I received information and emails earlier about a woman named Teri S. but did not post it out of respect and at the request from my first informant. I also did not have enough information to responsibly report what her actual role was in the Riddick/ImageLine controversy. Teri has asked me to not reveal her full name but I can only oblige her partially. I have partially revealed Teri’s name because I want any letter recipient to know that there is a possibility they may be contacted behind the scenes by this Intermediary for Mr. Riddick.
Another informant has stepped out with a series of revealing emails that seem to indicate that Teri S. is a prior letter recipient who ultimately “settled” with Mr. Riddick and became an intermediary for him. What is apparent is that Mr. Riddick approved of Teri’s efforts to mediate settlements for other letter recipients. In one email, Teri admits to this and in another email Mr. Riddick expresses his disbelief and displeasure that one of his letter recipients chose to ignore her emails and disengage from Teri.
The obvious question is, why would someone who was a letter recipient (who ultimately “settled”) become an advocate and intermediary for Mr. Riddick? All of this reads like a soap-opera plot twist. It seems quite strange to me. I have some ideas of why (that goes beyond her explanation) but it is only speculation and cannot be substantiated. It would be irresponsible for me to list them here because the possibility exists that someone would then repeat that speculation and state it as fact.
Teri had contacted me regarding her name being displayed in our discussion forum. Allegations were made about her that could not be substantiated and I deleted all messages relating to that discussion. I also deleted messages that had no direct relevance to the Riddick/ImageLine controversy.
Teri contacted me stating her position over why she tried to assist in settlement efforts for Mr. Riddick. She claims it was her concern over others going through the same thing she did and she wanted to be helpful. She also believed that Mr. Riddick could carry out his threats. I find the credibility of her statement low due to the urgent tone within her emails to letter recipients in addition to what she states in her emails. It is strikingly similar to Mr. Riddick’s sense of urgency to get people to settle.
What I found disturbing about Teri’s emails to me is how uninformed she appears to be. In her emails to me, she continues to defend her position and beliefs. She also continues to believe that what she did was “right” and that Mr. Riddick is “unstoppable.” Clearly, I disagree with that. She also claims to be a letter victim (which appears to be true) however, these emails do not reveal her to be a passive supporter of the letter recipients. It does appear that she was an active negotiator (despite her statements otherwise) on Mr. Riddick’s behalf. Not only that, she makes the case for him in the emails. Needless to say, I find this unsettling.
I mostly believe Teri when she says she only settled out of fear and she believed she had no other recourse. However, my personal email exchange with her tells me I am not getting the full story. Whether I get the full story or not is unimportant at this point.
What is important is that any letter recipient should not be discussing their issue with anyone who is an uninformed and unqualified third-party. If Teri (or anyone else) makes contact with you without your solicitation to negotiate a settlement with Mr. Riddick and/or ImageLine, I highly recommend you disregard those communications. Let Mr. Riddick do his own work. Go find your own independent counsel whether it is your own attorney, advisor, or Oscar Michelen.