Max Persuasion/Kenrick Cleveland Fraud?
Paul Mau'Dib
Is this true? If so, I would rather our company steer clear of this product.
Paul Mau'Dib
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
Michael DeBusk
> I heard that Kenrick Cleveland (Maximum Persuasion) was convicted of
> FRAUD.
>
> Is this true? If so, I would rather our company steer clear of this
> product.
You'd prefer to steer your company toward people who've never been
convicted of fraud?
Seems to me like a guy who's been convicted is not as good at fraud as
someone who hasn't been caught. <shrug>
--
Same old web page, new location: http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/
Paul Mau'Dib
incompetent or not. That's the purpose of this inquiry. We like to know
who we're dealing with.
We want sales training professionals, not sleazy con men.
Paul M.
Michael DeBusk wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2003 15:21:24 -0000, Paul Mau'Dib <pma...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I heard that Kenrick Cleveland (Maximum Persuasion) was convicted of
>> FRAUD.
>>
>> Is this true? If so, I would rather our company steer clear of this
>> product.
>
>
> You'd prefer to steer your company toward people who've never been
> convicted of fraud?
>
> Seems to me like a guy who's been convicted is not as good at fraud as
> someone who hasn't been caught. <shrug>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drakotom
> I heard that Kenrick Cleveland (Maximum Persuasion) was convicted of FRAUD.
>
> Is this true? If so, I would rather our company steer clear of this product.
I would rather too. Any time someone decides not to learn, for
whatever reason, this or other similarly powerful stuff, I feel
better.
Greetings,
Tom
PS. I don't know the answer, but you will be probably better of using
the search button than asking here
Paul Mau'Dib
I took your advice and used the search button
1) At least one reference claiming fraud on his part, as well as a
conviction for the crime.
2) References claiming he practices Spamming (unsolicited email and/or
usenet postings).
3) Claims of addiction to amphetamines on his part.
Can anyone confirm or deny the truth of these claims?
We don't wish to write anyone off unfairly, but we do wish to know the
character and ethics of the people we deal with since they can affect
the reputation of a company.
Warmly,
Paul M.
Michael DeBusk
> I'd rather our company not have any dealings with frauds at all,
> incompetent or not.
Of course you would rather that, as would anyone. That said, isn't it a
bit unfair to identify someone with a specific behavior? If Kenrick
Cleveland has ever committed fraud, that means he's committed fraud,
not that he *is* a fraud.
> We want sales training professionals, not sleazy con men.
I have never heard Kenrick Cleveland being referred to legitimately as
a "sleazy con man". And I have yet to hear anyone who's trained with
him who regretted doing so. Most everyone refers to him as a master
persuader and trainer.
Do yourself a favor and think back to the single worst thing you've
ever done in your life, and then realize you don't refer to yourself as
that behavior. You might even say "yes, I did it, but that really
wasn't me. I don't know what got into me." Extend that same courtesy to
others and you might benefit somehow.
I realize the possibility that you want someone to come in-house. If
this is the case, small wonder you want to be sure of the reputation of
any person you call in. Be sure that Kenrick Cleveland's reputation as
a persuader and trainer is one of the best. And you might even
consider, too, getting some of his audio materials and running a test;
if you like what you get, bring him in... if not, don't.
Juut my two cents, of course. If you're serious about quality training,
it'd be a shame to miss out on it just because of some unwarranted
over-generalization. Good luck to you.
zn...@aracnet.com
>> We want sales training professionals, not sleazy con men.
> I have never heard Kenrick Cleveland being referred to legitimately as
> a "sleazy con man". And I have yet to hear anyone who's trained with
> him who regretted doing so. Most everyone refers to him as a master
> persuader and trainer.
Ah yes ... let me weigh in here:
1. I have trained with Kenrick. If you get the Max Persuasion 2000
tapes, I'm on them :). I don't know anything about his past, but I
recommend the training *as a training in persuasion*. You can find a
link to his web site on mine at
http://www.borasky-research.net/Powered%20by/
2. Kenrick (or any other trainer) will teach you the hows. *You* are
responsible for the ethics and consequences of what *you* do with the
tools.
