Complaint Review: Dr Alfred Adams-Nearing Midnight

I HAD TO READ THIS SEVERAL TIMES AND STILL AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS PERSON TRIED TO SAY.

IF THEY ARE THIS INCAPABLE OF EXPRESSING THEMSELVES IN A COHERENT MANNER, NO WONDER THEY DO NOT APPEAR TO BE CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING IN THE REAL WORLD WITHOUT A GUARDIAN.

THIS POST MAKES MINIMAL SENSE.

LET'S SEE, SOMEONE OFFERED TO PAY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT.
THE PERSON WHO OFFERED TO PAY THE ATTORNEY ALSO RECOMMENDED THE ATTORNEY????

IF THAT IS CORRECT, WHEN THE PERSON WHO OFFERED TO PAY THE ATTORNEY DID NOT, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEVERED ALL TIES THAT THIS GUY WAS A NUT AND A CON MAN.

I WONDER IF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE IS A LOVE AFFAIR GONE WRONG AND THE POSTER WANTS SOME SORT OF BACKWOODS REVENGE AND HOW DO THEY EVEN HAVE ENOUGH COMMON SENSE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE A COMPUTER?

STRANGE. WEIRD. PATHOLOGICAL.

SOMEONE HERE  NEEDS A LEGAL GUARDIAN AND PSYCHIATRIC HELP.

This is indeed true. I found a previous post on Mr Adams is why I posted mine.  As far as the car incident the reason they let him make the purchase was because many years ago he had purchased a few vehicles from them for cash (or that is what I was told). He at one time did have a lot of money but lost it when his father got sick and he got out of the financial business.  The dealership was the local dodge dealership there in Laplace....maybe a mile or 2 from where he lived. I have no reason to lie and am not jealous. He basically wiggled his way out of trouble cause he knew some people at the dealership.  He returned it in less than a week.  I met him on a yahoo chat and he was under the username teaching_the_gospel or something like that. It was 5 years ago. 

To be honest, I do not care if any of you believe me. I was posting this more in reference to the other poster to let them know they were not the only one that had been duped by Mr Adams. I since have gotten my college degree and married and have a great life. He will get what is coming to him without me doing anything. 

Isitreal, sorry for the harshness above. Best of luck with your studies and, always keep in mind, there is a light at the end of the law school tunnel.

I do agree that the report is fishy, but to outright deny its validity is a bit over-stepping.

And per the checking of funds availability, I stand corrected. Thank you Robert. You learn something new every day.

However, the car issue still could have happened. The funds may have been available on the day of the transaction, and been spent by the time the check was presented. Or the subject of the complaint could have put a stop payment on the check.

Bottom lineDoes the person have a legal leg to stand on?

If what is said within this statement is false, does the subject of this report have a legal leg to stand on?

At the end of the day, it more then likely a jealous person. Move on please, nothing to see here.

You got me. Am not a lawyer, but I am in law school first year. And no I do not know the person. I can't speak for the other guy.

I made the post becase it does seem like an untrue story, as to something real. If you read all the post on this and I am sure you do, you have to say, alot of post you can tell should have not made the board.

Am not going to get into the he said she said.

I can only come from the auto-industry point of view. Being in it for over 35 years, we can and do check for the verification of funds with banks low end dealership or not, we still do. The car story would not have happen. As for as the rest, Tim makes points out a great point. It could just be a jealousy person.

For a pair of lawyers, your attention to detail, analytical skills, and writing abilities leave something to be desired. It's actually quite apparent that you are NOT attorneys. Rather, you are either the reportee posing as an attorney under two separate names, or you are people close to him doing the same.

Heres the crux of the complaint, which was kind of lost in the details: the author is alleging that this man promised certain financial favors, most likely in the hopes of obtaining sexual favors in return. However, the reportee failed to follow through on the financial favors.

Now, while I am also questioning the legitimacy of the report, the first thing that pops into MY head is promissory estoppel. Assuming arguendo that the report is accurate, does the OP have a legal leg to stand on?

Now to some of the rebuttal comments. Pardon the font changes.

"it seems odd to post something that could or could not have happen 5 years later."

Not really. Re-read the opening sentence of the complaint. From this, it is apparent that the OP came across a complaint about a subject that she was familiar with, which prompted her to write her own complaint. So this is not an "out of the blue, five years later" report as you allege.

If someone did me very wrong five years ago, and today I came across a forum wherein someone had a similar encounter, I too may be prodded to draft a concurring statement and detail my own occurence. I find nothing odd about the timing of the report.

"How come the car company did not file fraud charges? No matter if the car was returned or not?"

Because it's a waste of time, or they just don't want to deal with the hassle, or they don't like cops, who knows. The car company, which I'm assuming is a low-end used car dealership, is primarily concerned with the financial aspect. The most likely scenario here is that they contacted the reportee and told him that he either needed to clear up the bad check or return the car, otherwise charges would be filed. When the car was returned, that was good enough for this outfit.

