top of page
Search

Don't be fooled by FTA, Rebekah McCutcheon and Michal Morgan

Updated: 6 days ago



I carefully considered whether to write this post about Fit Test Australia (FTA) and its owners Rebekah McCutcehon and Michal Morgan. Ultimately, I decided to proceed because I believe folks deserve to warned.


On 8 January 2026, I received an email from an individual describing their experiences with Rebekah and Michal. Here are their words verbatim:

"I just read your blog post about Fit Test Australia. I wanted to thank you for bringing attention to their behaviour and for speaking up about the way people have been treated. When I worked with Rebekah, my colleagues and I genuinely dreaded taking her phone calls, as she would often scream and yell at us. There were also several occasions when Michal came in and spoke to our staff in a degrading manner. I could never forget the way they treated me and my colleagues. Please know that many of us support you and what you’re doing."


I have chosen not to publish the author’s name for privacy reasons. And because Rebekah has been known to track down people who speak out against her.


Recently on LinkedIn, Mark Reggers, Chair of RESP-FIT, called Fit Test Australia out for being “misleading and irresponsible.” That statement is relevant to the broader context and is referenced later in this post.


Some readers may view the matters outlined here as merely a commercial dispute between two businesses operating in the same industry.


That framing is incomplete.


The conduct by Rebekah and Michal documented here goes far beyond ordinary competition. It includes misrepresentation, misinformation, misuse of intellectual property, intimidation, bullying, and other behaviours that raise serious ethical concerns. And not just against me, but others as well.


When conduct of this nature involves individuals operating in the worker health and safety sector, it is not merely a private dispute, it's an industry issue. Anyone working with, partnering with, or considering engaging FTA should take that into account.


We should all care about integrity, ethics, and professional standards. When those foundations are undermined, everyone should pay attention.


The material set out below is provided so that readers can assess the documented facts for themselves:



That Article Looks Familiar


This is the article Rebekah stole from my blog and claimed she wrote it.
This is the article Rebekah stole from my blog and claimed she wrote it.

I was doomscrolling on LinkedIn one day and came across a post by Rebekah McCutcheon promoting an article titled “Respiratory Protection Programs: What they are and why you need one.”


Funny, I had recently published an article with that exact title.


When I opened the link, I was shocked to see that the article was mine with Rebekah credited as the author.


In the LinkedIn comments, Rebekah responded to praise for the article with statements such as, “Thanks! I love writing about respiratory protection!”


I commented on the post stating that the article was my work. That comment was deleted. I reposted the comment, it was again deleted.


I contacted Rebekah directly by phone and asked her to remove my content from her website and social media platforms. She hung up on me.


Following that call, minor wording changes were made to the article (for example, 'employees' became 'staff). The article remained published and continued to be promoted.


Realizing Rebekah wasn't going to remove the content, I engaged a lawyer, who issued a cease-and-desist letter for unlawful copyright infringement.


Rebekah did not provide a response to the letter.


After the demand was issued, the article was removed from FTA's website and LinkedIn. However, the same content was subsequently published as a lengthy Facebook post on Fit Test Australia’s page. That post remained online beyond the deadline specified in the cease-and-desist letter before being removed. All content was finally removed when my lawyer contacted Rebekah by phone three days after the deadline.


When my lawyer asked Rebekah if she intended to respond to the letter, Rebekah indicated she did not intend to respond.


I believe hijacking someone else’s work, claiming authorship, and accepting praise for it shows a clear lack of integrity, dishonesty and disrespect.


Update: 28 February 2026


It beggars belief, but on 26 February 2026, Rebekah published another article that substantially reproduced content from my blog. The title was identical to mine. The wording and structure had been reworked, likely using ChatGPT, but distinctive phrases and images from my original publication were reused.


This occurred after a prior cease-and-desist letter was issued in 2024 regarding the misappropriation of my intellectual property, and after warnings from RESP-FIT and AIOH not to repeat such conduct.




Formal Complaint to RESP-FIT and AIOH


After Rebekah misappropriated my intellectual property, I lodged formal complaints with Mark Reggers, Chair of RESP-FIT, and with the AIOH Ethics Committee.


In her response to the complaint, Rebekah acknowledged that she had stolen my work. However, no disciplinary action was taken.


I was informed that the matter was considered resolved on the basis that Rebekah had complied with the cease-and-desist letter from my lawyer. I informed RESP-FIT and AIOH that this was inaccurate as the content was not removed within the deadline specified in the letter and was republished in another format after the demand was issued.


