Tag Archives: mary baldwin

Beauty Queens’ Lawyers Sending Legal Letters to Supermodels Unlimited – After SU threatens a Queen & Maliciously Made Another Queen Travel to NYC to Humiliate Her

9-9-22

When scrolling through google after typing in “Supermodels Unlimited Scam”, you will find pages of unhappy customers accusing Supermodels Unlimited (SU) of scamming the public. More Queens are starting to open up on Social Media platforms to express how they feel they were scammed by SU, as seen this past week when the news of these 2 Queens came out.

Upon researching Supermodels Unlimited (SU), to substantiate what they are portraying to the public, there seems to be inconsistencies to their claims. For those who know about “Pay to Play” scams in the entertainment and modeling industry, it appears that SU is doing just that. They target naive people aspiring to be discovered by having them pay for work as a model, rather then having them get paid to work as a model. However, Berta Moniz & Mary Ward, were not ignorant and started to do their research after being enlightened to how the entertainment and modeling industry actually operate.

They began to question SU as to why they claimed specific things that cannot be verified. SU did not like to have anyone question them, not even someone who was paying $1000s believing in statements told to them that could not be substantiated.

How did SU handle it? They teamed up on the phone with Kimberly Clark & Mary Baldwin, where they berated, yelled, & threatened Berta Moniz, for asking them simple questions she wanted clarity to. Berta left this phone call completely broken down, to where she no longer wanted to participate in anything they were doing. Thus, she had her attorney issue a legal letter to SU demanding a refund for the thousands of dollars Berta had spent with them

Then they teamed up on Mary Ward, in an effort to berate and intimidate her from questioning them. However, they took it even further, by leading Mary Ward to believe that she would still be able to participate in an event that she had paid for and won, only to forbid her to participate after she traveled from Georgia to NYC. They intentionally allowed Mary Ward to travel to NYC when they knew all along they were not going to allow her to participate. They could have told Mary Ward during their conversation with her two days prior, that they would not allow her to participate because she questioned the legitimacy of what they were doing.

Since then Mary Ward has hired a Lawyer who will be drafting another legal letter in an effort to retrieve the large amount of money invested into this event

Both Mary Ward and Berta Moniz are attempting to allow SU to reimburse them for their loss. However, if SU does not do so, both Queens stated they are planning to file a lawsuit against this company and hope this will bring awareness to others who have also been affected by this company

Supermodels Unlimited Strips Queen of Her Crown in NYC Airport after SU Made Unreasonable Demands for Queen to Keep Her Mouth Shut

9-8-22

Written by: Cynthia Lester

It is no surprise that once again, Supermodels Unlimited (SU) is being questioned about alleged scams against this company. Upon a google search, you will find pages of bad reviews and scams alleged against SU, starting from the early 2000s to present day. They have been accused of not providing promised services or products that have been paid for, deceptively advertising events, misleading the public about their opportunities, keeping profits that they lead consumers to believe was going to charities.

They seems to have a recipe to mask these scam allegations, by continuing to create hype and credibility by paying to have “has been” celebrities appear at their events where they take pictures and circulate announcements where yet more consumers put their trust in this business.

Unfortunately for Mary Ward, from Georgia, she fell victim to deceptive advertising when she placed money in a competition to win a title, photography session, & walk down the catwalk in NYC from Supermodels Unlimited (SU). Mary Ward ended up winning the title, photography session, & walk down the catwalk in NYC, which she had to rearrange her entire work schedule, investing money in costly airfare & hotel accommodations, relying on SU to provide this opportunity as they stated they would.

One week prior to attending SU’s event in NYC, Mary Ward discovered that SU’s event was not linked to CDFA & IMG’s schedule of events. CDFA & IMG are the two organizations that are known to the public as New York Fashion Week (NYFW). Thus, Mary began to question why SU was advertising their event as connected to NYFW. Mary further began to hear from other women that they were being told by SU that GUESS has partnered with them for a photoshoot during NYFW & could not find anything on this “so called” business partnership between SU and GUESS. Women relied on what had been told to them by SU, when they decided to hand money over to SU to be a part of these experiences to further their career in the modeling industry.

On 9-6-22, SU called Mary Ward, accusing her to spreading slander about their organization simply because she had been affiliated in a satiric comedy calling out and questioning businesses who were claiming to be connected to certain large companies and leading consumers to believe they could make someone famous if they paid enough money. At no point did Mary Ward ever make reference to SU by their name.

During the phone call between Mary Ward & SU on 9-6-22, SU asked Mary Ward if she still planned to attend the NYC event and keep her title. She verbally told them yes, as she has already made accommodations with her job and invested money to attend. SU unliterally decided to require Mary Ward to confirm in text after she already verbally told them she planned to attend. Mary Ward, was advised by her attorney to not put any response in text and unless Mary agreed to the modification of contract requiring this written text, that she was in no obligation to write anything to them.

On 9-8-22, Mary and her husband flew from Georgia to NYC for Mary to attend this event that was promised by SU. Upon arriving at the airport, she received a text from SU, that because she did not confirm anything in writing that they unilaterally requested & never agreed to by Mary, that Mary has forfeited her title and therefore was taken out of the fashion show and photoshoot.

Contracts can be verbal and if someone is going to modify a contract after a verbal contract has already been relied on by the parties, BOTH parties must be in agreement. Thus, SU had no right to impose this requirement on Mary and take back what Mary had paid for and had been promised.

Mary’s attorney will be reaching out to SU to demand reimbursement of costs put out for the trip and if SU does not refund her, she will be filing a lawsuit against SU, along with another women who lost several thousand dollars based on deceptive advertising.