We provide extraordinary care for fine
garments & household textiles
When you read an online negative review, it's human nature to
look at the "facts" provided by the reviewer and then to
immediately draw a conclusion about the merits of that review.
Unfortunately, many negative reviews lack
context. This is particularly the case where reviewers
have only provided "facts" that support their position, have
selectively omitted "facts" that are non-supportive and even
contradictory, have distorted or even falsified the "facts", and
have substituted opinion for "facts."
This post addresses such negative reviews and discusses the
dilemma faced by long-established businesses that have been
subjected to a coordinated attack of serial negative
reviews by a single reviewer operating under their own name as well
The best way to respond to such anonymous and quasi-anonymous
reviewers is to connect all the dots for you and to expose
their objectives, words and actions to the disinfectant of bright
sunlight. And the best way to illustrate this problem is to examine
an actual case.
On August 16, 2012, Shelle Turf of Scottsdale, Arizona brought
in a 6 year old, soiled, oil-stained, scratched, scuffed, torn, ink
stained, musty Louis Vuitton brown monogrammed coated canvas
Battignoles Horizontal Tote with natural cowhide leather trim. She
asked us to clean the tote (inside and outside) and to repair a
small tear in the brown monogrammed coated canvas (to the extent
that a tear in a coated canvas handbag can be "repaired").
Our discussion of Shelle Turf's tote is organized as
1. Shelle Turf's multiple negative reviews
2. The condition of Shelle Turf's Louis Vuitton tote before and
3. Shelle Turf's lack of credibility
a. False embellishment of her Yelp
b. Calculated decision to first
clean before considering replacing the leather
c. Full knowledge of the likely
cleaning results prior to dropping off her tote
d. False representation of the value
of her tote
e. Other false negative "reviews"
f. Anonymous dissemination of false
information to our high-end clients
4. The reasons why we retained Shelle Turf's tote
SHELLE TURF'S MULTIPLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS
In order to put Shelle Turf's objectives, words and actions into
their correct context, it's important to understand the time lines
Drop off of tote: August 16, 2012
On August 16, 2012, Shelle Turf brought in a 6 year old Louis
Vuitton tote with natural cowhide leather trim. She asked us to
clean the tote (inside and outside) and to "repair" a small tear in
the brown monogrammed coated canvas.
Return visit #1: August 30, 2012
Shelle Turf returned on Thursday, August 30, 2012 to pick up her
tote (return visit #1). We had not completed all the work because
the tote was, at that time, still in the final stages of
deodorization to remove the musty smell.
Return visit #2: September 6, 2012
Shelle Turf returned a second time to pick up her tote on
Thursday, September 6, 2012 at about 3:30 p.m., camera phone in
hand, accompanied by her daughter as a witness (return visit
As I was not present on 9/6/2012 (I'm constantly in and out of
our facility on Mondays and Thursdays servicing our retail store
clients), she requested that I call her on Friday, 9/7/2012. I
called at about noon on 9/7/2012.
Return visit #3: September 7, 2012
Shelle Turf returned a third time to pick up her tote on Friday,
September 7, 2012 at about 4:30 p.m., camera phone in hand,
accompanied by her husband as witness.
Within a few hours of leaving our facility on
September 7, 2012, Shelle Turf had posted 4 online reviews
(reproduced below - word for word) ...
1. REVIEW ON YELP BY "SHELLE T"
Worst work ever (Posted
Brought LV purse
in to be cleaned and repaired. Purse not ready when promised and
was told another week. When I went to pick it up it was in
horrible condition and the repair was NOT
completed and owner Stuart Bloom totally denied that he knew of any
repair. Funny on my ticket they wrote up it clearly states to do a
repair on a small cut. He is not to be trusted and he even got so
mad used f word. I'm not done with this guy yet. Hope he likes
publicity ... Plus he has my bag, would not give it to me unless I
signed paper saying work was completed and satisfied. NOT! He even
was going to give me the bag back if signed paper and not charge
me. I refused to sign his note.
If you are thinking of bringing your
expensive purses in here to be cleaned or repaired, ask him to see
the Turf Louis VuittonVertical Battignoles bag that he would not
return to me unless I signed a form stating it was completed and
repaired and are satisfied with results. Of course I refused (plus
was giving to me if I signed a form stating at NO CHARGE). You will
change your mind unless you want a crap job like he did on mine. I
saw a lady walking there last week carrying at least 3 lv bags and
1 channel and another one and she asked me if they do good work.