3. Sales and persuasion are two different things! There is *some*
persuasion in sales, and you can use persuasion for sales and other
applications. But, sales is more than just persuasion and persuasion is
more than sales!
Kenrick's course, at least the one I took, is more or less persuasion
only. If you're looking for sales-specific training, or training in
aspects of sales other than persuasion, you might want something else.
I'm a sales coach, and when I work with a client, the first thing I do
is find out what approach they are using. I'm familiar with most of
them, at least the ones that aren't totally bogus. At last count, I
think there's something like a dozen to choose from.
Last time I looked, there were on the order of 6000 books on sales
listed at Amazon, and most of the well-known ones have live trainings
and follow-up coaching available. As you might guess, I have my own
personal favorites, cleverly listed on my web site at
http://www.borasky-research.net/Sales%20Books/
All of the good sales books/systems/trainings are more or less complete,
and if what a given client is using isn't working *for them*, most of
the time, I'll suggest either adopting pieces of a different approach,
or find out what they're doing wrong in the current approach and have
them work on that. By the way, this all happens in the first coaching
call, which is free -- I only charge for the real, ongoing coaching.
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, MS, MNLP, NST, FBG, PGS & PTA
zn...@borasky-research.net
http://www.borasky-research.net
Have You Hugged Your Saguaro Today?
Vapor rub
$cD5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> On 22 Feb 2003 19:51:09 -0000, Paul Mau'Dib <pma...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
>
>> I'd rather our company not have any dealings with frauds at all,
>> incompetent or not.
>
> Of course you would rather that, as would anyone. That said, isn't it a
> bit unfair to identify someone with a specific behavior? If Kenrick
> Cleveland has ever committed fraud, that means he's committed fraud,
> not that he *is* a fraud.
>
>> We want sales training professionals, not sleazy con men.
>
> I have never heard Kenrick Cleveland being referred to legitimately as
> a "sleazy con man". And I have yet to hear anyone who's trained with
> him who regretted doing so. Most everyone refers to him as a master
> persuader and trainer.
>
> Do yourself a favor and think back to the single worst thing you've
> ever done in your life, and then realize you don't refer to yourself as
> that behavior. You might even say "yes, I did it, but that really
> wasn't me. I don't know what got into me." Extend that same courtesy to
> others and you might benefit somehow.
>
Hi Micheal,
Interesting reframe; a person shouldn't be refered to by their behavior.
However, in your second paragraph you say that "Most everyone refers to
him as a master persuader and trainer." Aren't they refering to KC by his
behavior as well? Is it even possible to describe someone without
mentioning their behavior?
VR
Paul Mau'Dib
Fraud is a deliberate betrayal of trust and is a particularly nasty type
of theft. Would you trust a thief with access to your company?
We are not a hard company. If Kenrick Cleveland had been arrested for a
marijuana charge in the past, we would certainly overlook it. But our
company cannot do business with anyone who would commit fraud or steal.
When I referred to "sleazy con man", I was speaking of a type of person
our company wishes to stay well away from.
Warmly,
Paul M.
Michael DeBusk wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2003 19:51:09 -0000, Paul Mau'Dib <pma...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I'd rather our company not have any dealings with frauds at all,
>> incompetent or not.
>
>
> Of course you would rather that, as would anyone. That said, isn't it a
> bit unfair to identify someone with a specific behavior? If Kenrick
> Cleveland has ever committed fraud, that means he's committed fraud,
> not that he *is* a fraud.
>
>
>> We want sales training professionals, not sleazy con men.
>
>
> I have never heard Kenrick Cleveland being referred to legitimately as
> a "sleazy con man". And I have yet to hear anyone who's trained with
> him who regretted doing so. Most everyone refers to him as a master
> persuader and trainer.
>
> Do yourself a favor and think back to the single worst thing you've
> ever done in your life, and then realize you don't refer to yourself as
> that behavior. You might even say "yes, I did it, but that really
> wasn't me. I don't know what got into me." Extend that same courtesy to
> others and you might benefit somehow.
>
> I realize the possibility that you want someone to come in-house. If
> this is the case, small wonder you want to be sure of the reputation of
> any person you call in. Be sure that Kenrick Cleveland's reputation as
> a persuader and trainer is one of the best. And you might even
> consider, too, getting some of his audio materials and running a test;
> if you like what you get, bring him in... if not, don't.
