UPDATED Haters vs. Forced Accountability: The Alexis Martin Neely Case Study “The Truth-Telling Lawyer”?
UPDATED: July 24, 2015 Alexis Neely aka Ali Shanti has a new gig she’s promoting on Twitter: Law Business Mentor
Family Wealth Planning Institute, LLC
Lift Foundation Systems, LLC
Its (sic) All Happening, LLC
Eyes Wide Open LLC
New Law Business Model aka Law Business Mentors
Personal Family Lawyer aka America’s Personal Family Lawyer
The Alexis M. Neely 2005 Irrevocable Trust
The AMN 2010 Irrevocable Trust
#Eyes Wide Open
#Whole Truth Show
Money Map to Freedom™
May 17, 2014
UPDATED: June 8, 2014
CA DOJ checking out Alexis Martin Neely February 11, 2015
In Business one has to have credibility in order to call out another’s credibility
The irony is rich in this post. As you will read below Ali Shanti (aka Alexis Martin Neely) uses the word “truth” in her marketing and there’s a constant underlying theme of the manipulations of facts, creating parasitic business plans, refusal to take accountability and placing blame (“But, I don’t believe I ever lied as blatantly as what I just saw”) which is not only inconsistent & contradictory language to action to calling out “someone you know is blatantly lying in their marketing” it’s the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
The comment in question below from a previous thread:
Back to today’s post
Well, if honest Ali said she had one associate & 3 of counsel attorneys while citing a
former employee, Nathalie Shiell to verify the facts-well then it must be true, right?
Fact based evidence is not having a paid employee become your mouthpiece.
Wow. Just. Wow.
Oh Ali-exposing the truth (she’d likely rather remain hidden) of a pathological history of unethical and or illegal behavior as a means of providing fact based evidence to consumers should get her mad.
But it is factual and she’s an attorney, right?
Well that again is inconsistent & contradictory language to action because if lies were published (which they weren’t) wouldn’t a good attorney sue to have the false information removed? At least she’s smart enough to know she’d get tossed out of court faster than a criminal could change their name or the name of their business.
But thank you for again demonstrating the inability to take accountability while deflecting blame.
What possibly would Ali like me to say about an un-named man and un-named set of circumstances from someone who is clearly ethically challenged?
No credibility means no trust and should force each person to demand actual physical proof of what’s stated as fact.
More facts (7) that the “truth-telling” Ali Shanti (Alexis Martin Neely) may have massaged?
The victimizer (or accomplice) under The Socioapthic Business Model™
will often try and deflect their negative truthful actions (which are causing harm to their image/profits)
as a means of manipulation to allow continue unethical and or illegal activity
without taking accountability for their own actions.
Insult & demean those exposing the truth is a tactic from The Sociopathic Business Model™
Nathalie Shiell may also want to re-read that again because filing something incorrecting is much different than
not discussing the conflict of interest.
Plantiff’s Attorney: Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) the lawsuit describes her actions as willful and despicable lying
Martin Neely never discussed the conflict of interest but instead represented Rebecca and family in the following areas, instructing Rebecca on ways to protect her son’s(correction brother’s) interests in the Trust, and tax information, according to the cases (more here)
Again, there aren’t “my” facts, “Ali’s/Alexis'” facts and “Nathalie’s” facts there is just THE facts which always escapes people who object to The Sociopathic Business Model™ and there’s usually a name for those people: criminals
Something people looking to eliminate fraud from their lives might want to think about before engaging in business:
The people who commit business fraud don’t like The Sociopathic Business Model™ because the goal is to protect you and your money, your health, and your family by not allow you to become a victim of fraud.
Fact based evidence over time provided me with enough information to know Ali Shanti (aka Alexis Martin Neely) lacks the credibility to ever question another’s ability to tell the truth. It doesn’t mean the person she’s passive aggressively chastising in her post is honorable in any way (in fact water rises to its own level)* it again likely proves that all accomplices eventually become victims under The Sociopathic Business Model™. Meaning that those who collude unethically and or illegally together (accomplices) eventually one will turn on the other creating a “victim.” Yes, it’s often difficult to feel sorry for a “victim” who is one of their own doing-but even more so when the victim doesn’t learn and keeps trying to find others to victimize.
I’d say Alexis Martin Neely (Ali Shanti) being sued by a client that alleged Illegal Malpractice, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress may fall into the category of ill-gotten gains, or benefits obtained in an evil manner or dishonest means where forced accountability was the remedy which may have resulted in Neely filing for bankruptcy. Kinda takes the wind out of that million Alexis Martin Neely (Ali Shanti) earned in 2006 now, doesn’t it?
Victimizers do not get to cry victim (or “Haters” when the facts (deeply hidden)) are exposed forcing someone to take accountability for their unethical or illegal behavior. This next Case Study involves an attorney, actually “a truth telling lawyer,” (?) Alexis Martin Neely (aka Ali Shanti, aka Alexis Martin, aka Martin Neely & Associates). The purpose and function is to expose the facts to allow people to determine if they would want to do business with the people in the Case Studies or not. Again, up to each individual how to best apply the facts to make conscious decisions for their own lives.