She changed her mind fast and turned around.
2. REVIEW ON GOOGLE BY "SHELLE T"
Quality poor to fair (no specific
date other than "reviewed a month ago")
Went to pick up LV bag that was to
be cleaned inside and leather cleaned and repair. Totally freaked
out when saw the condition of the bag. It now needs to be
re-leather and LV charges over $900 and plus the bag was just
recently discontinued. What a crappy job. I
wouldn't give this bag away free to anyone, they wouldn't want it
3. REVIEW ON CITI SEARCH BY "SHELLE
Would not ever recommend this place
to anyone. The man Stu totally made my daughters LV purse in
awful condition. It was brought in to be cleaned
and repaired and when we saw it, refused to pay and take it. Off to
small claims court on Monday and contacting my friend at channel 12
news to do a little segment on this business owner who also lied to
me. BBB, FTC and Az General Attorney. The bag was just recently
discontinued and cannot even be replaced. Louis Vuitton said they
can re-leather the bag for over $900. It didn't need re leathering
when brought it in to him and now it looks like total crap. I
wouldn't be caught dead carrying it in the condition it is now.
4. REVIEW ON YELLOW PAGES BY
Think twice before getting your ...
Think twice before getting your
expensive LV. Gucci and Channel bags cleaned or repaired. My bag is
now in such bad shape I wouldn't even be able to
give it away. Stay tuned for further action on Mr. Stuie!
In addition, Shelle Turf posted another "review" one week
5. REVIEW ON PISSED CONSUMER BY
October 2, 2012
Oh my gosh, I am in process of small
claims with this little man, Stu. I brought in an LV bag to be
repaired and cleaned. I went back 2 weeks later to pick up as
stated on receipt to be ready. Stu told me that it was in some
stage of getting their fumes out. Told me to come back in a week.
Went back in a week and Stu saw me walking in and flew out as
quickly as possible to avoid me. Girl told me that bag not ready
and showed me it and I freaked out. Looked worse than brought it in
and still were not repaired. He even told me that in order to
repair would have to un stitch the stitching inside the bag and put
a patch on slit and glue it. Girl tells me the glue in on order.
BS. I called him and freaked out and he told me he knew nothing
about ANY repair and it clearly states repair slit on receipt. He
lied several times to me. He still has bag and would only give it
to me if I signed paper saying I was ok with it and he was
NOT going to charge me the 92 bucks. Said no way,
why would I pay for purse he wrecked. So I will be
taking him to small claims court. Check out court sites online to
see ALL the complaints. (Note to reader: Shelle Turf links the word
"complaints" to a list of suits filed BY RAVE
FabriCARE AGAINST other parties over a period of 24 years.)
In order to understand the NATURE of Shelle
Turf's complaint and the ROLE played by these
"reviews" in a larger scheme to coerce the funds necessary to
replace all the leather trim on her Louis Vuitton coated canvas
handbag, consider this simple analogy...
If this was your dress, would you thank the cleaner for their
efforts to achieve the best results that were technologically
achievable, or would you
If your answer is 8, welcome to the world of Shelle and Richard
Turf of Scottsdale, Arizona.
THE CONDITION OF SHELLE TURF'S LOUIS VUITTON TOTE BEFORE
AND AFTER CLEANING
When you cut through all the he-said-she-said allegations made
by Shelle Turf and personal opinion smoke screens offered by Shelle
Turf in all her reviews, her only serious claim was that her Louis
Vuitton brown monogrammed coated canvas tote was in alternatively
"horrible", "crappy", "awful", "bad" or "wrecked" condition when
she came to pick it up (return visit #2 on 9/6/2012).
Yet, she provides no specifics or definition of the term
"horrible", "crappy", "awful", "bad" or "wrecked"
If this was your tote, and you believed that a cleaner had
transformed the condition of your tote from "excellent" or "good"
(I assume) to "horrible", "crappy", "awful", "bad" or "wrecked"
condition, wouldn't you know EXACTLY what the
specific issues were?
In separate filings with the Better Business Bureau, the Arizona
Attorney General's Office and the Maricopa County Small Claims
Court, and in a series of bizarre rants in emails and spams to our
blog, Shelle Turf does not use the term "horrible", "crappy",
"awful", "bad" or "wrecked" condition. Instead, she claims
that we "damaged" her 6 year old tote.