>
> Juut my two cents, of course. If you're serious about quality training,
> it'd be a shame to miss out on it just because of some unwarranted
> over-generalization. Good luck to you.
Paul Mau'Dib
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------
While I applaud your loyalty to Mr. Cleveland I cannot agree with you. A
company involved in sales cannot EVER be associated with FRAUD or THEFT
and that is the reason for this inquiry.
Can you imagine the headlines in the trades?
"XYZ Company hired convicted fraud to train sales team"
Ask yourself honestly, would YOU do business with such a company?
Warmly,
Paul M.
zn...@aracnet.com wrote:
> according to Michael DeBusk <m_de...@despammed.com>,
>
>>> We want sales training professionals, not sleazy con men.
>>
>
>>I have never heard Kenrick Cleveland being referred to legitimately as
>>a "sleazy con man". And I have yet to hear anyone who's trained with
>>him who regretted doing so. Most everyone refers to him as a master
>>persuader and trainer.
>
>
synergi[@]cymetrix.com
At the risk of stating the obvious, why not call Kenrick and
ask?
Michael
zn...@aracnet.com
> While I applaud your loyalty to Mr. Cleveland I cannot agree with you.
> A company involved in sales cannot EVER be associated with FRAUD or
> THEFT and that is the reason for this inquiry.
Name one business that *isn't* involved in sales. :)
> Can you imagine the headlines in the trades? "XYZ Company hired
> convicted fraud to train sales team" Ask yourself honestly, would YOU
> do business with such a company?
As the disgruntled marine biologist said, "Bah, Humpback!" Just in case
you missed what I said the first time:
>> 2. Kenrick (or any other trainer) will teach you the hows. *You* are
>> responsible for the ethics and consequences of what *you* do with the
>> tools.
I have done business with Kenrick Cleveland. He did not defraud me. It
is your right not to do business with Kenrick for any reason you see
fit, based on facts, emotions, perceptions of facts, or whatever. And it
is *my* right not to do business with you or XYZ Company for any reason
*I* see fit.
Since I am a sales coach, and you and the XYZ Company appear to be
looking for some sales training, let me publicly state that I don't want
to do business with you or XYZ Company :). Given your posting, I'm not
sure who *would* be interested in working with you.
(Brief aside to the regulars: Well, it had to happen eventually -- as a
"trainer", I always knew sooner or later I'd get drawn into a flamewar.
Forgive me :).
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, MS, MNLP, NST, FBG, PGS & PTA
zn...@borasky-research.net
http://www.borasky-research.net
How do you get an elephant out of a theatre?
You can't; it's in their blood!
J Rapson
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> While I applaud your loyalty to Mr. Cleveland I cannot agree with you. A
> company involved in sales cannot EVER be associated with FRAUD or THEFT
> and that is the reason for this inquiry.
>
> Can you imagine the headlines in the trades?
>
> "XYZ Company hired convicted fraud to train sales team"
>
> Ask yourself honestly, would YOU do business with such a company?
>
> Warmly,
>
> Paul M.
>
why not:)?? the Feds hired Frank Abagnale of "Catch me if you can
fame" to teach their staff about "hot check artists". he now makes an
Honest living offering those seminars to businesses.
as an alternative to Kenrick you might wish to consider
www.persuasiontraining.com. while Kenrick's content is quite good(I've
got his tapes),Joe Soto's is even better. if you want to know why I
claim that, email me.he's got some equally or more stellar clients as
references.
Jim R
Paul Mau'Dib
loss prevention and other security matters. In my position with the
company, I have been trained by such people myself. We just wouldn't
hire Mr. Abagnale to head our A/P team.
Thank you for your suggestion Mr. Rapson. I will send your suggestion
regarding BreakThru Unlimited to the appropriate people as at this
juncture I will be suggesting our company use an alternative to Kenrick
Cleveland.
Warmly,
Kenrick Cleveland
J Rapson wrote:
> "Paul Mau'Dib" <pma...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:<GYHT04L63767...@anonymous.remailer.cyberjunkiez.de>...
