As I've said before, and will repeat one final time, I DO NOT agree with these firm's practices, but I will defend their right to apply whatever bidding/pitch p

As I've said before, and will repeat one final time, I DO NOT agree with these firm's practices, but I will defend their right to apply whatever bidding/pitch process they'd like, under the law, within their respective organizations. Aside from the usual litany of trade-secret/defamation issues (largely paper tigers here) and clearly vested bias by the publisher, the release itself isn't the issue. What IS wrong is the instant garnering of credibility of this single-sourced material without any fact-checking of these accounts nor dialog with/about the respective parties. Whistle-blowing is fine IF released through 3rd parties who apply independent due diligence. To use an analogy, it's as if the coach of a college football team calls a press conference to expose the corrupt high school recruiting practices of a rival university. If true, and the coach genuinely places the best interests of those high school students foremost, he insures its release through ESPN, the college athletics association, or any 3rd party perceived to be reasonably neutral. If, on the other hand, he personally brings forth these allegations in his own forum, it only serves to degrade their credibility, do a disservice to those whom ostensibly he is attempting to serve, and cast a great deal of umbrage on his true motivations. One final addendum, if that $18k story is true, then it sure looks like an open and shut case for a breach of contract suit, but more likely, an easy opportunity to reach a pre-trial settlement for the majority of the proceeds. If the founders blindly paid these fees w/o any sort of written agreements of performance on the part of the Angel firm, nor applied any inverse due-diligence to their potential investors, then I seriously question if they have necessary modicum of business acumen to run a company.