. Do the right thing Steven, do the right thing. You know where to start.
January 2, 2009 11:38 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I like how "mysteriously" there are 5* reviews next to 1* reviews of his work. I understand asking your customers to post good reviews of you and the good reviews may very well be true, but they look SO fake next to the many many bad reviews! "I got my all my photos 2 days after the wedding". Yeah right. Anybody who knows anything about photography is going to think one of two things: A. The photos are unedited and thus poor quality (who can edit an entire wedding properly in two days?) or B. This review is blatantly false (who can edit an entire wedding in two days?) Steven Frischling needs to quit trying to be a wedding photographer and go back to being an editorial photographer where no one cares if you're an arrogant prick.
January 5, 2009 8:25 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Steve & John: I am not a bride. I am the groom. My lovely wife and I were married July 5th in Philadelphia and Steven was paid in full 3 months prior to the wedding! Steven has yet to fullfill his end of the contract. Not only have we not received our photos or albums from the wedding as promised, he never sent the album from our engagement shoot as described in his contract. I would say that after having been paid in full prior to the event that his professionalism for providing eveything that he says he will provide in his contract would have been provided within 30 to 60 days after the shoot. We have have very little to show for our wedding besides his fee (of which we have receipts). One of the photos that he took was of my wife's grandmother who died December 27, 2008. We were not able to include it in our family album because he will not complete his contract. He has now left me no alternative but to contact one of my associates in Connecticut and seek legal recourse against him including punitive damages for his conduct and actions. It is now not a matter of obtaining the photographs but to show him that he must be held accountable for everything that he puts in his contract. My wife has sent him several emails and he has given one excuse after another - If we were a publication would he being doing the same thing???? I think not. It's time the Mr. Frischling step to the plate and honor his contract. No, I have not been to yelp.com. That is next on the agenda. Will
January 9, 2009 6:31 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Steven, More "mysterious" 5* star reviews on yelp have popped up, yet they are mostly written by new members to yelp who joined in January 2009, and any other reviews they have written (to make it look like they are legit yelp members) are all written on the same day as their review of Fishfoto. How dumb do you think the public is? I'm sure you are getting up there in the number of yelp ids. It's disgusting that you have done absolutely nothing to make amends to your numerous dissatisfied clients, yet you (and your wife) go through all this effort to increase your rating, probably because you are now booking weddings for 2009. Are you even planning to complete those contracts? Why bother to book if you're just going to continue to leave unhappy brides in your wake?
January 13, 2009 6:56 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Steven, Your online reputation is a train wreck that I can't look away from! All your padding of 5* reviews by "happy clients" (or yourself) is like a soap opera. It's down right comical, and yet it's tragic because your REAL clients still haven't received what you've promised them. All of you fishfoto brides out there who have a bad review, keep posting everywhere that you can! He can't spend all of his time padding your reviews if they are everywhere. Post on cityvoter, theknot, wedding channel, onewed, eventective, facebook, and any place you can find that allows you to review his services. Unfortunately, Steven removed his facebook page due to the bad reviews he had listed there. You can counter that by making a group where all fishfoto brides can join and share their experiences. Do it now! Do you really want another bride to go through what you've gone through? Take him to court and keep fighting the good fight. Cheers
January 13, 2009 8:42 PM
Anonymous Steven Frischling said...
Shaunelle & Will, I am going to address a number of your online forum postings here in one reply. First off it is important to note that you did not spend more than $4,000 on your wedding photography. (WHY is this important?!) Secondly, I am sorry that I was diagnosed with a significant medical issue in late June. This medical issue resulted in major surgery on the 26th of August where my thyroid was completely removed, along with a 48oz cancerous mass from within my neck. (Who believes this?) I did go out and shoot a wedding less than a week after surgery in New York and another in California a week later. (A week after surgery? Literally unbelievable) I did these weddings, and others, because I felt like I was ready to feel better and get back on with working. In fact I kept shooting will advised not to because I knew in order to complete my contracts, even if delayed, I first needed to shoot the weddings. My working was against all medical advise, and due to my medical condition, following shooting I was completely wiped out. I am sorry there have been delays, but my health has become a significant factor, and medications have taken somewhat of a toll on me, and my post production productivity, however all of my contracts are being fullfilled. (All facts, including court cases, prove  otherwise.) You should also note that aside from delays I have so far met and exceeded your contact. (Why would they be bothering to post if this was true?) You contracted stated you'd receive 8 fully edited ready-to-print image files within a few days of your wedding; you received 25 of these images less than 24hrs following your wedding . You contract stated you'd receive a 50 image photo gallery; you received an 80 photo images gallery. Additionally your gallery was changed to a fully downloadable image gallery so you'd have direct access to your images as would anyone else you wanted to share the photos with. In other forums you indicated that you had received 70 fully edited, ready-to-print, image files from me. Your contract stated you'd receive 80 fully edited, ready-to-print image files as part of your package and you were delivered 80 fully edited, ready-to-print, image files from me. So yes, I was sick, I am still not really healthy, but I am also working as hard as I can with someone limited energy to not only complete all my contracts, but also make sure my family is taken care of, as considerable personal risks to my health. (Steven, as always, likes to see himself as a hero) I agree Karma can be a bitch, but there is no need for foul language, and is troubling for me to believe that someone who is so devoted to their faith, such as yourself, has a hard time understanding that another person's health is not something you should hold against them. (Steven tries to guilt them by invoking their religion and fails miserably) I'd also like to address Will stating that he has retained an attorney in various forums is incorrect. I have requested that he send me the contact information for his attorney more than once to work though his attorney, yet Will has repeatedly refused to produce any contact information for an attorney. (Highly unbelievable, considering Steven's numerous failures to appear in court) I will not bow to strong arm tactics. I also will not bow to people who do not have a legitimate complaint whipping up a whirlwind of mob mentality. Hopefully neither Will nor Shaunelle will ever become ill, and if this do, hopefully they are never self employed with five mouths to feed. The stress is unbearable, and they clearly fail to have the compassion it takes to work through it.  (Tries to use guilt again to distract from the issue) -Steven Frischling
January 30, 2009 6:02 PM
Steven Frischling said...
Kara Lee, On the 6th of November I filed a suit against you in the New London District Court of Connecticut. You and your husband have both now been notified by the Connecticut Centralized Court System, regarding Docket #: SCA10-94913. (This ridiculous case was dismissed!) Your required answer date is the 11th of February and at this time neither you nor Howard have answered the courts to enter a plea. At this time I have substantial evidence against you in this case, should you wish to settle the case out of court you know how to contact me. Should you default, I will transfer the judgment and come after you in your home state. -Steven Frischling
January 30, 2009 6:06 PM
Anonymous Steven Frischling said...
Will, To further counter act your claims that I have not delivered your wedding images to you, I'd like to direct you to Shaunelle's "The Robersons... The beginning" page , which was set up through her account on The Knot under the My Real Wedding section. You may review your wedding page on The Knot here: http://myrealwedding.theknot.com/photo/view/The-Robersons-The-beginning Your wedding page clearly shows multiple images, shot by me, credited to me, placed online by you and Shaunelle. Further more, the comments for these images appear to be made in September 2008. Clearly you have had your wedding images for quite some time. The fact that you and Shaunelle would like additional custom editing and additional pages in your album is no reason to grossly twist the facts as the continue to present themselves against you and your public statements. Clearly you have not heard the term 'you catch more bees with honey and vinegar.' (We hope they've never heard of this because 1) it's a phrase, not a term, and 2) this is not the correct phrase!) -Steven Frischling
February 1, 2009 11:49 PM