Crimes of Persuasion

Schemes, scams, frauds.

Kids Hollywood aka The Kids Hollywood ( by Phyllis Henson

UPDATE (See "Rebuttal to Phyllis Henson's Latest Comments on her Website")

03/06 - Several months ago, Easy Background Check was informed that Kids Hollywood was in the business of advising young talent to get expensive pictures. This is a common scheme in the talent industry, direct selling or splitting fees. However, the information was unconfirmed, so the public was advised to "email for more info, esp. if she tries to sell you expensive photography/comp cards."

Phyllis Henson, president of Kids Hollywood, learned that her company was listed on this website, and objected. "I have never sold photography, portfolios or comp cards. I do not sell classes or photography. I provide a service to help young actors to get agents."

One of the complaints against Henson is that she does not list her fees on her website. "Ask her why she does not list her fees on her website.

. . . Also, ask her why when prospective clients telephone her office she does not disclose any fees then either. Ask her what her fees are. She'll tell you something like $89 or so to come in. What she won't tell you is that once they come in and pay that she hits them up for another $800 or so for more 'consulting' and then hits certain people up for pictures (I hear between $1,000-$1,200)."

Henson counters she is not in the business of selling pictures, but she did not say how much her clients spend on pictures, or how much she advises them to spend, or if she directs them to expensive photography.

After repeated attempts, Henson refuses to say what her prices are, and keeps this information a secret. Easy Background Check considers the failure to answer the basic question about pricing as suspicious. Is it more likely she won't reveal her prices because they are reasonable or because they are excessive? The public has a right to know pricing from the beginning so a business does not string them along from one payment to another, especially from a small first payment to a large second payment.

On March 3, 2006, Henson was asked, "Do you charge upfront fees?" She was also asked, "Do you refer anyone to an expensive photographer?"

Henson did not answer the questions. She was evasive, saying, "As far as what I charge, or any other company for that matter, they do not have to post prices on their websites."

One of the complaints against Kids Hollywood raised questions about whether or not her business is following the AFTS rules.

She said, "As far as me following rules and regulations of AFTS--I contacted 15 of the top state-licensed agents and no one knows what AFTS means."


Henson also asked, "Why are you listing me as a scam?" She has problems reading English. This site does not and never said her business is a scam.

On March 8, 2006, Phyllis Henson was sent a copy of the complaint against her and Kids Hollywood, and given a chance to respond to the accusations.

On March 22, Henson responded, repeating her statement that she does not sell pictures. "I DO NOT SELL PORTFOLIOS, PHOTOS, COMP CARDS OR CLASSES."

But she declined to answer the charge that she was involved in fee-splitting on photography sales, or if she refers her clients to expensive photographers, or to pay for any expensive services. She questioned the source instead of answering the questions.

The public is advised to contact the DLSE (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement) to find out the pricing of Kids Hollywood, everything it sells, and all its prices, before getting involved. You owe it to your kids.

Rebuttal to Phyllis Henson's Latest Comments on her Website

May 1, 2006

Phyllis Henson has written a rebuttal to the above information and comments about her and her company and posted it on her website. Her site's home page has a special graphic link and the headline statement, "We've been targeted." Henson immediately casts herself as the victim. What follows is a rebuttal to her unconvincing, contrived rebuttal.

Henson complains her company's name listed on the same site listing convicted felons causes an "association fallacy," as if she is a convicted felon. "I should not be listed with people or companies that are convicted of crimes." Does she expect a new website for every individual and company that received complaints? This site's title is not "Convicted Criminals." In any case, Henson is a hypocrite, because she accused this site of being related to "I have provided other links to more information regarding Easy Background Check aka EZBC, Rip Off Report."

Henson gets her conspiracy theories off the internet. Can you trust anyone, especially your kids, with someone who subscribes to internet conspiracy theories? Why should anyone believe her conspiracy theory? It has been a theory for years, but never proven. It was made up. Just because this site was anonymous, and posted consumer complaints, and posts consumer complaints, some pseudo-intellectual concluded this site must be run by the same person as ROR. Wild speculation, obviously, even funny.

Henson's conspiracy theory continues. . . "Mysteriously about a week later a private investigator contacted us claiming to be 'Mr. Fexx.' This, of course, is all part of their plan as we were to discover."

Juicy gossip, right? Not exactly. Since when do PIs tell people they are PIs? Wouldn't that sort of cause a problem for their investigation? Of course this soap opera theory and information is entirely substantiated. We don't know if Henson ever received this call as she claimed. Even if she did, EBC had nothing to do with any PI, and does not employ a PI. If she got a call from a private investigator, it could have been government authorities investigating her, pretending to be a PI, or even a parent or potential client looking into her firm, and she made up the creative story about a PI and "Mr. Fexx" ("Agent X" was already taken).

Henson also accused this site of submitting this web page to search engines: "They then submitted that page to all the major search engines so that the listing would appear near ours." This is a false statement. The major search engines update their sites regularly independent of submission and rank sites according to popularity. PH, like an internet newbie, does not know what she is talking about, and therefore made yet another false statement.

Drama Queen continues her defamation by her grand allegation that this site is involved in extortion. The plot thickens. Da na na na... [deep bass music]. "We have recently been targeted by a dubious organization called Easy Background Check–sources have informed us that they already have numerous lawsuits pending regarding their continuous pursuit to discredit legitimate companies and then to extort money from these companies so that they will remove the false information off of their web site."

Obviously a controversial site that exposes crime and posts complaints gets legal threats now and then, but threats don't prove anything. Even Henson herself has made several legal threats against this site. The fact she did this very early in her communications with EBC raised suspicions and warranted further investigation. She sounded more interested in nothing questionable being suggested about her than actually answering the questions. She clearly has free speech issues.

DQ does not say who her sources are, so you have to believe her; given what else she says, that is a great leap of faith. There is one lawsuit filed by Lou Pearlman's company. If you know anything about Lou Pearlman, you know he has been exposed for fraud by the New York Times and has a horrendous reputation for exploiting kids. Even his former lawyers sued him for millions and won. Good luck finding a talent manager in America with a worse reputation. Many news reports, including Dateline NBC, exposed his association with convicted criminals. These are not petty theft crooks; they are multi-million-dollar advance-fee white-collar criminals. They were all working for a company running an advance-fee photo mill scam. Again, if Phyllis Henson was trying to distance herself from convicted criminals, why does she cite a lawsuit by a man who had criminals on his staff, and has Jans and Eliott on his payroll?

DQ's hypocrisy continues with her raging righteous idealism. "It is unfortunate in today's society that we are no longer considered INNOCENT until proven guilty." It's ironic she made this statement, since SHE has accused EBC of conspiracy, extortion, etc., and acts alleged but never proven or even substantiated by Pearlman.

All this controversy started because Ms. Henson could not reveal her prices, something most companies provide without having to be asked. Unbelievable!

Further Reading: National Talent Associates, Advance-Fee Talent Service for Kids