I was not asked to provide further clarification, or asked if Rebekah's claim was accurate, before the matter was closed.


During this process, I raised a concern with Mark Reggers regarding Fit Test Australia’s financial sponsorship of RESP-FIT and whether that relationship created a conflict of interest in circumstances where a sponsor was the subject of a complaint. (Soon after this post was published, Fit Test Australia’s sponsorship listing was no longer visible on the RESP-FIT website).


I hold the view that accrediting or certifying bodies should never accept financial sponsorship from the individuals and entities they accredit. This, in my view, is an egregious conflict of interest.


At that point, I believed the matter had concluded. But it wasn't.


Getting Sued for Doing It Better


In June 2024, several months after I reported the copyright issue to RESP-FIT, I received a letter from Cooper Mills Lawyers (Victor Ng), acting on behalf of Fit Test Australia (FTA).


The letter alleged that my business, Fit Test Victoria, was “passing off” as Fit Test Australia. It claimed that Fit Test Victoria’s success was based on representing itself as connected to or affiliated with FTA.


For context, Fit Test Victoria was established in Victoria well before Fit Test Australia commenced operations in this state. And the two companies were formally incorporated within approximately one month of each other.


The letter demanded that I:

  • Pay FTA $5,900 in damages

  • Cease trading under the name 'Fit Test Victoria'

  • Deliver all branded materials to Cooper Mills Lawyers office


It further asserted that I must never start another business using the words “fit test,” nor apply to register a trademark incorporating those words. The letter referenced FTA’s intention to obtain trademark protection over the term.


The correspondence stated that failure to comply would result in proceedings being commenced in the Federal Court of Australia.


FTA did apply to IP Australia for exclusive use of the words 'fit test'. Unsurprisingly, the application was rejected.


Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), businesses are not allowed to use improper tactics to substantially lessen competition, which is exactly what FTA was attempting to do through intimidation and threat of litigation.


I responded directly to Victor Ng disputing the allegations and impeaching Rebekah's integrity and honesty. No further correspondence or proceedings followed.


Copies of the legal correspondence are linked below:






You're Unethical. But We Won't Say Why.


In September 2024, approximately three months after being informed by RESP-FIT that my complaint regarding Rebekah had been closed, I received further correspondence from Mark Reggers and the AIOH Ethics Committee relating to the same matter.


The attached letter stated that AIOH and RESP-FIT had determined that I was unethical. No reasons, context, or particulars were provided.


I contacted Mark Reggers to seek clarification. He advised that Rebekah had made 'additional complaints' about me which contributed to the decision. However, I was not informed of the substance of those complaints and was not provided an opportunity to respond.


I requested a meeting with the RESP-FIT Board and AIOH Ethics Committee. That request was declined. Mark told me 'that won't be happening.' I was also informed that RESP-FIT / AIOH did not 'take too kindly' to me pointing out FTA's financial sponsorship of RESP-FIT.


The AIOH grievance procedure provides for procedural fairness, including disclosure of allegations against members and an opportunity to respond. In this instance, I was not provided with any due process or natural justice.


In February 2025, I became aware of a recording in which Rebekah referred to making complaints about me to AIOH/RESP-FIT and referenced their 'unethical' finding.


I was concerned that the unfounded labeling of my character was being used by Rebekah to damage my reputation so I again sought clarification from Mark Reggers and the AIOH Ethics Committee regarding the allegations and the basis of the finding. Again, they refused to tell me.


I also spoke with AIOH President Aleks Todorovic on several occasions. During one discussion, he queried whether the letter labelling me unethical may have been issued in error and that perhaps it was meant for Rebekah. He also stated that the handling of the matter was inconsistent with how the organisation would normally operate.


Because I was getting nowhere with AIOH, my lawyer sent formal correspondence to AIOH seeking particulars of the allegations and clarification regarding the process adopted.


The outcome was as follows:


• The letter labelling me “unethical” was formally retracted.

• No particulars of the allegations were provided.

• Mediation between Rebekah and me was offered.


In a face-to-face meeting on 15 December 2025, Aleks Todorovic acknowledged that AIOH had made an error in accepting Rebekah's allegations and by not affording me an opportunity to respond in accordance with its procedures. He indicated that the organisation intended to improve its processes going forward.