>
>>NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>>No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>While I applaud your loyalty to Mr. Cleveland I cannot agree with you. A
>>company involved in sales cannot EVER be associated with FRAUD or THEFT
>>and that is the reason for this inquiry.
>>
>>Can you imagine the headlines in the trades?
>>
>>"XYZ Company hired convicted fraud to train sales team"
>>
>>Ask yourself honestly, would YOU do business with such a company?
>>
>>Warmly,
>>
>>Paul M.
>>
>
>
> why not:)?? the Feds hired Frank Abagnale of "Catch me if you can
> fame" to teach their staff about "hot check artists". he now makes an
> Honest living offering those seminars to businesses.
>
> as an alternative to Kenrick you might wish to consider
> www.persuasiontraining.com. while Kenrick's content is quite good(I've
> got his tapes),Joe Soto's is even better. if you want to know why I
> claim that, email me.he's got some equally or more stellar clients as
> references.
>
> Jim R
Paul Mau'Dib
intent or our company's.
The scandals that occurred at Enron, Anderson Accounting and Worldcom
has shown just what kind of damage illegal dealings can do to a
company's reputation and to the business itself. The best defense
against such scandal is mainting a spotless reputation.
We are not trying to start arguments or 'flame wars'. We are just being
cautious.
And we understand that you would not wish to do business with us for
your ethical reasons. Please understand our need to abide by our own ethics.
Warmly,
Paul M.
zn...@aracnet.com wrote:
> according to Paul Mau'Dib <pma...@prodigy.net>,
>
>>While I applaud your loyalty to Mr. Cleveland I cannot agree with you.
>>A company involved in sales cannot EVER be associated with FRAUD or
>>THEFT and that is the reason for this inquiry.
>
>
> Name one business that *isn't* involved in sales. :)
>
>
>>Can you imagine the headlines in the trades? "XYZ Company hired
>>convicted fraud to train sales team" Ask yourself honestly, would YOU
>>do business with such a company?
>
>
> As the disgruntled marine biologist said, "Bah, Humpback!" Just in case
> you missed what I said the first time:
>
>
>>>2. Kenrick (or any other trainer) will teach you the hows. *You* are
>>>responsible for the ethics and consequences of what *you* do with the
>>>tools.
>>
>
> I have done business with Kenrick Cleveland. He did not defraud me. It
> is your right not to do business with Kenrick for any reason you see
> fit, based on facts, emotions, perceptions of facts, or whatever. And it
> is *my* right not to do business with you or XYZ Company for any reason
> *I* see fit.
>
> Since I am a sales coach, and you and the XYZ Company appear to be
> looking for some sales training, let me publicly state that I don't want
> to do business with you or XYZ Company :). Given your posting, I'm not
> sure who *would* be interested in working with you.
>
> (Brief aside to the regulars: Well, it had to happen eventually -- as a
> "trainer", I always knew sooner or later I'd get drawn into a flamewar.
> Forgive me :)
drakotom
> > www.persuasiontraining.com. while Kenrick's content is quite good(I've
> > got his tapes),Joe Soto's is even better. if you want to know why I
> > claim that, email me.he's got some equally or more stellar clients as
> > references.
While I know nothing about Joe Soto, and respect your opinion, it is
so far the only one positive & believable about him that I have seen.
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mindlist for a discussion of his
products and marketing practices.
Rex Steven Sikes
drakotom wrote:
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates fill fast so book Rex Now!!! Call 262-790-1993
http://www.AmazingRex.com
Rex Sikes World's First Motivational Mind Reader - Corporate Speaker
Expert in persuasion & influence, specialist in non-verbal communication and
intuition.
"Mystery is the fundamental emotion that stands at
the cradle of true art and true science." Albert Einstein
J Rapson
> > > as an alternative to Kenrick you might wish to consider
> > > www.persuasiontraining.com. while Kenrick's content is quite good(I've
> > > got his tapes),Joe Soto's is even better. if you want to know why I
> > > claim that, email me.he's got some equally or more stellar clients as
> > > references.
>
> While I know nothing about Joe Soto, and respect your opinion, it is
> so far the only one positive & believable about him that I have seen.
