Corporate Security Investigations: Introduction

Regarding Keith Krasnove, my assessment is mixed.

Keith has lied repeatedly to me in writing. However, he produced what I was looking for. I've told him that I'm grateful for that.

But I don't think that Corporate Security Investigations originally planned to do any work on my behalf. The evidence suggests that Keith Krasnove was going to take my money, wait until after the deadline for a complaint to my bank had passed, and laugh all the way to his own bank.

Corporate Security Investigations: Preliminary assessment

Corporations with attorneys on staff might find it not only safe, but profitable, to work with Keith Krasnove of Corporate Security Investigations.

However, individuals might wish to proceed cautiously with a P.I. who is likely to lie to them and to threaten them for asking questions.

My sense is that Keith Krasnove sees individual, non-corporate, clients as krill. Corporations would be a different matter.

Corporate Security Investigations: Story

Keith Krasnove had promised to take a particular step on Dec 03, 2018. This was over a month after I'd paid him. He didn't do so. When I asked him about his non-performance the next day, he threatened me without cause.

The threat was most likely, in and of itself, a prosecutable crime due to its inclusion of a lie that Keith has never, to the best of my knowledge, directly retracted.

As a note to attorneys, Keith *has* retracted the lie in written statements which are worded as indirectly as possible.

So, barring abuse of process, which is of course common, Keith would be at risk in legal proceedings.

Keith Krasnove never responded to polite inquiries that I made on Dec 04, 2018 regarding his non-performance.

Instead, Keith said that that I'd made a chargeback and that Corporate Security Investigations was going to sue me for fraud as well as for other damages.

Keith's position now is that this was simply a mistake on his part and the threat was justified by the mistake that he'd made.

However, he declined to acknowledge the mistake or retract his threat for a week. As of December 10, 2018, he still hadn't taken either step in email. Only in text messages.

He seems determined to avoid acknowledging in writing that he made the threat. But I'd say that text messages count, for legal purposes, as written communications.

The relevant text messages will be posted here in due course.

On Dec 04, 2018, Corporate Security Investations suggested, in writing, that I'd stolen $1,000 from the company. This wasn't even close to the amount that would have been stolen if I *had* made a chargeback.

$1,000 was 67% higher than the actual amount, $600, and Keith Krasnove cited the 67% difference that he made up as the basis for the part of his threat related to fraud.

I hadn't even threatened to make a chargeback. I'd spoken as politely as possible to a company that had lied to me in writing.

Surely Corporate Security Investigations is a firm that hardworking individuals who need help can trust. Trust to threaten them for asking questions.

On Dec 10, 2018, Keith Krasnove made an unexplained remark — once again, in writing — that may have been innocuous or a more serious threat.

This had to do with Krasnove's prosecution of the gangster Wallace Rice in his (Krasnove's) previous career as, I think, an Assistant District Attorney. Details will be added here.

But, even so, I've offered Krasnove additional work. I feel that, under the right circumstances, he's able to deliver the goods.

This is one of the stranger situations to arise out of the Kiraly Gag Order Cases. I'll assemble the story here as time permits.

I've got to say that, once Keith got moving, he delivered the goods.

Keith inflates the significance of the reports side of his business. Every licensed P.I. has access to data broker reports. Some brokers are better and some are worse. Either way, the P.I. usually can't take credit for what's in them.

Non-pro forma reports, out of the box thinking, and field work are different matters. This is where you find out what a P.I. can do.

As I've explained elsewhere, the priority of most low-end P.I.s, except for retired police officers, is to find a way to defraud you.

Police officers, the ones that I've talked to, seem very by the book.

But other P.I.s invent non-existent informants, press you to pay for surveillance when the proposal is prima facie fraud, and come up with questionable reasons about why investigations should be continued.

In Keith's case, I don't think that he was going to do any work within the two months that I had to file a dispute with my bank. Additionally, he broke promises, flat-out lied to me, and threatened me at least once. Possibly twice.