I am aware that other members of the public have submitted complaints concerning Fit Test Australia to AIOH.


Mojo Dojo


On 7 February 2025, I received an unexpected phone call from someone named Ajay at a marketing agency called Mojo Dojo. I thought it was just another cold sales call.


But unfortunately it wasn’t.


Ajay informed me that Michal Morgan and Rebekah McCutcheon from Fit Test Australia had contacted Mojo Dojo alleging that Mojo Dojo and Fit Test Victoria were collaborating on a “smear campaign” against FTA. Michal and Rebekah claimed that all FTA’s poor Google reviews were left by Mojo Dojo and me.


Following that call, Ajay sent this emal:



The Backstory


In 2023, Rebekah had engaged Mojo Dojo for a free, initial consultation. According to Mojo Dojo, she did not proceed as a paying client.


Thirteen months later, in February 2025, Mojo Dojo began receiving one-star Google reviews from multiple accounts associated with Michal Morgan, Rebekah McCutcheon and Fit Test Australia. The ranting reviews alleged that Mojo Dojo had posted fake one-star reviews about FTA and had acted unethically by ‘working with’ FTA's competitor, Fit Test Victoria.



One review was posted under the initial “M" instead of Michal Morgan:



Mojo Dojo contacted Rebekah to request that she remove the reviews. In response to that call, Rebekah sent a threatening message to James (of Mojo Dojo). Rebekah acts as if she has no idea who "this M person" is and denies being involved in M's 1-star review left for Mojo Dojo. Rebekah threatens to leave Mojo Dojo a review that will be "much worse than the one this M person left you."




Rebekah went on to leave Mojo Dojo yet another 1-star review, this time from the FTA account. Where Rebekah had previously denied knowing “M”, she now refers to him as an FTA staff member:




Mojo Dojo publicly responded by publishing a series of videos and a website outlining their version of events. Links are provided below.



In one of the videos, Mojo Dojo states that it contacted an individual - Rosalia Kabakama - who had left a five-star Google review for FTA and that the individual acknowledged being paid to leave the review.


FTA intially thanked Rosalia for her review and for 'coming in today'.



After Mojo Dojo's videos were published, FTA attempted to do damage control by changing their responses to numerous 5-star reviews:


The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has published guidance stating that businesses must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to fake online reviews, including the use of paid or undisclosed reviews.


It's not only unethical to pay for fake reviews, it's also against the law according to the ACCC website:



If a company resorts to unlawful and dishonest tactics to deliberately mislead others, it raises serious questions about the credibility of the business and its owners.


The Savage Witch Hunt


After Mojo Dojo published its videos, Rebekah posted on social media that she was the target of a smear campaign. She described the situation as a “savage witch hunt” and asked followers for advice.



In this post, she also stated that it had taken years to build FTA’s five-star review profile.

Publicly available Google review data shows that FTA’s five-star reviews increased from single digit numbers in mid-2024 to more than 900 in a couple of weeks.


Rebekah’s post conveniently omitted the fact that she and Michal (aka “M”) left multiple, unprovoked, one-star reviews for Mojo Dojo and falsely accused me of being involved. I am still scratching my head about this.


When Rebekah and Michal are confronted with hard truths and get exposed, their modus operandi is to blame everyone but themselves and then attempt to do damage control.


After seeing the one-star reviews of Mojo Dojo that referenced Fit Test Victoria, as well as public statements suggesting that Fit Test Victoria was involved in a coordinated 'smear campaign', I sent formal correspondence addressing those claims.




Don't Be Fooled


In June 2024, Fit Test Australia alleged that Fit Test Victoria was engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct and “passing off.”


At the same time, Fit Test Australia was, and still is, running Google Ads that prominently use the name “Fit Test Victoria”. This has caused significant confusion. People who believe they are clicking the Fit Test Victoria link are directed to FTA.


Screenshots of those advertisements are below.


More recently, FTA began using the name “FTA Fit Test Victoria” in their marketing materials.


I have had several of my regular clients - and many potential new clients - inadvertently contact FTA instead of me. This typically happens when they quickly Google “Fit Test Victoria” and FTA’s ads appear in the results (see screenshots below). It’s an easy mistake to make, and exactly what Rebekah and Michal are relying on. The aim is clearly to create the impression that they are Fit Test Victoria, so they can capitalise on our established client base and reputation.


