Originally posted May 25, 2016 Updated May 26, 2016
Dear Mopar Friends and Customers of Morris Wayne Brown,
We have been informed by Morris Wayne Brown that he can no longer pay his bills, buy product nor continue sales of any kind. We find this odd as he lives in his mother’s home and runs his business out of her garage. Please be aware that should you place an order with The Ram Man team or with Wayne Brown directly, that despite taking your money, product may not be shipped, or if you receive defective product you will not receive service of any kind. Please see the email notice below.
ArcDis Corp originally sought to grow Morris (Wayne) Brown's business but repeatedly came up against insensitive and demeaning statements like the one sent out below. We have tried to work together with Morris but his ongoing actions have put his company into financial distress where he may be fraudulently taking orders with no intention of shipping out product. Please proceed with caution when calling by phone, it is clear that Morris may not be paying his suppliers nor can you expect to receive any product ordered from The Ram Man.
We appreciate your understanding and patience.
May 26, 2016
To all Mopar, Brake and Hub customers,
We are informing all customers of The Ram Man that Morris Wayne Brown is currently 43 days delinquent on his bills to ArcDis Corp. Please be aware that we have been forced to use this medium to reveal Morris Wayne Brown’s attempts to evade paying his bills through acts of intimidation, extortion, slander and libel. Ultimately, the goal of this communication is to secure payment for the works done to grow The Ram Man TRM business, to protect the reputation and well being of ArcDis Corp directors and associates and to protect the intellectual property of ArcDis Corp.
Please be advised that we believe Morris Wayne Brown and his business manager Skip Eavers to be deceitful with ulterior motives to steal our intellectual works (ArcDis Book of Knowledge), business forms, marketing works, business insights, competitive evaluations, market research, sourcing contacts, technical expertise and more. Due to their recent activity on YouTube we know them both to be untrustworthy, volatile and malevolent.
Morris and The Ram Man team have unlawfully tried to terminate our business partnership through acts of harassment, defamation of character and the threat of extortion. Morris has done this by registering our company director’s names as domains, sending numerous threatening emails, posting insulting untrue YouTube videos, leaving threatening voicemails, impersonating a private investigator, and more.
For reference, in October 2015, ArcDis Corp had formed a business relationship with The Ram Man for the growth of the brake business as well as the creation and sale of Dodge and GM unit bearing manual locking hub conversion kits. In support of the business, ArcDis Corp had forgone payment for the partial list of professional services signed and dated March 21, 2016 by Morris Wayne Brown (Strategy Brief: Sales Efforts). In addition to creating the locking-hubs.com website, ArcDis Corp has also made positive financial impact through the reduction of costs by introducing new manufacturing partners like Mile Marker Industries.
Additional examples include, ArcDis Corp’s work to define the advantages of unit bearing manual locking hub conversion kits that continue to be used by The Ram Man team in their promotion and sale of unit bearing manual locking hub conversion kits. ArcDis Corp’s written works are also used in all TRM printed materials, online content as well as in their daily communications with customers by email and phone. Moreover, ArcDis Corp forms are used in all The Ram Man TRM invoices in addition to a complete overhaul of their warranty and RMA procedures labelled “Real Good Info.”
In closing, while we regret to expose the ugly business dealings of Morris Wayne Brown, it is our hope that we can resolve this issue quickly to the mutual benefit of both parties. ArcDis Corp remains hopeful that Morris Wayne Brown will stop impeding his own business by spreading hate and lies to his own clients.
Update May 26, 2016
We have tried again to work with Morris Brown to create positive informative content about brakes, hubs and automotive parts. Given the new video posted to YouTube, it is clear that Morris Wayne Brown is recklessly attempting to sabotage his own business.
ArcDis Corp has now tried everything in our power to work together with Morris Wayne Brown. While we have always recognized that he is an expert in brakes and manual locking hubs we cannot ignore his temper and detrimental actions to the business. We have come to the conclusion that Morris Wayne Brown is completely unmanageable and untrustworthy. Please read the current forum entries of your fellow man to make a judgement for yourself on the “trustworthiness” of Morris Wayne Brown as a merchant.
“After informing Wayne of who I was and the problem that I am having with the vacuum booster that he rebuilt he almost immediately became defensive and in a belligerent manner began shouting at me… He told me that If I was his patient and him my doctor that I would need to seek help elsewhere…
“I tried contacting Wayne for a week. Spoke to his wife who every time told me Wayne would get right back to me. He never called and emails were never replied to.”
“I bought my kit from him and have mixed reviews for Wayne Brown. The good: he is knowledgeable about the product and product seems to be of acceptable quality. The bad: Price is a little on the high side; installation instructions not great; poor product support - his master cylinder was bad. I understand these things happen, but I got the run around on getting a replacement so I wound up buying one from NAPA.”
“Has anybody bought parts from the Ram Man I looking to buy his disk brakes spindles and caliper brackets from him, but I email him twice 2 weeks ago and no answer thanks”
We have reviewed the documents sent to us by you and your private investigator and find there to be no evidence of any crime or damage to you or The Ram Man business. Despite your written comments on the documents, there is no evidence that ArcDis Corp, Joshua Sham, Wayne McAlpine or any other known ArcDis director or associate has done anything that might constitute a scam or fraud.
In fact, information about ArcDis Corp and all of our directors is available in the public domain. Meaning, we have been completely up-front, have never represented ourselves falsely and welcome the FBI, attorney general, and the department of justice to look into our affairs. We are aware of all of the information that you’ve provided and know that it is all easily accessible on the Internet.