>
starting place to evaluate the quality of an NLP Sales Trainer's
skills. I certainly would not rely on them.....exclusively. If your
goal is to thoroughly evaluate Joe(or any sales trainer), then
consider contacting call him directly, talk with him and ask him for
references,if necessary. I've spoken with Joe Soto 2x, He's passed my
criteria and he may pass yours too, whatever those are.
> See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mindlist for a discussion of his
> products and marketing practices.
I found very little of substance there. see above
Jim R
Houston
Wonder of Wonders
Troll
Plonk
In article <GYHT04L63767...@anonymous.remailer.cyberjunkiez.de>,
pma...@prodigy.net says...
drakotom
I don't question his NLP skills. Judging from knowing your posts here
in the past, from Rex Sikes post and eg. from Joe Soto appearing on
Steve Boyley's seminar, I believe his work and seminars are, at least,
worth to check.
The "little substance" that is talked about in the above group, and in
other yahoogroup I subscribe too, is:
2 people recommended Joe Soto products, on different days, different
groups, however in a short time span. Both posts were basically
"products you are talking about are not that bad, rather basic stuff,
renamed old techniques, but Joe Soto has something much much better".
Posting accounts for both those 2 people/nicks, were created on the
same day of post, respective 1 day before. Both two people had the
exactly same IP address as posts from Joe Soto himself had. Joe Soto
said he has nothing to do with it.
There is more to it, like arguments supporting the story, if someone
has time to waste, at the link above and elsewhere.
My only conclusion so far is, this is the kind of marketing and sales
activities that are not very supportive for selling more of products
aimed at "improving sales". Notice, I am not telling anything against
Joe Soto's skills. In fact, I even might buy some of his products, if
I choose so. It is opinion offered only in relation to the subject
discussed in this thread.
BigJiim
>groups, however in a short time span. Both posts were basically
>"products you are talking about are not that bad, rather basic stuff,
>renamed old techniques, but Joe Soto has something much much
If I ever choose to go into the NLP seminar business Joe Soto
will be one of the people I will contact to help train students. Over
the years he's been on my "list" that meet my criteria of what
a trainer should be able to do.
If I'm not mistaken he was always into the business/sales aspect
of NLP.
My best,
big jim
Michael DeBusk
> Fraud is a deliberate betrayal of trust and is a particularly nasty
> type of theft. Would you trust a thief with access to your company?
How much access to your company's assets will a contract trainer have?
How much access will audio or video products have?
I understand caution; caution is what I do for a living, when it comes
down to it. Caution is important; paranoia is troublesome.
What I don't understand is what, exactly, you're afraid will happen to
your company if you contract with someone who has defrauded someone. My
assertion is that if you've been in business for any length of time,
you probably already have and just don't know it. Your caution is easy
to write into the contract you'd write with any trainer. After all, a
person coming in and teaching a seminar at a nearby hotel or conference
center will have no access to your company's assets. By what specific
method could a "sleazy con man" defraud you in that context? Answer
that question and then prepare for it.
Michael DeBusk
> While I applaud your loyalty to Mr. Cleveland I cannot agree with
> you.
I hold no loyalty to Mr. Cleveland. I've never trained with the man and
own none of his products. I want to help you make the best decision you
can, and am aiming to help you keep from eliminating one possibility
simply because you're afraid of something that is extremely unlikely.
> A company involved in sales cannot EVER be associated with FRAUD or
> THEFT and that is the reason for this inquiry.
Of course that's so.
> Can you imagine the headlines in the trades?
>
> "XYZ Company hired convicted fraud to train sales team"
You said you;d hire him if he was convicted of pot possession. How's
the headline look for your company:
"XYZ Company hired convicted drug pusher to train sales team"
Someone could write that article about you tomorrow about the last
trainer you hired. Would it be true? You don't know. And you'd
complain, and the trade paper would publish a retraction.
Easiest thing to do in such an unlikely possibility is to claim
ignorance. You are, after all, still ignorant as to the facts
surrounding any conviction of Mr. Cleveland. It's my understanding
(from an old post in this newsgroup) that he sent a wire across state
lines, but I have no idea what that means specifically... and that he
was convicted as part of a plea bargain, not tried. I know of no
details and can't find any. Usenet is not known as a reliable source
for facts, after all.