Katie.Kartwright v. GFX: Unethical business practices, mere negligence or isolated incident?

[Beagle]

I might be taking a recess from the boards tomorrow, but I just thought I should mention this.....

To the nonchalant posters who shrug this thread off as just a smear campaign/drama thread.......understand that there might be more than meets the eye. And if you choose to look the other way, given the evidence (assuming we gather sufficient evidence) and keep using the agency, it's reflective of the integrity of your character.

[nushi]

Originally Posted by KlassyKelliAnn

Lots of ladies hardly ever, if ever, post on the board. And many good clients are UTR and dont post reviews. I would look at the fact that she is not a verified provider and only a registered member more than the former.


KKA

Your non-specific argument is fairly useless.

[KlassyKelliAnn]

Originally Posted by nushi

Your non-specific argument is fairly useless.

Ok, fair enough, Specifically and Right off the top of my head....
I know of 14 providers who seldom post and dont have updated reviews and ARE verified providers in good standing. I have visited with more than 50 clients that are regular UTRs and dont post reviews ever. You do the continuing math for specifics when including the range of all these providers/clients I know of and those additional ones I dont.

[nushi]

Much more useful. Thanks KKA.

[KlassyKelliAnn]

Originally Posted by nushi

Much more useful. Thanks KKA.

love a man that keeps me on my toes.

KKA

[tpresc]

Originally Posted by Beagle

I might be taking a recess from the boards tomorrow, but I just thought I should mention this.....

To the nonchalant posters who shrug this thread off as just a smear campaign/drama thread.......understand that there might be more than meets the eye. And if you choose to look the other way, given the evidence (assuming we gather sufficient evidence) and keep using the agency, it's reflective of the integrity of your character.

Respectfully, I have to disagree... Whether Katie is right and GFX is a pimp or GFX is right and Katie just had a bad experience with the agency, this is just drama pure and simple. The timing of this situation is a bit questionable too considering that there was recent uptick in anti-GFX/pimp posts in the last few weeks with no real hard evidence of anything negative, beside the possibility of GFX being a pimp.

Im not saying pimping is right or that I agree with it but Ive accepted the fact that pimps are a part of this hobby. I try not to frequent providers who are driven by a pimp but then its hard to know for sure which independents and agencys really are what they say.

The fact remains GFX has had several well respected/reviewed providers vouch for them as an agency and not a pimp so take that as you will.

Back to this case though, the whole situation is most likely never to be resolved satisfactorily and nobody wins in this situation. Not GFX, not the providers now or previously associated with GFX, not Kaite and not the customers.

The only thing I see in this argument as cause for serious concern is the BBFS request which I cannot fault GFX for. Their rules clearly state no BBFS and all the screening in the world cant stop such a request from occurring behind closed doors. And once that request does occur, unless the GFX "pimp" was in the same room at the time to put a stop to it, it is up to the provider to say no.

The fact I've been able to gather from both accounts, is that Katie did rightly refuse BBFS service, at which point, why would GFX need to offer to pay to have Katie tested if she didn't do anything that could see her contract something. So either Katie told the truth and did not perform BBFS and GFX therefore had no reason to offer testing while suspending services with Katie pending testing or Katie lied and did perform BBFS and GFX therefore had no way to know Katie would require testing.

We also dont really know, and will never know for sure, just what GFX's response was to the customer. That person may now be blacklisted from GFX and may not receive a reference from them, which considering the hobby has no protection under the law is about the best GFX can do.

Truthfully there is fault on both sides here but from what I see it seems the issue started mostly because of Katie's lack of understanding of just what was expected of her as a provider for GFX in regards to keeping herself safe, having pictures posted, etc.

[Beagle]

Originally Posted by katie.kartwright

@Begal; this is the only way I can answer any of those that you've asked...
1)
A. The fact that Pimp ha all access to GFX an even posted for me when I was in the room shows me that he was in fact behind GFX; still to this day no voice from "Mrs M" had been heard to my ears again, and no appropriate apology.
B. Is answered in A, even when I met them months ago he had the stuff up on his computer posting as GFX...
C. No idea beer gave a reason for that, still a mystery to me.
D. We were there in the room he came is and right away, "our portion is XXX amount" I started counting it then realized and said "how is that so when it's 100 over (mind you we did trade for the room that lasted 5 mins so I didn't owe for "half" of the room - wouldn't even come out to be 100 for half) I told ALL this to PIMP and he looked at me like I was crazy, after uncomfortable discussion an better math (on his part) I then agreed to the right amount of the cut.
E. People have PMed me claimed that they are still being bothered by him, if this is true who knows...

A & B sounds quite troubling, if true. It would suggest that the "driver's" role isn't as menial as GFX would want us to believe.

Extracted from GFX's deposition:

Originally Posted by gfx

Originally hired as a driver, he was given more responsibility pick-up/drop-off models from the airport, help obtain an incall location, take photos, and handling funds.