At RAVE FabriCARE, we take before and after photos of
EVERY handbag, purse, wallet and backpack brought
in to our facility, picked up by our drivers, or sent in to us
through the mail so as to document their condition when received
and when returned.
You can view 28 before photos and 16 after photos of this tote
and read my accompanying commentary by clicking on this link
After you review the photos and read the commentary, ask
yourself these 4 questions:
You can post your answers to these questions in the comments
section of the post linked to above.
SHELLE TURF'S LACK OF CREDIBILITY
A. FALSE EMBELLISHMENT OF HER YELP
Shelle Turf wrote a one paragraph "review" on Yelp on 9/7/2012.
She doubled down on that "review" by adding a second paragraph on
In para 2 of her "review" (posted on 9/9/2012), she tells you
that when she left our facility "last week" (the
"last week" could only mean on 8/30/2012) and she was, presumably,
still in our parking lot, she was approached - out of the blue - by
a complete stranger carrying at least 5 Louis Vuitton and Chanel
handbags who just happened to ask her if RAVE FabriCARE did "good
work". She implies that she answered "no", whereupon the stranger
"changed her mind fast and turned around."
This story is, of course, PURE FICTION. Here's
When Shelle Turf came to pick up her tote (return visit #1 on
8/30/2012), she did NOT see or examine the tote. I
merely told her that we needed more time to complete the
deodorization process necessary to neutralize the musty smell. Yet,
despite the fact that she NEVER saw or examined
the tote on 8/30/2012, she was nonetheless able to tell the
mysterious stranger - MINUTES LATER - that we do
"horrible", "crappy", "awful", "bad" or "wrecked" work.
I have 4 questions for Shelle Turf:
1. How could you have possibly formed a negative opinion
about our handbag cleaning services if you did NOT
see or examine your tote on 8/30/2012?
2. How come the parking lot surveillance video showed
NO such encounter between you and any other
person, either on 8/30/2012 (return visit #1), 9/6/2012 (return
visit #2) or 9/7/2012 (return visit #3)?
3. If the evidence that we returned your tote in "horrible
, "crappy", "awful", "bad" or "wrecked" condition" or that we
"damaged" your tote is so convincing, why did you feel there was a
need to blatantly lie in your review?
4. How could you have possibly formed a negative opinion
about our handbag cleaning services as of 8/30/2012 when, just 3
weeks before you dropped off your Louis Vuitton tote, you picked up
a Gucci GG fabric handbag perfectly cleaned inside and out?
And, as for the allegation that I used the F-word in any
conversation with her, well, you can draw your own conclusions. To
help you assess who the guttermouth is, may I suggest that you
re-read all of Shelle Turf's "reviews".
In summary: Is Shelle Turf posting an honest
assessment of our handbag cleaning services or is she distorting or
even falsifying her claim that we returned her tote in "horrible ,
"crappy", "awful", "bad" or "wrecked" condition or that we
"damaged" her tote?
You be the judge.
B. CALCULATED DECISION TO FIRST CLEAN BEFORE
CONSIDERING REPLACING THE LEATHER
According to her "review" on CitiSearch (see above), Shelle Turf
tells you that "Louis Vuitton said that they can 'releather' the
bag for over $900. It didn't need releathering when I brought it
into them and now it looks like total crap."
Call any Louis Vuitton store in the USA and they'll tell you
that they CANNOT provide an estimate for the cost
of "releathering" a handbag WITHOUT THEIR REPAIR SPECIALIST
FIRST EXAMINING THE HANDBAG.
That's the Louis Vuitton policy. Every Louis Vuitton employee
knows that and will tell you that.
So, I have one question for Shelle Turf: How could you have
possibly known - on September 7, 2012 - that it would cost over
$900 to replace all the leather trim on your handbag?
After all, you left RAVE FabriCARE at about 5:00 p.m. on
September 7, 2012 WITHOUT YOUR TOTE IN HAND (see
section below titled "Retention of Shelle Turf's Tote"). And yet,
just a few hours later, you had already posted a review on
CitiSearch stating that it would cost over $900 to "releather" your
The answer, of course, is quite simple: You could only have
known that it would cost over $900 to "releather" your tote
IF you had received an estimate from Louis Vuitton
PRIOR to bringing it to RAVE FabriCARE for
Based on all the before photos, it is clear that the most
important issue affecting the value of the tote was the fact that
the leather trim was soiled, oil stained, scratched and scuffed.