And there’s the first trigger “paradigm.” Anytime I (personally) hear or read anyone using that word they have lost instant creditability with me (again fact based evidence over time has proven to me this person is either a grifter or insecure and using a buzz word).
Others may still love an embrace the word but they either took a dinosaur to work or trying to parasitically attach themselves to a once acceptable buzz word. (Also see growth hacking). And anytime anyone says “I’m not a micro manager or I’m a truth telling lawyer,” the skeptic in me and well that and fact based evidence over time has proven the opposite is usually true. What brought this to my attention was as usual inconsistent and contradictory language and actions which are signs or triggers that someone could be employing characteristics of The Sociopathic Business Model™. Why brag you graduated first in your class at Georgetown and not actually practice law?
While Neely is an attorney, she neglected to mention on the website blurb above or her LinkedIn snapshot that she’s was not a practicing attorney from 2011 until recent events Forced Accountability. The omissions or manipulation of facts still equates to lies and lies are the opposite of “truth-telling.” (Not sure they taught that at Georgetown)
Wow fourth year in practice and she was bringing in 1 million revenue only working in her office a few days a week? And yet she filed for bankruptcy and let her eligibility to practice law lapse? Again, that’s inconsistent and contradictory language and actions and for me a BIG RED FLAG, and warrants a deeper look.
And this is a personal thing and can be viewed as “hate” but the made up titles are another RED FLAG for me. The need to create new “titles” like Chief Visionary Officer-newsflash a good CEO should also have vision-this isn’t clever, charming or even relevant (for me it solidifies the desire to try and hide something or take attention away from something and makes me want to dig deeper still).
Remember multiple name changes, location changes, website domains changes, company name changes are all tricks used to distance SEO from often illegal or unethical behavior and something to note when making decisions. And if companies like Johnson & Johnson and their CEO are doing it with apparent ease, it’s much easier to do with smaller company. Just points to keep in mind as you make decisions.
From The State Bar of California:
A reasonable person reading Alexis Martin Neely’s LinkedIn page from 2011 on would/could reasonably assume she was a current practicing attorney. If Alexis Martin Neely’s tagline is “the truth-telling lawyer,” (?) wouldn’t it stand to reason somewhere on her website blub or LinkedIn page she’d mention she WAS NOT CURRENTLY PRACTICING SINCE 2011 and only changed that status with the Bar in California just a week ago? And doesn’t she live in Colorado? Is she planning on taking the Bar in Colorado? Is she planning on moving back to California? These aren’t “hater” questions they are legitimate questions!
Forced Accountability is what caused “the truth-telling lawyer” (?) to finally update her eligibility with the Bar of California in her own words. If you care to read Alexis Martin Neely’s full post where she justifies unethical behavior and cries victim just click on the first two words of this paragraph: Forced Accountability. And if you think I’m being a little harsh, on The Chief Visionary Officer at Law Business Mentors, keep reading.
Let’s do a little PR Spin unspun: “I chose” (inconsistent and contradictory) not to take on private clients or practice law (is that the truth-telling lawyer telling the truth Or here). What has been the source of income?
I know nothing of the other things she’s mentioned (however, I do think she is an attractive woman-which has likely helped her manipulate) but it might be time to grab a mirror and reflect that if what she’s viewing as “hate” is really just trying to get her to take accountability and live life honestly-those people aren’t the problem.
Again the question is asked why would someone go through the trouble of attending Georgetown Law, graduating first in her class, omit or manipulate certain facts for financial advantage, but not actually practice law legally? And was she really not practicing law as she claims? And why is it when people are asked to be accountable they refer to those as seeking the truth as “haters?”
There’s one more piece to this Case Study before we can run it through The Sociopathic Business Model™ that may help to answer some of the question. So grab a snack and maybe some tissues this is a long Case Study: Alexis Martin Neely was sued under Martin Neely & Associates (even though she was the only attorney at the self-created firm.) Is that more inconsistent and contradictory language and actions? Is that a manipulation of the facts for financial benefit? All information is taken from the public record lawsuit 2/1/2012 and filed in good faith. These are allegations but again filed in good faith it stands to reason there was fact based evidence to support the claims in order for an attorney to file a suit.
According to the suit Neely assured Rebecca she could assist her with all matters including matter related to the trust her personally and those related to Rebecca’s developmentally disabled son (correction brother). Rebecca left a copy of the family trust that needed amended along with $950 as the initial review.
A woman in emotional crisis believed what her attorney had told her; but, at no time prior to Rebecca’s mother’s death did Martin Neely tell Rebecca they/actually she wouldn’t be representing Rebecca in helping her developmentally disabled son (correction brother) or his interests.
Martin Neely never discussed the conflict of interest but instead represented Rebecca and family in the following areas, instructing Rebecca on ways to protect her son’s (correction brother’s) interests in the Trust, and tax information, according to the cases as well as:
And I think we’ve seen things like this from the playbook before.
