Ghost Pro Radar Detector Cease and Desist Order
On February 10, 2011 I published my review and video of Radar Shield’s Ghost Pro radar detector ranking it the 2nd Worst Radar Detector that I had ever tested.
On Monday, nearly a year after this review was published, I received this cease and desist letter from Yechezkel Rodal, an attorney with the Bavaro Legal firm in Plantation Florida.
Click Image to View
Mr. Rodal writes in his letter that my company (RadarDetector.org) persists in spreading untruths about his client Mr. Nir Steel and his company, Radar Shield Technologies and that my defamatory statements are affecting Mr. Steel’s business.
- That my “assertion” that the Radar Shield is “Chinese counterfeit” is untrue, defamatory and illegal, and
- That my allegation that Radarshield doesn’t carry FCC certification is also false, defamatory and illegal.
Mr. Rodal “warns” me to cease and desist from spreading any “further” defamatory statements, reviews, comments, articles, videos, etc. against Mr. Steel or Radar Shield Technologies immediately.
His cease and desist demand includes e-mails, reviews, my websites, other websites, Facebook, YouTube and any other type of social media.
Mr. Rodal states that if I choose to ignore this warning, that his client, Mr. Steel would have no other choice but to proceed accordingly and file a lawsuit against me and my company, warning to “Govern yourself accordingly”.
My Public Reply to Yechezkel Rodal, Esq. – Bavaro Legal PA
Retiring as a Lieutenant with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office I typically have a great deal of respect for members of the bar and would address you in a more appropriate manner.
However your cease and desist letter is a misrepresentation of the facts filled with complete “bullshit” so I have chosen to address your concern here on my website.
First, let me explain to you a little bit about who I am and what I am all about.
After serving a distinguished 20-year career in law enforcement, I retired at the rank of Lieutenant.
During my career I was certified as a traffic radar instructor certifying 1000’s of police officers in the use and operation of various speed measurement devices including police radar guns.
I have been called upon to testify as an expert witness in numerous superior court cases throughout Arizona regarding the use and technology of police radar guns.
After my retirement in 1996 I launched the website Radarbusters.com which provides tips on how to beat traffic tickets and reviews of various speed counter measurement devices.
Several of these reviews have been published in magazines such as American Iron and Car and Driver.
I have been interviewed by various news shows including 20/20, CBS Good Morning, American Journal and the Speed Chanel.
I also attend trade shows such the Consumer Electronics Show and SEMA to stay up on the advances in our industry.
Thus I feel that I am very qualified to publish a review stating my opinion of a particular product in the radar detector niche.
As I have demonstrated in my review and video, I have keep very detailed notes regarding my experiences with products I test to support my opinions if asked to do so.
You state in your letter dated January 10, 2012 that my statement calling your client’s product a “Chinese Counterfeit” were untrue, defamatory and illegal and that RadarShield holds a registered trademark.
In reading my review I do warn consumers about the dangers of purchasing a radar detector from unscrupulous dealers that sell counterfeit radar detectors manufactured in China and Korea.
I also relate in my review that I found a new company that was selling “Tommy’s” detectors calling themselves Radar Shield Technologies (your client).
So I don’t understand your position in that if your client holds a registered trademark it somehow mitigates the fact that he sells “Chinese counterfeit” radar detectors?
Your second statement references that my “allegation” that RadarShield doesn’t carry FCC certification is also false, defamatory and illegal.
On October 27, 2002 a public notice was published by the Federal Communications Commission (DA 02-2852), which required that all radar detectors sold in the US be FCC approved and labeled with a FCC identification number.
My Youtube video review published on February 10, 2010 clearly demonstrates that your clients Radar Shield radar detector did not have this required FCC identification number attached.
Prior to the publication of my review, I did go to the FCC.gov website to check if your client had the required FCC FRN number and he did not.
After the receipt of your letter, I went back to the FCC website and found that your client did register for a number on 2/22/2011, 12 days after the publication of my review.
However this search on the FCC site did not locate any FCC type acceptance number assigned to your clients Radar Shield detector.