The small half inch tear in the brown monogrammed coated canvas,
the ink stain on the lining and the musty smell in the interior
were secondary issues.
This begs the question: Why didn't you take it straight to Louis
Vuitton to replace the leather trim? Why did you, instead, decide
to take it first to RAVE FabriCARE for cleaning?
I'd suggest that there are only two possible reasons:
First, if RAVE FabriCARE was unable to return the leather trim
to near-perfect condition (cost about $100), you could always ask
Louis Vuitton to replace all the leather (cost about $900).
Alternatively, if you could allege that RAVE FabriCARE "damaged"
your tote during the course of the cleaning process, you could
refuse to pay for the cleaning ("saving" you $100) and mount a
campaign of negative publicity in an attempt to coerce RAVE
FabriCARE into paying for the cost of replacing the leather trim
(costing you $100 for court-related fees). Net cost to you would be
zero ($100 "saved" and $100 spent).
In summary: Is it a sheer coincidence that
Shelle Turf decided to have the tote cleaned first and was the
decision to clean first part of a scheme to coerce RAVE FabriCARE
into funding the replacement on the leather trim on her tote?
You make the call.
C. FULL KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY CLEANING RESULTS
PRIOR TO DROPPING OFF HER TOTE
Before dropping off her Louis Vuitton tote for cleaning on
August 16, 2012, Shelle Turf had full full knowledge of the
likely results she could expect from our handbag cleaning
First, Shelle Turf dropped off a Gucci GG fabric handbag on July
23, 2012. The handbag was lightly soiled and stained with red dye
on the exterior and lightly soiled and stained with ink on the
She picked up her Gucci handbag on August 3, 2012. Apparently,
she was pleased with the results. So much so that she returned to
RAVE FabriCARE on August 16, 2012 - less than 3 weeks later - with
her Louis Vuitton tote.
You can view 22 before and 15 after photos of that red
dye-stained Gucci handbag by clicking on this link...
Second, at the time she picked up her Gucci handbag and at the
time she dropped off her Louis Vuitton tote at RAVE FabriCARE for
cleaning, Shelle Turf ...
In other words, based on her personal viewing actual Louis
Vuitton handbags that had been completed and her personal viewing
of before and after photos of Louis Vuitton handbags in our photo
book, Shelle Turf WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE LIKELY RESULTS SHE
COULD AND COULD NOT EXPECT FROM THE CLEANING OF HER LOUIS VUITTON
TOTE PRIOR TO LEAVING HER LOUIS VUITTON TOTE WITH US.
In summary: Is there any truth to Shelle Turf's
claim that she had no idea of the likely results that could and
could not be expected from the cleaning of her Louis Vuitton tote?
And, consequently, can there be any truth to her claim that
we"damaged" her tote?
D. FALSE REPRESENTATION OF THE VALUE OF HER
Through all her "reviews", Shelle Turf is attempting to convince
you that her reviews are based on principle, and not on the money.
But you know, as well as I do, that when someone tries to convince
you that it's NOT ABOUT THE MONEY, IT USUALLY IS ABOUT THE
In her small claims court filing, Shelle Turf is asking for
$1030 plus tax to compensate her for the "damage" to her tote: "The
bag would sell for $1030 plus tax if they could releather it."
Fact is, the tote was in relatively poor condition when
she first brought it in for cleaning. You can purchase
identical Louis Vuitton totes for anywhere from $350 to $550
online. And those totes are IN FAR BETTER CONDITION THAN
SHELLE TURF'S TOTE WAS IN WHEN SHE BROUGHT IT IN FOR
In an attempt to determine the value of Shelle Turf's tote, I
sent 28 "before" photos of the tote to three of the largest online
resellers of Louis Vuitton accessories.
I informed each one that I was considering selling the tote and
asked for their best offer. Alternatively, if they were not
interested in an outright purchase, I asked each one whether they
would consider taking the tote on consignment.
Verdict? Not one would make a purchase offer and not one was
interested in taking the tote on consignment.
For all practical purposes, the tote was worthless when Shelle
Turf brought it in for cleaning.
So I called an independent insurance adjuster and posed this
hypothetical question: If an insured owned a 6 year old, soiled,
oil-stained, musty Louis Vuitton tote and that tote was damaged by
fire or flood, what would the payout be under a typical homeowners
or renters policy?
Answer: About zero. The tote had almost no value, so the payout
would be zero.