And it would be understandable if you only saw him access GFX's ECCIE account during the holiday season when "Mrs M" claimed she was away and had delegated the duties to the driver.

1) Katie, did you see the driver access the GFX account of ECCIE the first time you met up in mid October?

2) "Mrs M", it's fair to ask then......what role do you play in the operations of GFX if the driver is delegated all the above tasks, including the meetup with Katie in October while you weren't away for the holiday?

3) GFX, if you indeed had fired the driver, how have you been taking care of the duties you used to delegate to him since? From your statement, you mentioned you will be hiring female drivers in future, which implies that you have not yet gotten a substitute, is that correct?

4) Katie, you have made references to a "Dre", whose identity was vehemently denied by GFX. Where did you obtain the name from? Was it from JJ, as GFX had mentioned?

5) Your answer at 1)e. about GFX harassing other members.......what was said exactly, and what do you think was GFX's purpose for doing it? Who are these members you speak of, and would you be able to get them to make their statements on this thread? Even if they were harassed, how could they tell if the contents by written by "Mrs M" or by the driver?

I'm sticking to discussions pertaining to part 1) for now. Serves no purpose addressing the rest, considering they could become irrelevant depending on our findings.

[Beagle]

Originally Posted by tpresc

Respectfully, I have to disagree... Whether Katie is right and GFX is a pimp or GFX is right and Katie just had a bad experience with the agency, this is just drama pure and simple.

The enquiry isn't as simple as establishing whether GFX is a pimp. Most would not have an issue with a pimp.

The issue at stake now is that GFX is allegedly managed by the same person who took advantage of Katie.

I can present evidence to show that Holly was a greenhorn when she joined GFX. Personally, I've met Elizabeth Wren, and I got the impression she was oblivious to the operations of the agency, too. And it's possibly the reason providers like them wouldn't know any better to start complaining, because they wouldn't know they had gotten the short end of the stick.

I can't speak for the other GFX models because I do not yet have any info about them.

[Guest070514-2]

1. Yes he had everything up and was even posting stuff on the Spurs thread; he was doing it this time too...
2. No idea
3. No idea
4. He Dre told me hi name. While PMing JJ I didn't reveal anything when he asked if it was him I simply said yes it was..... The name came from the Pimp who introduced himself.
5. Like I said I've a been PMed by some but can't claim if what they are saying is true - no idea why they'd lie; and the few who have haven't posted on any threads related to this topic so I don't think they would.... And like you said in a previous statement that the people will be well guarded in their identities. Also the way Dre talks and post you can tell he always said (we are cool - in LA Holly's post the same sentence was used; that's my evidence to that weak as it may be but "Mrs M" hasn't posted such sentence and as far back as I can see no sentence has been said again)

[Novatx]

I'm not taking sides here, but I will say this.
Ever since the drama started between GFX and Katie, not one but TWO GFX girls have now claim to have gone "independent" and one other who claims to still be with them. All three are claiming that GFX is great and are attacking Katie's claim that GFX is unprofessional , ran by a pimp etc. Looks a little fishy but that's just me, I'm usually skeptical about everything lol. I also noticed some similarity in the two posts below

Originally Posted by magicalmariah

What kind of pimp text you scriptures and invites you to his church? Just doesn't add up.

post # 16 on this thread

Originally Posted by gfx

Thank you Katie for at least admitting he shared his fellowship and passages, that at least proves his intentions were not malicious

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=952698&page=2

post # 25 in the thread above

It looks like it was written by the same person. Point is is that it could very well be GFX behind these now "independents". BUT, I could be wrong.

Also, because someone has religious beliefs and blah blah this by no means is VALID PROOF that they have no bad intentions. Come on. Anyway I just wanted to share that. Hopefully this was a lesson for both GFX and Katie

[Beagle]

Can any of you please post some links referring to this handle that went by "Dre" and any other pertinent information that might lead to a better understanding of his past?

[F117]

The Golden Globes are over for this year, so that leaves the big one... the Academy Awards! It should be a great year, with so many in the running for the category of "Best Drama"!
REMEMBER...

"THE DRA-MA! THE DRA-MA"

- paraphrased from Mr. Kurtz

[Beagle]

The timing of this issue may have coincided with Whispers and SL stirring things up in SA, but my agenda for this thread has nothing to do with theirs. Why would you deprive Katie of a fair investigation just because W and SL happened to stand on the same side as her?

You might have noticed that the both of them have refrained from making any statements in this thread, and also reduced their participation in the SA forums altogether. I do not communicate with either of them in private on ECCIE or outside the boards, but my guess is they do not want anyone else to credit them for influencing the outcome of this investigation.

I'm still waiting on any information regarding Dre's posting history. Can't really proceed without it.

[KlassyKelliAnn]

Heres one that talks about a pimp named Dre....

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...&highlight=dre

[guy fawkes]

+1

Still on this shit?? I'd rather watch Maury

Could have thought of anything else to POST. This SHIT has been BEAT TO DEATH