A regular client of mine recently told me he believed he was speaking with me to book a fit test, when in fact he was speaking with Rebekah. He had accidentally called FTA when he Googled Fit Test Victoria. Despite repeatedly being addressed as “Crystal,” Rebekah did not correct him. The client subsequently booked fit testing with FTA under the impression he was dealing with Fit Test Victoria. Fortunately, he later called me to confirm the appointment time, which is when we realised what had happened. He cancelled the booking with FTA and was properly disgusted by her behaviour.












Howdy, neighbour


Fit Test Australia has claimed that it seeks to avoid any association with Fit Test Victoria. Their actions do not support this.


In June 2025, Fit Test Victoria opened an office in Moonee Ponds, Victoria. In September 2025, Fit Test Australia opened an office a few doors away.


FTA announed their arrival on our doorstep by calling themselves “FTA Fit Test Victoria”:







FTA’s decision to open in Moonee Ponds and adopt the name “FTA Fit Test Victoria” has resulted in repeated instances of customer confusion. Both Fit Test Victoria clients and FTA clients have attended the wrong premises. We have also had multiple reports of customers booking with FTA when they intended to book with Fit Test Victoria.


I believe this is exactly the result they intended. They want folks to think FTA is Fit Test Victoria.


On 16 October 2025, a Fit Test Victoria client attended FTA’s premises in error. The client was kept waiting for over an hour while FTA staff attempted to locate their booking. It was only after receiving a message from Fit Test Victoria that the client realised they were at the wrong location and left.


The similarity in business names combined with geographic proximity has created a pattern of confusion in the marketplace. And FTA doesn't seem to mind confusing and frustrating their own customers, as well as mine.


You Must Have Meant to Leave This Poor Review for Fit Test Victoria, Not Us!


When faced with 1-star Google reviews, Rebekah and Michal routinely claim the reviewer intended to leave the poor feedback for Fit Test Victoria - or that it was Fit Test Victoria leaving the review.


Here's a sample of reviews from FTA's Google Business Pages (read FTA's responses):











On 09/12/25, FTA changed their response. Instead of blaming Fit Test Victoria for leaving the review, they revert to their tired old story that FTA is the target of a smear campaign and the reviewer must have meant to leave the review for Fit Test Victoria:




When FTA accuses Elisha Stephan of meaning to leave the review for Fit Test Victoria, Elisha makes it clear that her negative experience was indeed with FTA.




On the bright side, here are are few poor reviews FTA didn't claim were intended for Fit Test Victoria. But FTA tells the reviewers they must have posted these reviews in 'error'.




Fake Emails


In each instance where concerns have been raised, Rebekah and Michal follow a similar structure - deny, redirect, and publicly position the issue as an attack rather than address their conduct.


After identifying more defamatory online statements about Fit Test Victoria, I sent an email to Rebekah and Michal.


Michal subsequently posted a screenshot of that email on LinkedIn.


But there was a big problem. The screenshot he shared had been doctored using AI or photo editing software. Significant portions of my message were omitted, including the subject line “DEFAMATION” and the substantive paragraphs addressing the alleged defamatory statements and accusations that Fit Test Victoria was impersonating FTA.


In the version posted on LinkedIn, only the final line of my email was visible. My email signature was repositioned so that the final sentence appeared to constitute the entire message.


Here is a side-by-side comparison: on the left, the screenshot published by Michal; on the right, the original email as sent.

—


It's impossible to read, but the screenshot of the Google review in my email (on the right) is FTA defaming Fit Test Victoria.
It's impossible to read, but the screenshot of the Google review in my email (on the right) is FTA defaming Fit Test Victoria.

What Michal did by doctoring my email and posting it on social media is called 'defamation by omission.'


Defamation by omission refers to a situation where someone attempts to damage another person’s reputation not by what they say, but by what they deliberately leave out. Especially when that omission misleads others or creates a false impression.


What Michal did was not only unethical, it was unlawful.


Bob McGiggity


Shortly after Michal posted the altered screenshot on LinkedIn, I received a LinkedIn message from an AIOH member whom I didn't know. For the purposes of this post, I will refer to him as “S.”


S informed me that the same altered screenshot had been shared on a Reddit forum titled “LinkedIn Lunatics” by a user operating under the moniker “Bob McGiggity.”


When I asked how he became aware of the Reddit post, S stated that he had come across it while browsing the platform.