Clearly, Shelle Turf believes that if you take a 6 year old,
scratched and dented car to a car wash and if you can allege that
the car wash damaged your car during the wash process, you are
entitled to sue the car wash company for the price that the car
would sell for on the open market IF the car was
completely restored to like-new condition.
In summary: Shelle Turf asks for $1030 plus tax
as compensation for returning her tote in "horrible", "crappy",
"awful", "bad" or "wrecked" condition. Yet, her tote was in
relatively poor condition when she first brought it in -
VERY REASON SHE BROUGHT IT IN FOR CLEANING IN THE FIRST
Is it reasonable to claim $1030 plus tax when identical totes -
IN FAR BETTER CONDITION THAN SHELLE TURF'S TOTE WAS IN WHEN
SHE FIRST BROUGHT IT IN - sell for a THIRD or HALF
THE PRICE on-line? And when independent third parties
believe that the tote was, for all practical purposes, worthless
when she brought it in for cleaning?
E. OTHER FALSE NEGATIVE "REVIEWS" USING
As of September 23, 2012, I did not realize that Shelle Turf was
a returning client and not a new client. So I'm indebted to Shelle
Turf for alerting me to that fact in her email of September 23.
Fact is, Shelle Turf brought in a Gucci GG fabric handbag with
brown leather trim for cleaning on July 23, 2012. The handbag was
lightly soiled and stained with red dye on the exterior and lightly
soiled and stained with ink on the interior. She picked up the
handbag on August 3, 2012. She was obviously quite satisfied with
the results because she had no hesitation paying for the cleaning
by credit card.
You can view the before and after photos of this Gucci handbag
by clicking on this link ...
Now here's strange coincidence #1:
On September 23, 2012, Shelle Turf sent me an
email (subject title "Maricopa County Justice Courts") asking why
RAVE FabriCARE had so many complaints filed against our company and
listing all the lawsuits in which RAVE FabriCARE was a party.
Apparently, Shelle Turf doesn't understand the difference
between a plaintiff and a defendant (here's a clue: OJ Simpson was
a defendant). She also doesn't know that many of our clients have
charge accounts, and that, over the past 24 years, RAVE FabriCARE
has filed suits to recover monies owed by clients who default on
their open accounts.
And here's strange coincidence #2:
On September 23, 2012, an unknown person, using
the name karma-is-the-name-of-the-game, posted a negative "review"
on pissedconsumer.com entitled "RAVE FabriCARE - Damaged My Gucci
Purse". The reviewer provided no information about the nature of
"damage" to her Gucci purse. Instead, the reviewer directed readers
of the review to "Check out Maricopa Court Justice Courts
for all complaints against this place."
Could this unknown reviewer masquerading under the name
"karma-is-the-name-of-the-game" be Shelle Turf?
And here's strange coincidence #3:
On September 23, 2012, an unknown person, using
the name kellykarma, posted a negative "review" on
merchantcircle.com, entitled "Damaged expensive purse."
Again, the review provided no information about the nature of
the "damage" to her purse. Instead, the reviewer directed readers
of the review to "See Maricopa County Justice Courts for
list of many complaints" and posted a list of 28 case
numbers extracted from the courts' website directly into the
Could this unknown reviewer masquerading under the name of
kellykarma be Shelle Turf?
And here's strange coincidence #4:
On September 23, 2012, an unknown person, using
the email address email@example.com, spammed our blog no fewer than
8 times in an attempt to alert readers of our blog to all
the complaints filed against RAVE FabriCARE in the Maricopa County
Justice Courts, adding, for emphasis, the
"high-end stores must not know about all the complaints on
the court website."
It appears that, just like Shelle Turf,
karma-is-the-name-of-the-game and kellykarma, this spammer also
doesn't understand the difference between a plaintiff and a
Another interesting fact is that the spammer used the email
address firstname.lastname@example.org. I'd bet that Shelly Turf has a family
member with the name "L. Silver".
Could this unknown spammer masquerading under the name L. Silver
be Shelle Turf?
In summary: On September 23, 2012, Shelle Turf
sent me an email mirroring the content of a negative review posted
on pissedconsumer on September 23, 2012, mirroring the content of a
negative review posted on merchantcircle.com on September 23, 2012,
and mirroring the content of multiple spams to our blog on
September 23, 2012.
Is this just a series of unrelated coincidences or another
calculated false attack on our reputation by Shelle Turf?
