Complaint Review: American Cash Machine

""1. Public Record was the court case involved.""

Care to give the case number and the name of the court that ruled on it? The court record would clarify the matter.

""Other responders suggested she should have had an assigned guardian.""

I am the "other responders" to this ROR and I strongly urge the OP to consider requesting the court to appoint a law guardian to prevent such occurances in the future. I did not state "she should have had an assigned guardian"" Whenever someone has a relative with diminished mental capacities, they should consider this option to protect the assets of the relative. It's not a pleasant subject for discussion with most folks, but it should be considered to prevent these types of things.

""American Cash was contacted as a result of the investagation and found to be uninvolved in the matter.""

This may be so. Do you claim that this "jim" person the OP reports about was not an employee of AC at the time of this incident? Do you deny that this "jim" person presented a check to the bank for $60000?

It would be interesting to read the court records about this. IMO your rebuttals are without substance. I don't see were you deny this "jim" person was an employee or where this "jim" person was attempting to invest these moneys with your company.

Are you indicating that the case has been adjudicated? That it is no longer a PENDING case before the courts as it was in May?

I know that if someone posted such a claim about me or one of my employees I'd make darn sure that any police or court records that absolve me of any wrong doing were equally made public.

This is a hearsay report. The OP states one thing, you state another. However, I think your reguttal would carry more weight if you included the case/docket number, the full name of the court that adjudicated it, and some denials that this "jim" person was an employee or otherwise affiliated with your business.

In response to the last responder:

1. Public Record was the court case involved.

2. Other responders suggested she should have had an assigned guardian.

3. American Cash was contacted as a result of the investagation and found to be uninvolved in the matter.

""1. American Cash Machine did not process any paperwork for the individual involved. AMCERICAN CASH MACHINE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER!""

I guess the police investigation will make a determination about this..

""2. Public records indicate that no monies were transfered from the individual to any parties. The individual did not lose any money.""

WHAT public records? If I write a check to a business that becomes a public record? You can legally access my bank account records?

Further, the OP clearly stated that NO MONEY was taken. It is the ATTEMPT to take monies that is being reported, as well as pertinent data such as names, banks, police department, officer conducting the investigation, etc.

""3. The relatives, well meaning as they maybe, indicate that she was not well since 2004. Yet they allowed her to remain in Florida, with no assistance to protect her. Fortunately, in this instance, she did not suffer any loss.""

Is this a shot at the family for reporting this matter on the internet? My my, I won't be doing any business with you folks-that's for sure.

Why don't you post the report where the police or the courts have ABSOLVED your firm of any wrong doing or any connection with this "Jim" fellow? How about the docket number that shows that your company is sueing the OP for libel?

IMO you should have ignored this report until the judicial process has run it's course.

1. American Cash Machine did not process any paperwork for the individual involved. AMCERICAN CASH MACHINE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER!

2. Public records indicate that no monies were transfered from the individual to any parties. The individual did not lose any money.

3. The relatives, well meaning as they maybe, indicate that she was not well since 2004. Yet they allowed her to remain in Florida, with no assistance to protect her. Fortunately, in this instance, she did not suffer any loss.

This is never a pleasant subject but to prevent this type of stuff in the future you should consider having a family member appointed by the courts as a law guardian for this lady.

This is NOT the same as having a power of attorney. A law guardian not only has more authority, but the guardian becomes the person WHO MUST authorize these types of financial transactions-not the person.

As a court appointed law guardian, you can request that the credit reporting agencies annotate her credit files to indicate that there is a law guardian-this provides further protection against identity theft as well as reducing the amount of "offers" she might receive. Further, the law guardian must authorize all checks, credit card transactions, etc.

The down side is that most seniors desire to "feel" independent and in control of their lives. With a law guardian they don't. This is what makes this a touchy issue in families where a senior member no longer has his/her complete and full mental capacities.

The upside is that these types of issues cannot legally occur without the law guardian's approval. It's something to consider for anyone who has a family member with assets and diminished mental capacity.