But I was able to persuade him to actually do the work that I'd paid for. I was rewarded for patience with results.

The stress was significant. I had to talk to my bank on multiple days for hours at a time. I lost nights of sleep.

But I ended up with a great photograph, an interesting story about developments, and an extra data broker report that I didn't authorize but found useful. More about that further down.

The photograph is on Haggis Hell, but it will be copied here in due course.

Keith is wearing a coat; I don't know if it's an actual trenchcoat, but it seems very P.I.-ish.

He's standing in a house that my parents had abandoned. He's spread his arms in a bemused gesture and has an exasperated expression on his face.

It says “P.I.”.

Keith implied that he did extra work as a form of apology for his original threat. He seemed to be offering me the extra report in this context as well.

But he didn't seem to want to spell anything out. That's how I read it, anyway. I'll post the messages involved here later.

To be honest, I just wanted him to talk to me clearly and to explain what had happened. He wasn't willing to do that, I think, due to fears related to legal liabilities.

Date: December 10, 2018
To: Keith Krasnove
Corporate Security Investigations

Keith, I'm pretty sleepy. I'll try to be brief.

You texted a reference to Wallace Rice, a gangster, on December 10, 2018. You declined to explain the context for the reference.

You were involved in the prosecution of Rice. The reference might have been an implied boast related to your prowess in your previous career. Or there might been have more to it; perhaps the admission that you framed Rice and the implication that you could do so to others.

I don't know, due to your refusal to explain.

I'm going to need to make public the fact that you made the reference and possibly speak with others who were involved in the Rice case. Including reporters and others who wrote about it. The latter might, I think, be able to comment.

Beyond that, to reword a point that I made in text myself, take care lest you come across as the Wallace Rice figure in the current story.

A possible offer to hire you for advisory work stands, but if such work is agreed to, there isn't going to be any predatory contract.

Regards, Robert (the Old Coder)

December 08 letter

This one will move to a subpage.

Date: December 08, 2018
To: Keith Krasnove
Corporate Security Investigations

Keith, here's my take on things:

1. This letter and/or communications in both directions, past, present, and/or future are likely to be posted online, quoted, or otherwise distributed or made use of.

This letter, in particular, is probably going to go onto my weblog, Haggis Hell, today. This would be one way of calling attention to the possible Elder Abuse issue that you've reported.

2. You could have been more clear regarding what your gut instincts were telling you about the situation.

You haven't even seen fit — unless I've missed the response — to answer my question regarding what you meant when you said that “Jim Lawson” was “suspicious”. Did you mean that he was behaving suspiciously or that he was suspicious of you?

3. “Jim Lawson” might have lied to you regarding his name. The rest of his story might be true or false regardless.

The appropriate course of action might be as follows:

(3a) I could speak with local Realtors to determine whether or not the house in question is listed as For Sale. If it is listed, I could relay what you've said to the listing agent. The listing agent would certainly be able to comment further.

(3b) If the house isn't listed as For Sale, I could discuss the matter with the police, with the local equivalent of a county-level Elder Abuse department, and/or with HOA management.

(3c) Come to think of it, I should send the story to Harvey Levenson. He's a business associate, of some type, of Jim Kiraly's of 25 years' standing, he's local, and he's even, apparently, the legal owner of the couple's previous residence.

(3d) Tom and Ken Kiraly, the middle two of Jim's and Grace's four surviving sons, will probably be interested as well.

To be clear, my brothers don't “like” the couple, but they'd know about the move. If Jim is now in senile dementia — which you've hinted that you know more about, but haven't elaborated on — one of them might even be the person who is coordinating the sale.

Scott Kiraly, the youngest brother, isn't a factor. He might be deceased due to morbid obesity. If he's living, he wouldn't be involved in Jim's business affairs.

Jim would only consider, I think, trusting the middle two brothers, though he did ask me, years ago, to take on some of the responsibilities that Tom has now assumed.