F. ANONYMOUS DISSEMINATION OF FALSE INFORMATION TO
OUR HIGH-END RETAIL STORE CLIENTS
On September 24, 2012, Shelle Turf mailed a printout of a list
of 28 lawsuits she alleges have been filed AGAINST
RAVE FabriCARE to many of our high-end retail store clients.
This list is identical to the list Shelle Turf references in her
false allegations identified in (E) above.
Before inserting the printouts into their respective envelopes,
Shelle Turf hand wrote a note on each printout as follows:
Here's info on Rave
Fabricare Cleaners that you refer clients to. You may want to find
a new place to refer them to, as this is posted all over the
Not being satisfied with the mere mailing of this list to the
managers of our retail store clients, Shelle Turf called each one -
anonymously - to urge them to stop doing business with RAVE
There are a number of points to consider, including:
1. The printout is a list of cases filed
BY RAVE FabriCARE (as plaintiff)
AGAINST former clients (as defendants) who have
defaulted on their accounts with RAVE FabriCARE.
2. The handwriting on the envelope and on the printout belongs
to Shelle Turf. (The handwriting on the envelope and on the
printout is exactly the same as the handwriting on the Small Claims
Court documents filed by Shelle Turf).
3. The envelope has no return address and the note does
not identify the name, address or contact number of the author.
In summary: As part of her negative publicity
campaign, Shelle Turf mailed anonymous letters to our high-end
retail store clients making the false allegation that 28 complaints
had been filed AGAINST RAVE FabriCARE over the
years for "horrible", "crappy", "awful", "bad" or "wrecked"
Are these the actions and words of a rational individual?
Someone who would provide you with a fair presentation of all the
facts in an online review?
THE REASONS WHY WE RETAINED SHELLE TURF'S
When Shelle Turf returned the second time to pick up her tote
(return visit #2 on 9/6/2012), she arrived camera phone in hand,
accompanied by her daughter as a witness. When she returned the
third time to pick up her tote (return visit #3 on 9/7/2012), she
arrived camera phone in hand, accompanied by her husband as a
When she returned the second time (return visit #2 on 9/6/2012),
this was the FIRST TIME she had seen her tote
since dropping it off.
You should, therefore, ask yourself this question: If her only
prior experience with RAVE FabriCARE was positive (her Gucci GG
fabric handbag), why did she bring a camera on
BOTH occasions? Why did she bring a witnesses on
BOTH occasions? Unless, of course, she was
planning to find fault with the cleaning BEFORE SHE EVEN
ARRIVED TO PICK UP HER TOTE -- IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RESULTS
On both occasions (9/6/2012 and 9/7/2012), Shelle Turf
threatened to sue RAVE FabriCARE for "damaging" her tote (code for
"give me a check, now!") . As I was not personally present on
9/6/2012, she returned on 9/7/2012. On 9/7/2012, Shelle Turf
demanded the return of her tote.
I gave her 3 options as a pre-condition for returning her
1. Option #1: Pay for the cleaning, evidencing
satisfactory completion of the work, or
2. Option #2: If you reject Option #1, provide us with a
letter detailing, in specific terms, your allegation that we
"damaged" your tote whereupon we would, as a courtesy, waive the
cleaning cost, or
3. Option #3: If you reject Option #1 and Option #2,
provide us with a letter evidencing satisfactory completion of the
work, whereupon we would, as a courtesy, waive the cleaning
She rejected all 3 options.
So the question is this: Why not return the tote to her custody
and await the inevitable filing of the lawsuit and court
The answer is simple: Based on her overall conduct and repeated
verbal threats on 9/6/2012 and 9/7/2012, I anticipated that Shelle
Turf would be filing a lawsuit to coerce RAVE FabriCARE into paying
for the replacement of all the leather trim on her 6 year old Louis
Vuitton tote. Did Shelle Turf really believe that I would be so
naive as to return her tote to her and trust her not to "tamper
with the evidence" prior to court hearing?
In April 2013, RAVE FabriCARE will celebrate our 25th
Anniversary. Over the past 24 years I've been exposed to many
dry cleaning-related scams. And this case has all the attributes of
a scam. As they say, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and
smells like a duck, then, in all probability, it's a duck.
How can I help you?
To comment on this post, please use the comment section
To ask a question relating to any of your garments or
accessories, please email us.
Print, share or save this blog post
Subscribe to our rss feed.
Copyright 2009, Rave Fabricare. All Rights ReservedInternet Marketing Agency