Thursday, August 11, 2016

Kent Security Services Inc. Received Court Sanction

We discovered another piece of the puzzle in the bizarre history of Kent Security Services Inc.: the company received a court sanction in 2010 for allegedly not complying with a court order. This was in a case brought by Leslie Langbein, who apparently defended Kent Security against Ms. Greenfield in a case that, according to a 32BJ SEIU press release, involved alleged pregnancy discrimination. Notably, Ms. Greenfield was represented by Richard Celler, the University of Miami alumnus who has a law office in Davie, FL. It looks like Ms. Greenfield prevailed in this case. Presumably, Ms. Langbein sued Kent Security, a company she represented, due to a dispute over billing.

Apparently, Kent Security was sanctioned by the court for not complying with a discovery request and was then fined $700:


Kent Security Services Inc. received court sanction.


For perspective, this sanction took place just 10 months before the company made the news for allegedly not paying security guards at the Miami City Hall a "living wage" in accordance with city law. Apparently, not happy with fighting one woman, the company proceeded to fight another shortly after through the courts. This is beta male behavior -- straight up. We don't use the term lightly or randomly.

Having reviewed the records of various companies for comparison, it is my humble opinion, though supported by ample documentation here and elsewhere, that Kent Security has a more extensive litigation history than average, with very questionable incidents to boot. This is one example of questionable conduct. I don't think I'm going out of line to assert this.

Presumably, Bernie Sanders would not be happy if he ever got the chance to speak to us about our opposition. We suspect he'd high-five us and tell us to continue to fight for justice.


Bernie Sanders fights for workers.
"The Wall of Shame is shameful!"

Honestly, we have only uploaded a portion of the questionable things we have found about this company. Putting everything up would simply create distraction and dilute our message, but nonetheless what we have posted so far on this blog and elsewhere is relevant because it arguably shows a pattern of behavior.

We also feel an obligation, besides fighting for justice, to deliver the lulz to our audience. I suppose this could be called the "Summer of Lulz." Admittedly, we have enjoyed plenty of laughs at the expense of our opposition, especially after our Labor Board victory. Honestly, there are times I could not stop laughing just thinking about how the company has mishandled our case.

Don't worry -- we'll make sure to keep them coming! After all, our opposition doesn't exactly make it a hard thing to do.

No comments:

Post a Comment