Interestingly, after this blog was published, S’s LinkedIn account was deleted. As a result, his name no longer appears in our message thread. I have retained screenshots of the correspondence.


This is the post 'Bob McGiggity' published. For context, my comment is in response to Michal Morgan making the recommendation that workers at a public pool should be wearing SCBA due to high 'carbon dioxide' levels (egregiously incorrect advice).




In the Reddit post, the user “Bob McGiggity” characterised me as being a lunatic for emailing FTA and questioning advice given by Michal regarding SCBA use for pool workers.


The post included cropped screenshots taken from LinkedIn. The screenshots omitted both the full email I had sent (which was visible in the LinkedIn comments) and the underlying SCBA advice that prompted my response.


As a result, the Reddit post presented a partial account of the exchange without the surrounding context.


From Bob McGiggity's prior public Reddit activity, I was able to ascertain that he lives in New South Wales, works in health and safety, and referenced owning - or previously owning - a dog.


I responded publicly on the Reddit thread and the post was removed. Around the same time, Michal removed the screenshot he had shared on LinkedIn.


The Reddit post demonstrates the damage false, defamatory, fake content can cause and how far-reaching its impact can be.


Furthermore, Michal's claim that I made 'repeated late night phone calls' is another one of his falsehoods.


Rebekah, as FTA's listed director, was served another legal demand letter. This time for defamation, misleading and deceptive conduct and passing off. Unsurprisingly, she ignored the notice.



Misinformation Can Be Dangerous


Fit Test Australia posts extensively on LinkedIn. Many of their posts are to position FTA as setting the standard for “doing the right thing” within the health and safety industry while shaming others, even their own clients and complete strangers, for doing the wrong thing.


However, some posts have contained information that has been publicly described by Mark Reggers and others, including me, as misleading, inaccurate and irresponsible.


I have raised concerns with the AIOH and RESP-FIT where I believe FTA's guidance was inaccurate or unsafe. Section 8.4 of the AIOH Code of Ethics states that members must make public statements claiming professional knowledge only when they are competent to do so.



Here are a few examples of the misinformation by FTA:


SCBA for Pool Workers at a Rec Centre


In one LinkedIn post, Michal Morgan said he provided guidance to workers at a recreational pool regarding respiratory protection.


In that post’s comments, Michal stated that he advised the pool workers to use of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) due to “potential carbon dioxide” levels. I believe he got carbon dioxide confused with chlorine - two very different hazards.


If carbon dioxide or chlorine levels were such that the workers at a public pool required SCBA, then how would patrons be able to use the facilities without becoming gravely ill or dying from lack of oxygen? I don't believe Michal actually advised SCBA as the appropriate RPE. I think he was just trying to sound smart. If he really did tell them they needed air-supplied respirators, I certainly hope they didn't follow his egregiously wrong advice.


This was the post on which I commented - the same exchange that was later reproduced on Reddit without full context.



Qualitative Fit Testing and Valved Respirators


In another LinkedIn post, FTA stated that filtering facepiece respirators with exhalation valves can't be tested using the qualitative fit test (QLFT) method, and that any QLFT result obtained on a disposable valved respirator would be invalid.


This is patently wrong and not in line with any international fit testing standards or protocols. As self-proclaimed experts in fit testing, FTA should know this is wrong.


That post, rightfully so, generated significant response and pushback from health and safety professionals.


In the comment thread, Mark Reggers described the post as “misleading and irresponsible” and advised FTA to be mindful of future publications.


Selected comments from that discussion are here:



LI user Jarrod told FTA they should "have someone reviewing their content before posting it." FTA's rebuttal is that everyone is "throwing digs" at them for no reason at all.



Increasing the Noise


Here Carl is asking Rebekah if she is "increasing the noise or cutting through it".




Publicly Shaming a Stranger


In another post, Rebekah photographed a stranger just trying to do his job and shared the image on LinkedIn, stating that the individual should have been wearing a respirator and hard hat and he was “not following safety.”


LinkedIn users responded by noting that the worker was using a wet-cut saw and that conclusions about required respiratory protection should not be drawn from the limited visual information provided.


In the comment thread, Rebekah stated that she had not noticed the wet-cut saw at the time because "she didn't have her glasses on."


Publicly photographing and criticising a private individual without their knowledge or consent - and posting it on social media - raises serious concerns. Safety guidance should be based on verified facts and delivered through appropriate channels, not through public shaming of individuals who are unable to respond or provide context.








