Saturday, April 22, 2017

Kent Security of Miami Under Three Investigations

Kent Security of Miami is under three investigations with the National Labor Relations Board.

You can find the pending investigations and some documents related to them here, here, and here.

We'd like to give a mega shout out to all Kent Security employees and former employees who have followed our advice and filed claims when they believed their rights were violated.

The latest charge is due to a frivolous lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County against us, which will likely cost the company over $200,000 to take to trial. Additionally, we have at least one lawyer on standby to try this case if it goes all the way. It's possible we will have others ready to defend the First Amendment. We anticipate the Streisand effect due to this hare-brained attempt to attack the First Amendment. We predict 40 pages on Google if we take this to trial and plenty of additional publicity.

We are also curious as to what discovery will reveal.

Barbra Streisand's Malibu home
Photo credit: Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project,, downloaded from

Monday, January 16, 2017

Introducing SecurityLeaks

We've just rolled out SecurityLeaks, which is bare-bones at the moment, but we intend for it to be the definitive guide on Kent Security lawsuits. Though the name is similar to WikiLeaks, we do not necessarily endorse the activities of Julian Assange or even Anonymous, though we feel that the increased transparency they have brought has been beneficial for society to some degree. The aim of the web page is to encourage transparency among security companies as well as worker rights. We believe public safety is paramount and comes before profits.

One thing I do know is that federal agencies, including the CIA, are to be respected, contrary to what Donald Trump feels. From talking to the National Labor Relations Board, I got the impression that they caught onto the arrogance of Kent Security, which may have something to do with their continuous fight with Kent Security regarding the company's controversial class-action waiver. You just don't mess with the feds, and you give them a polite "yes, sir" and let them do their thing. It's just common sense. The same thing goes for police officers when they stop you for a supposed traffic infraction, though they are clearly lower in the totem pole than those who work at the federal level. This is not to say that federal agencies are perfect and immune to criticism, however.

Anyway, this entire project is a drain on our time and energy, though among the benefits it has brought are that it has taught us more about how the search engine algorithms work as well as the rights of workers. Contrary to what Kent Security thinks, there is something noble about being the underdog and having the effect that we have had. This is more a spiritual battle than anything: we know the universal force of justice is on our side, whatever the material differences between us and our opposition.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Kent Security of Naples Repeatedly Sues Former Clients

Kent Security of Naples has a history of suing former clients, as can be seen below. We know one of the primary methods for the company to sue former clients is by claiming it has been damaged by their retaining of former company security officers in violation of contractual terms. While I'm no lawyer, it is my understanding that Florida enforces these agreements more than other states, such as California.

What I find odd is that the Kent Security business model appears to hinge on high turnover, as was my experience in Naples, given that the reported wages for Kent Security officers -- going by my experience and the experiences of others on review websites like Glassdoor -- are relatively low in the industry. The number of operations managers and road supervisors in Naples in the last few years is likely in the dozens. Yet, despite the company's encouragement of turnover, it turns around and claims to be damaged by former clients when they retain guards. In my humble view, this is a pretext to pad up the company's revenues, given how inconsistent these actions are. If the company had relatively little turnover in the industry and provided special training to the employees above the very basics in the industry, then it might have an ethical justification for suing former clients that retain guards, in my view. I realize, though, that legal technicalities and ethics are two separate things. Again, it seems many states are now in agreement with what I just wrote, so this is not a controversial position at all. A cursory review reveals that some states have made restrictive covenants in employment contracts unenforceable except in very limited occasions.

It just seems, the lower the pay of employees and the higher the turnover in an industry, restrictive covenants in employment should be looked at more skeptically, given that they impede competition in the market and individual freedom. Anyway, regardless of how one may feel about such employment restrictions, any company with a history of suing former clients is eventually going to hit a wall.

Here is evidence of Kent Security suing former clients in Naples. At least one of these is confirmed to be due to the former client allegedly retaining guards.

Kent Security Naples laughably sues former client.
Kent Security of Naples suing Kensington Park Master Association

Kent Security Naples ridiculously sues former clients.
Kent Security Naples v. South Seas Club

Kent Security Naples is litigious.
Kent Security Naples sued South Seas Club

Kent Security Naples bitterly sues former client.
Kent Security Naples sued Reflection Isles Master Association

Proof Kent Security Naples sues former clients.
Evidence showing Reflection was previous Kent Security Naples client

Friday, December 23, 2016

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

A Statement About Our Motives

As we head into the holidays, I just want to say that it is not our goal to engage in our online campaign simply to hurt people. Like a parent, I feel bad having to punish a recalcitrant child. However, this was absolutely needed.