If only half of what was stated in the lawsuit against Alexis Martin Neely & Associates rings true it’s not only dishonest it is reprehensible. Again, that’s speculative as we do not know the actual outcome of the case. The lawsuit settled in mid-2012 Alexis Martin Neely filed for bankruptcy soon after and could be viewed as a way to deflect accountability. UPDATED: From Ali Shanti/Alexis Martin Neely’s Facebook page.
When someone asks her if it’s true that:
When asked to verify facts she politely states she’ll answer questions on Monday.
But we have enough to run Alexis Martin Neely the truth-telling lawyer (?) through the characteristics The Sociopathic Business Model™:
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) was glib when justifying unethical behavior
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) manipulates and does not recognize the rights of others that was the tone in the case file against her and also recognized with omission of certain information from her LinkedIn profile
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) demonstrated that Rebecca was an accomplice who ended up a victim
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) the lawsuit describes it as willful and despicable lying and again for me personally a lie of omission is still a lie
My “eyes are wide open” there are no disclaimers: “You don’t want to incorporate in Delaware.” “They have securities laws that don’t apply to you.” “You’re gonna be exempt from all of that.” From December 2012 (Isn’t that legal advice?) Is that practicing law while not eligible?
So let’s assume someone found her on her webpage where she refers to herself as the truth-telling lawyer, yet she makes no disclaimers on video about not being eligible during this time, nor does she mention she’s a non-practicing attorney. My eyes are wide open to people who use selective truths or omissions of facts that they’re being dishonest and unethical and someone I would not do business with on those points alone.
Above she said she took no legal clients from 2011 on let’s hope that’s right because: “unauthorized practice of law California” is a crime. To be clear, holding oneself out to be a lawyer / doling out legal advice when ineligible to practice violates this CA rule and that same behavior if found is associated with penalties including a fine of up to $1000 and /or up to one year in jail for the first offense. Subsequent convictions carry a mandatory minimum of 90 days in jail. But in the video she mentions the ‘virtual office,‘ so maybe laws and ethics don’t apply there? Why else would someone take the time to do these videos if not trying to attract clients? Why else would someone say, “I can’t get into all the details of it now,” but to lead people to seek out her services or to evade the facts? Lack of transparency is RED FLAG!
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) has shown lack of accountability responsibility, lack of shame, remorse or guilt as she filed for bankruptcy. The lawsuit settled mid-2012 just a few months later she file for bankruptcy. The timing is very interesting to say the least. I also would not personally support any publisher that supported her expected book You are not your Credit Score or any book written by Alexis Martin Neely/Martin Neely & Associates/Ali Shanti.
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) created hopelessness in Rebecca as outlined in the lawsuit
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) motivated through fear per the lawsuit or maybe people don’t like when people seek the truth and will do anything from the facts becoming exposed
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) demeaned and insulted those who challenged her accountability or challenged her to the facts Those that are seeking the truth don’t need to make it a tagline necessarily but they won’t accept being called haters-seeking the real truth is the most loving thing one can do for another.
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) engaged in unethical behavior which brought about a lawsuit and also was less than forthcoming regarding her status as a practicing lawyer.
–Alexis Martin Neely (Martin Neely & Associates) known names: Alexis Neely and Alexis Martin Neel, Ali Shanti and Martin Neely & Associates and has numerous websites.
My favorite line: Fact based evidence over time is the best indicator of the future and this is enough information for me to determine that I would not work with or recommend Alexis Martin Neely, Alexis Neely, Ali Shanti or Martin Neely & Associates to any consulting client, friend or family member. Each person reading this can run the facts through the model and determine what’s best for them.
And one last example of inconsistent and contradictory language that makes me question why someone would list on the main page of their website proudly they do media and list that she’s a regular legal commentator on: CNBC, FOX, and CNN
Only on another page say that (she) “has decided not to do anymore television,” we’ve seen similar language in PR Spin Unpsun. Is this misleading to readers or potential clients? And why post videos dispensing legal advice available on YouTube but turn down national spots on television? My awareness and wide open eyes are telling me that anyone who is marketing and guiding lawyers to a new business model would reasonably want national exposure.
There are too many amazing lawyers out there and the facts as I see them omit her from that list. But she does make the new list of Banned of Life since I know where I stand; and, it matters very little that Alexis Martin Neely just updated her eligibility to practice law in a state that she doesn’t live.
And in closing let’s remember my LinkedIn paged used to get shut down when I wrote factual stories people didn’t like or they’d resort to childish desperate acts of spamming. That doesn’t happen anymore because other people who like the truth also read the page.
And there’s this great story from 2012 AVVOcalypse Now. AVVO is a rating system for attorneys.
And if you liked this story you may also enjoy this Case Study
In full disclosure and transparency I met with attorney, Steven Laureant of Jackson White in March of 2013 who advised me to use ™ after all of my proprietary intellectual property even though I do not currently have the finances to file all the necessary paperwork. To be clear I am not trying to be fraudulent or cheap, I’m just trying to survive right now. As soon as finances are available Steve will file all the necessary paperwork on my behalf.