4. You've suggested that I send you payment for additional work. I have reservations about doing so until previous business is concluded.

In particular, I need for you to do one of two things:

4a. One option is for you to voluntarily, and explicitly, waive a recent $80 charge that I didn't authorize. Note: I'm not saying that I wouldn't have authorized the charge; that isn't the point.

You seem to have waived the charge twice already, so I'm not sure why you'd object to this. The issue, for me, is that I'd like to see the waiver stated more explicitly.

4b. Another option is for you to accept payment of $80. However, prior to such payment, you'd need to acknowledge the following points:

(4b1) I haven't made a “chargeback” for “$1000”, or for any other amount, on any transaction.

(4b2) I didn't explicitly authorize the $80 charge and payment will not constitute acknowledgment of prior authorization, or of prior or present agreement to any terms or conditions previously agreed to in any other context.

(4b3) You're satisfied that I've met all commitments and/or obligations of any type that I may, or may not, have to you, with the words “commitments” and “obligations” to be interpreted in the broadest possible sense.

If you press Reply, quote this letter, and add the words “In connection with Part 4, so agreed” I'll authorize you to set up a formal payment link or other mechanism to address the $80. The commitment to the authorization is subject to review of the contents of your letter and/or subsequent letters from you as a whole.

5. As a point of information, I've discussed part (4b1) — for roughly one hour — with an Operations Manager at the relevant bank on my side.

Technical note: An Operations Manager is Tier 4. There's Front Line (Tier 1), Supervisor (Tier 2), Manager (Tier 3), and Operations Manager (Tier 4).

The Tier 2, in this case, sent the matter to Compliance days ago with escalated priority. The Tier 4 says that Compliance has already approved the release of documentation to me.

I expect to be in possession of said documentation shortly.

My bank would only be able to see some of the past transactions that you've engaged in as your clients use multiple financial institutions.

So, speculation to the effect that Corporate Security Investigations' business model consists, in part, of fraud and that you may therefore have an unusual number of chargebacks remains, for the moment, little more than speculation.

But the Tier 4 has been kind enough to explain that a payment gateway which you may have used extensively, Square, is coupled to a particular financial institution, JC Morgan Chase Bank.

My bank could initiate communications with JC Morgan or I might be able to do so myself. JC Morgan, in turn, might be able, due to terms and conditions that Square had to have agreed to, to require Square to take a look at your transaction history.

6. You, Keith Krasnove of Corporate Security Investigations, CA PI 20897, have made a point of touting, to me, your performance in the current case.

However, in the process, you've been careful to avoid commenting on the fact that you seem to have lied regarding your performance in written statements made on December 4 and 5. Remember that verifiable dates are involved.

This is in addition to a false statement that you made, in writing, on December 4 regarding a “chargeback” and an associated threat that you made to “sue” me, your client in good faith, “for fraud besides the damages in the Agreement”.

Isn't this the sort of thing that might give pause to parties who are assessing Corporate Security Investigations as a candidate for their research needs?

People come to Corporate Security Investigations, State of California P.I. 20897, seeking to find a way to make things right. In some cases, their lives have been damaged by criminals, abusers, and the like.

The evidence suggests that you may make it a practice to steal from these people and to use predatory contracts and your past experience with legal cases to walk away smiling, their cash in your pocket.

There are other possible explanations for your actions on December 4. However, none of the possible explanations reflect especially well on you or are likely to boost your reputation. Am I correct or incorrect about that?

On December 4, you used the words “making a big mistake”. I think that perhaps you should pause and reflect on your own words.

7. I'd like to discuss the advisory work that you offered to do a while back. But, if such work is done, there isn't going to be any contract remotely resembling the one that you usually press hapless and trusting clients to sign.

Regards, Robert (the Old Coder)

© 2012-2020 Robert Kiraly aka OldCoder and BoldCoder    |  Privacy policy    |  Contact   |  Notices