We will challenge Kent Security legally and it is our aim to have the case judged purely on its merits. Regardless of the outcome, we will likely remove all of our online truth-telling eventually. The reason for this is because we don't want to hurt the primary owners and the employees. It is not our aim to have any material gain from this whatsoever. I would have preferred that none of this ever occurred from the beginning.

However, at some point, online activism is necessary. Because rights can be eroded at any time, it is important to continually fight for them. Undoubtedly, many security officers are more aware of their rights due to our activism, both online and offline.

Ultimately, we would like to make peace with the owners of Kent Security. However, we feel the CEO has let the company down and failed to protect the company from this angle of attack, which in hindsight was totally preventable. This should be seen not so much as a malicious attack from a disgruntled employee as the CEO's failure to protect the family name and business. Sooner or later, the company was bound to face this type of attack, given that the internet is a primary means of information and communication today, and given the CEO's misconduct according to public records.

We will have more to say on this in the future.

Addendum: It's obvious the CEO is bankrolled above him, as his litigious nature is counterproductive for any business, especially from a public relations standpoint. The Hurley fiasco cost $250,000 -- virtually all non-recoverable, most likely -- and would have cost over $1 million had the jury verdict not been reversed. As a matter of opinion, the litigious record is devastating for any CEO. It just vaporizes any credibility of the face of the company. The "Wall of Shame" scandal likewise has damaged the image of the company, hurting the other owners of the company who had no direct involvement in the situation.

Monday, December 19, 2016

Who Is Leonardo Canton, Esq.?

There is a new lawsuit against Kent Security Services in Miami alleging that a woman slipped and injured herself due to a puddle of oil in a location where the company provided valet services, and the lawyer who has filed the suit is Leonardo Canton. In this lawsuit, Kent Security Services is accused of breaching its duty of care. I can't say anything about the merits of this case, though I found some interesting things online about this attorney.

Mr. Canton was in the news back in 2010 for filing a lawsuit seeking $60 million on behalf of Cuban doctors and medics who were allegedly forced to work against their will for the Venezuelan government in a supposed "oil for manpower" deal between dictator Fidel Castro and president Hugo Chavez. At the time, Mr. Canton seemed optimistic about the outcome. I am curious how this lawsuit went, since it seems to me, as a layman, that filing a lawsuit against a sovereign nation would present major challenges, especially in terms of getting compensated even assuming the legal decision goes in your favor.

It will also be interesting to see how his lawsuit goes against Kent Security Services and the Four Ambassadors Association.

Update: Here is the video we made on the lawsuit, which is clearly of public interest as it deals with public safety.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Video of Gil Neuman's Court Sanctions

We made a video of Kent Security CEO Gil Neuman's court sanctions. As far as we are concerned, anyone who is suing or considering suing Kent Security should be aware of the CEO's past misconduct according to the public record. This is being posted because we are fighting back against corporate abuses against the working class.

We know some security officers accept the disrespect directed at them, and may disagree with our legal challenges against this company, but ironically it is people like them who get the most disrespect from egotistical executives who look at them as animals worthy only of generating profits. The minority of officers who have opposed us from the beginning only reinforce the negative stereotypes of being uneducated and/or unintelligent, whereas we affirm that security officers deserve the rights everyone else in society takes for granted. Sure, you can argue that it's best to just move on, but if everyone had that attitude, there would never be any laws whatsoever to protect workers. You could even use the same arguments against the Founding Fathers who fought against incredible odds for independence from the British Empire, and in that case there were actually many self-serving supporters of the British crown. At some point people have to act on principle even if more pragmatic-minded people disagree -- and at the end of the day, it is not the pragmatists who make history or challenge social norms anyway, making life better for future generations.

As far as arguments that this entire First Amendment exercise is self-serving: just try that against us again. We anticipate another embarrassing loss with such feeble excuses for corporate misconduct. Try the self-serving argument again. We could use more laughs. This is like a slow running back continually getting hammered by a 300 lb. defensive tackle for losses and refusing to practice to improve his sprinting speed or agility, or maneuvers.