The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

www.Bunny-Vreeland.com / Dr Bunny Vreeland PhD fake degree

1 United States Review updated:

Ms. Bunny Vreeland, you seem to think that by demeaning me and trying to scare myself and the many others that have posted complaints against you and your false claims you somehow legitimize the snake oil claims. You are merely trying to divert the people's attention from the real issues. Since when is it the consumer's duty to have to justify wanting to verify the credentials of someone who is practicing medicine without a license? Anyone that types your name can find what you claim and the consolers that dug and found your PHD is basically a fake and the training seminars are a joke and I ask anyone to please research it themselves.

Now what evidence do you have, specifically to support and prove your claims?? Instead of ranting and raving making claims without backing it up with traceable resources, why don't you publish legitimate, verifiable proof of specific cures ? Could it be they do not exist, that's why?

Your spirited defense of your background is weak at best with no verifiable proof of anything is nothing more than hot air. When you have verifiable, documented and referencing proof that has been published in a legitimate medical journal or similar publication, please, post it. I'm offering you the opportunity, to verify your claims in a scientifically correct manner.

Bunny Vreeland threat to those who have concerns and voice them
http://bunnyvreeland.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/important-notice-regarding-falsified-internet-complaints/

Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Pa
      7th of Jun, 2007
    0 Votes

    She claims the following:

    "..Thankfully, many methods are available these days to track malicious individuals such as ‘N’; some of these include IP address tracking, reverse IP lookup, e-mail records, and other investigative tools. To date ‘N’ has been identified and charges are being filed with the Fraud Division of the District Attorney’s office in Ventura County. Some of the charges include Criminal Fraud, identity Theft, and defamation of character, criminal intent and slander.

    Because of the nature of this case and pending litigation I have been advised not to release the details. I just want to say that as professionals, we are all vulnerable to these types of slanderous, malicious, and potential damaging accusations..."

    -------
    It would seem that Her local DA would have better things to do then to go after people who are stating , what they feel and found about Ms Vreeland.

    Below is some information some may find interesting:

    *Ventura County D.A stated they only deal with the following

    "...The Computer Crimes Unit prosecutes cases in which a computer is a significant instrumentality of the crime. Examples of crimes prosecuted in this unit are:

    Internet crimes against children,
    Pornography utilizing the internet,
    Cyber stalking,
    Hacking cases,
    Internet fraud,
    White collar, and
    High technology task force statute cases.."


    Also, "...In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.

    Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.

    In the various states, whether by case law or legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected the opinion privilege outright and has declined to hold that the "fair comment" privilege is a Constitutional imperative.

    [After Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), applied the standard publisher/distributor test to find an online bulletin board liable for post by a third party, Congress specifically enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. §230 (c) states “that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties. Thereafter, cases such as Zeran v America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998), have demonstrated that although courts are expressly uneasy with applying §230, they are bound to find providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings. This immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, due to the fact that provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet.]

    In November of 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 USC § 230 (c)(1) does not permit web sites to be be sued for libel that was written by other parties..."Slander and libel From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

  • Jo
      28th of Jun, 2007
    0 Votes

    I've joined the list of being ripped off by this "Dr" Vreeland and the CD'S along with this process. I joined HER PHONE sessions i ended up paying with my visa card to do this. I never found online she is a fake !!!! on the so called services to sign on to my account. Now this is making sense to me. I called her at 800-755-4083 and was denied a refund.

    And then she now is saying she never returned my call. I called 3 times and left a message to cancel my account in this month.

    I receive 2 letters to sign on to agree to a disclosed and I hope some one has reported this so called businesses to the better business bureau???

  • Jo
      25th of Jul, 2007
    0 Votes

    I've joined the list of being ripped off too by this "Vreeland and the CD'S along with this process. I joined HER PHONE sessions i ended up paying with my visa card to do this. I never found online she is a fake!!! on the so called services to sign on to my account. Now this is making sense to me. I called her at 800-755-4083 and was denied a refund.

    And then she now is saying she never returned my call. I called 3 times and left a message to cancel my account in this month.

    I receive 2 letters to sign on to agree to a disclosed and I hope some one has reported this so called businesses to the better business bureau???

  • Dr
      11th of Sep, 2015
    0 Votes

    Looks like her new website is http://vreelandcollege.org

Post your comment