Despite the presumed financial situation of The Ram Man business, we are concerned by your decision to waste company resources in your efforts to harass and harm the reputation of your business partners. We are not your enemy and continue to pursue remedies that can help the business. Simply put, we continue to be good stewards of the business and have never done anything to harm you nor The Ram Man business.
We are writing you this letter to inform you that in the defense of our legal rights, we will not tolerate your ongoing harassment of ArcDis Corp associates and directors. While you’ve focused on trying to ruin our reputation, we are building a case to put you in jail for the following criminal acts. Please note that your lies and threats of ongoing harassment will be fought to the fullest extent of the law.
We have not only reported you to the police, but we have recorded, transcribed, and documented your various YouTube videos, voice mails, emails, and phone conversations to add to our file of your ongoing acts of intimidation, harassment, extortion and threat to our personal safety and well-being.
Please see the following examples and instances where you have committed criminal acts of Fraud, Extortion, Online Harassment, Harassment, and Impersonation of a private investigator.
Texas extortion law charges the crime as theft (see Texas Theft Laws). Extortion occurs when an individual gains property or money by some type of force or threat of violence, property damage, harm to reputation or unfavorable government action. The difference between this kind of threat and robbery is that the victim is not placed in imminent (or immediate) fear of physical danger. Instead, the threatened conduct could occur sometime in the future and could affect things other than the victim's physical body, such as his or her reputation.
Section 33.07 to read as follows:
SEC. 33.07. ONLINE HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses the name or persona of another person to create a web page on or to post one or more messages on a commercial social networking site:
(1) without obtaining the other person's consent; and
(2) with the intent to harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten any person.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person sends an electronic mail, instant message, text message, or similar communication that references a name, domain address, phone number, or other item of identifying information belonging to any person:
(1) without obtaining the other person's consent;
(2) with the intent to cause a recipient of the communication to reasonably believe that the other person authorized or transmitted the communication; and
(3) with the intent to harm or defraud any person.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree. An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the actor commits the offense with the intent to solicit a response by emergency personnel.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.
Sec. 42.07. HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, the person:
(1) initiates communication and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene;
(2) threatens, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of the person's family or household, or the person's property;
(3) conveys, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the report, a false report, which is known by the conveyor to be false, that another person has suffered death or serious bodily injury;
(4) causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another;
(5) makes a telephone call and intentionally fails to hang up or disengage the connection;
(6) knowingly permits a telephone under the person's control to be used by another to commit an offense under this section; or
(7) sends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.
Impersonation of a Private Investigator
7520. No person shall engage in a business regulated by this chapter; act or assume to act as, or represent himself or herself to be, a licensee unless he or she is licensed under this chapter; and no person shall falsely represent that he or she is employed by a licensee. 7520.1. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person engaging in a business as a private investigator who violates Section 7520 is guilty of an infraction subject to the procedures described in Sections 19.6 and 19.7 of the Penal Code under either of the following circumstances:
Please note that we also wish to pursue civil remedies against you with respect to your actions of intentional infliction of mental distress, invasion of privacy, defamation of character, slander, and libel.
Invasion of Privacy
Invasion of Privacy (General)
Texas observes three types of invasion of privacy claims: (1) misappropriation—the right to be free from the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality; (2) unlawful publicity—the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern; and (3) intrusion on seclusion—the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.1 Notably, Texas has expressly refused to adopt a claim for false light of invasion of privacy, finding that it “substantially duplicates the tort of defamation while lacking many of its procedural limitations.”2
The Texas Supreme Court has observed that “[t]he right to privacy is a right distinctive in itself, and not incidental to some other recognized right for breach of which an action for damages will lie.”3 Accordingly, a WMC victim could potentially bring any one of these three claims for relief to seek money damages or an injunction against a defendant.
Defamation of Character
Texas law uses the phrase "defamation of character" to cover incidents in which someone makes a false statement to injure another person's reputation or imply the person has bad character. Defamation of character includes libel, in which such statements are written, and slander, in which such statements are spoken.
To prove defamation of character in Texas, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant made a false statement to a third party about the plaintiff with the required degree of fault. The amount of fault required differs depending on whether the statement is about a public official, a public figure or a private individual.
In Texas, a person who is a "public figure," a "limited public figure" or a "public official" must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice" when making a defamatory statement. "Actual malice" is defined as making a defamatory statement while knowing it's false or with reckless disregard as to whether it's false or true.
According to the Citizens Media Law Project, Texas courts have found that public figures or public officials include, for example, law enforcement agents, specialist employees of Texas Child Protective Services, employees of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and a court-appointed child psychologist who had the authority to decide what visitation was appropriate. Public figures and public officials must prove actual malice in all allegedly defamatory statements.
A "limited public figure" is a person who is usually a private individual, but who seeks the limelight for a particular purpose or issue. Limited public figures in past Texas cases have included a candidate for city council who deliberately entered debate on a contentious issue and a hacker group called Legion of Doom that sought publicity in a computer-security controversy. Limited public figures must prove actual malice regarding statements that are made about the public issue they appear in.
A "private figure" is a person who has no public involvement in government or any particular controversy. Private figures do not need to prove the defendant made the defamatory statements with actual malice. It is enough to prove the statements were merely negligent.
Lastly, let it be known that we will pursue all criminal and legal remedies against you from each of our various locations. Acting both independently and collectively in the defense of our legal rights in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, San Francisco, and China.
Govern yourself accordingly.