Here, Rebekah decides - based solely on a photo she took while driving - that this worker “wouldn’t exceed the WEL” but might exceed the “STEL” for silica. Problem is, silica doesn’t have a STEL in Australia.



FTA’s posts are often written in a confident and authoritative tone. As a result, readers may assume the guidance is sound and correct when it isn't.


Many have raised concerns that some of FTA’s public advice is inaccurate and potentially unsafe. Where respiratory protection is concerned, incorrect guidance can pose safety risks.


Any individual or organisation considering working with or partnering with FTA should independently assess the substance and accuracy of the information, training or education disseminated by Rebekah, Michal and Fit Test Australia, and satisfy themselves that it reflects the standard expected of experienced industry professionals.


Did You Know Fit Test Australia was the FIRST Fit Test Provider in Victoria and NSW?


At least that's what FTA claims.


Fit Test Australia prolifically claims it was the first fit testing provider in Victoria. In various posts and review responses, the business has referenced being established in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.


Those claims have been questioned by other LinkedIn users who have pointed out that fit testing services were being provided in both states prior to those dates.


In one LinkedIn exchange, FTA again asserted that it was the first fit testing provider in Victoria and, this time, NSW. A commenter, Carl, challenged that claim.


In response, FTA stated that it “specialises solely in fit testing” and suggested that other businesses later adopted the words “fit test” in their trading names. In the same thread, other providers were derogatorily referred to as “COVID pop-up companies.”



In this post, FTA has abandoned the years 2019 and 2020 in favour of the year 2021 as their preferred fictional start year.


FTA has claimed 2019, 2020 and 2021 as their Victorian debut years.
FTA has claimed 2019, 2020 and 2021 as their Victorian debut years.

The fact is, Fit Test Australia wasn't established as a company with its own ABN until April 2022, around the same time as Fit Test Victoria (we became a company in May 2022).




Fit Test Australia didn't open an office in Victoria until 2023, over a year after Fit Test Victoria was established. Bottom line - we were here first, and FTA hasn't been "fit testing Victoria" since 2019. Or 2020. Or 2021. Or 2022.


One more point. Fit test companies are popping up everywhere. With increased enforcement of mask fit testing in light of new silica regulations and the recent pandemic, it’s no surprise. Using “fit test” in a business name where the primary service is fit testing makes perfect sense. I don't think anyone needs to be "inspired" to come up with that.


Telling fit testing providers they can’t use “fit test” in their business name is akin to telling plumbers they can’t use the word “plumbing.”


If You Can't Beat 'Em, Try to Buy 'Em


On 26 May 2025, I received an email from Michal Morgan expressing interest in purchasing Fit Test Victoria.


When I didn't respond, he asked again.


There is nothing improper about a competitor enquiring about an acquisition. Others have done so too. However, the request came after a prolonged period of disputes, complaints, legal correspondence, and animosity between our businesses.


It occurred to me that Michal's so-called interest in buying my business might’ve just been a clever way to try and get their hands on my financials.


I suppose if you can't bring your competitor down, the last resort is to see if they will sell you their business.







That's a Wrap


This post set out my documented experiences over the past two and a half years dealing with Rebekah McCutcheon and Michal Morgan. I know that others have had similar experiences regarding their bullying, harassment, threats, and dishonesty and that this behaviour has been formally reported to the AIOH and RESP-FIT on multiple occasions (by me and others).


The screenshots, correspondence, and publicly available posts speak for themselves, so readers are free to form their own conclusions.


If nothing else raises concern, the fact that Rebekah stolen my work and presented it as her own - more than once - should give anyone serious pause about her ethics and honesty. Passing off someone else’s work as your own says a great deal about a person’s integrity (or lack thereof).


The same applies to Michal altering an email and posting it on social media to create a misleading narrative. When people are willing to manipulate communications and dishonestly misrepresent information, it speaks volumes about their character and credibility.


Rebekah, Michal and FTA exhibit patterns of conduct that raise legitimate questions about their professionalism, honesty, and trustworthiness. And this should matter to everyone, particularly in an industry that is supposed to be grounded in ethics, honesty, and integrity.


Based on past experience with Rebekah and Michal, I anticipate that this post may be met with public denials, pleas for help, and claims that FTA has done nothing wrong. They are simply the target of the alleged 'savage witch hunt.'


As Abraham Lincoln purportedly said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.”

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page