It should also be noted that within my review that I document my attempts to contact your client by telephone and e-mail prior to the publication of my review and he chose to ignore me.
Mr. Rodal, I have been in this industry for over 15 years and I have always published my honest opinion of the products I test.
Occasionally I publish a review of product such as your clients Radar Shield radar detector, which falls short in performing the way the manufacture and/or distributor advertises the product.
And I admit that I may get a couple emails or telephone calls because they don’t agree with my opinion and they leave it at that.
But never in my 15 years being in this industry have I never received a certified cease and desist letter from a law firm threatening legal action, so I consider your notice a “badge of honor” so thank you.
Your letter is framed and proudly displayed on my office wall.
But the issue I’m sure you would like me to address is if I will indeed cease and desist in publishing any further defamatory statements in regard to your client and your client’s products.
- I am prepared to defend my opinion of your clients radar detector which I published on my website and in my video as I do not consider them to be defamatory in nature at all. My review (opinion) is based upon my 35 years of training and experience and is well documented.
- Your request for me not to publish any “further defamatory” statements, reviews, comments, articles, videos, photos including e-mails, reviews, my own websites, other websites, Facebook, Youtube and any other social media to me is laughable, allow me to explain. If you would have taken the time to read any of my prior reviews either negative or positive that I have published on my website it is very rare that I publish any new commentary unless something newsworthy occurs with that product. So by making your request in your cease and desist letter you and your client have opened the door for further commentary.
So before I publish my “follow-up” review of the Ghost Pro radar detector in the coming weeks, I would like to extend this invitation.
If your client feels that my review was unfair and would like me to amend it and/or do a follow-up review of the Ghost Pro radar detector we can schedule a day for him to come out to our office for a follow-up review.
Prior to his arrival I will make 3 “blind purchases” of the Ghost Pro radar detector from his website and/or his eBay account and these detectors will remain sealed until his arrival.
Upon his arrival he can inspect the packages to make sure that they have not been tampered with and we would then open the packages and inspect the radar detectors for proper FCC certification labeling.
I would then have 1 off-duty police officer who is certified in police radar test the Ghost Pro radar detector against various police radar guns measuring the detectors performance, sensitivity, range and filtering.
This officer will also test the “stealth” capabilities advertised on the Ghost Pro website using two Spectre RDD devices.
If the unit performs as Mr. Steel advertises on his website I will gladly offer him a public apology on my website and pay all of his expenses in coming to our office and his acceptance would be the cheapest and the fastest way to put this all behind us.
However if your client does decide to proceed in his threats in filing a lawsuit against my company and me personally, my attorney and I are both prepared to counter with a formidable defense.
Is the Sky Eye radar detector a counterfeit too?
Based upon your cease and desist order demanding me “to cease and desist from spreading any further defamatory statements, reviews, comments, articles, articles, videos, photos, etc” and your client’s recent decision to market a new radar detector he calls the SkyEye, “the smartest speed-trap defense system ever made” utilizing satellite (gps) technology I suspect that your action is to some how prevent me from doing a new review on this new radar detector marketed by Radar Shield Technology.
Well allow me to provide you with some additional information.
- Escort Inc. holds the patent for radar detectors within the USA for GPS enabled radar detectors. Your clients marketing of this SkyEye clearly violates Escort’s patent so I would assume that once they find out about it, they will send Mr. Steel their own cease and desist letter and/or file a lawsuit against your client.
- The SkyEye is detector that is very similar to the ones that were hawked by Rayee Technologies at the 2009 CES show in Las Vegas which I referenced as being a “cheap ass radar detector” and a “cheap counterfeit radar detector manufactured in China”
- So based upon this information you may want to warn your client that he should expect a couple of new orders for this Sky Eye radar detector, one from Escort’s legal team and of course one from me to do a new review.
In closing I will also offer 1 additional tip that you may find helpful in your law career.
Before you send out another one of your “bullshit cease and desist” letters to an Internet Marketing professional, make sure that that you have a strong case and be prepared for the reputation management issues in both the search engines and social media spaces cause they can be a bitch to remove.