Beyond that, how do you even know whether or not they did ultimately pursue fraud charges? Do you have inside information? 

"Bad check" cases can be awfully hard to prosecute. Some D.A.s won't even touch them except for under limited circumstances. And who knows, maybe this guy DID get prosecuted.

"The car dealer gets a check and does not go after the guy? A check would have all a person's information on it. NO ONE is goign to let a car leave a lot without alot of paper work either."

It sounds like they DID go after the guy: "the dealership was going to file fraud charges against him but didnt because he came with some hoodlum girls and got the car."

Again, it sounds like the dealership DID go after the guy. They gave him an ultimatum: get us the car or the money, or we're pressing charges.

On to the next rebuttalist:

"The name the person use, seems odd. Since this is posted in the religious category, why would anyone pray to GOD for harm to be to a person, as to just let GOD deal with it."

Wow. You mean to tell me that you actually passed a 1L legal writing course? I can barely understand what you are saying here. You seem to be implying that, if a report is placed in the religious category, the OP is looking for people to pray for harm to come to a person? What kind of messed up logic is that?

"The person calls him by what looks like a "nickname", leads me to believe they know him. They call him Al many times within this comment."

Holy sh*t. Are you serious? OF COURSE SHE KNOWS HIM! READ THE REPORT!

"Maybe he only was going to recommend a attorney and thats it. Is it possible that she was thinking he was also going to pay the fees?"

Again, read the report: "The payment mysteriously got lost on the mail, or something always happened. He said he wired the money to me but it never arrived."

Why would someone who didn't make a promise to pay something state that they had wired the money?

"I did some research on Dr. Adams, seems he just released a DVD in September. With the facts of this person calling him by a nickname and posting not to long after the release of a DVD it seems more like a jealous person."

NOW you're thinking like a lawyer!

"No dealership would take a personal check without calling the bank to make sure funds are there. I know of no dealership that would not file charges against someone for just bring a car back to their lot."

Really. And how many car dealerships have opened up the inner-workings of their operations to you?

You CAN'T call the bank to see how much money someone else has in their account. The bank will not give you that information. The only way to ensure that funds are available for a check is to walk down to the bank and convert it into some other form of currency/paper. Aside from that, you have to rely on a check processing system which, like you, does not have access to account balances. These systems can only tell you whether accepting the check is an acceptable risk, based on the history of the writer.

"Making false statements even the bi-sexual (to try to defame a person) comment has open this person up for a [defamation lawsuit] . . . which is more then warranted under the facts and controlling law of this matter."

"More than warranted?" Unless you are, or are very closely associated with the subject of this report, then how do you even know whether the statements are false? Can you even tell me what state's law would be the "controlling law of this matter?"

What you are speaking of, in more general terms, is a defamation suit alleging tortious interference with an economic expectancy. These suits are VERY complicated, and the law regarding them varies quite a bit from state to state. So, unless you've spent some considerable time researching the relevant state laws, it seems a bit "unlawyerly" to make such a bold statement. 

Not to mention the fact that your whole assertion is premised in a theory that you devised yourself.  

"Last but not lease."

It's "least." And you're a pretend lawyer. I suspect that you are the subject of this report, or someone close to him. Your little unwarranted lawsuit threat at the end gives you away. And by the way . . . let me know how that suit turns out!

Back to law school, boys! 

Lets take a look at this comment for facts.

1. The name the person use, seems odd. Since this is posted in the religious category, why would anyone pray to GOD for harm to be to a person, as to just let GOD deal with it.

2. The person calls him by what looks like a "nickname", leads me to believe they know him. They call him Al many times within this comment.

3. Talks about a retainer and lawyer, that might have been misunderstood. The person comments that Dr. Adams would recommended a attorney. She does use the attorney according to her statement here. Maybe he only was going to recommend a attorney and thats it. Is it possible that she was thinking he was also going to pay the fees?

4. The very odd part of making this comment five years later comes as surprising, but might not be too surprising. I did some research on Dr. Adams, seems he just released a DVD in September. With the facts of this person calling him by a nickname and posting not to long after the release of a DVD it seems more like a jealous person.

5. Now we move on to the car. No dealership would take a personal check without calling the bank to make sure funds are there. I know of no dealership that would not file charges against someone for just bring a car back to their lot.

6. Making false statements even the bi-sexual (to try to defame a person) comment has open this person up for a law suit for damages, including, but not limited to, damages related to loss of business opportunity, as well as business relationship, all which are more then warranted under the facts and controlling law of this matter.

Last but not lease. Dont make post on Rip-off report and give it a bad name.

Your story seems untrue. The car dealer gets a check and does not go after the guy? A check would have all a person's information on it. NO ONE is goign to let a car leave a lot without alot of paper work either.

And this happen 5 years ago? And your just getting around to making a comment? Why did he not go to jail? Come on, give me a break. You give this site a bad name.

Rip-off report is a great site and can help you. But it is post like this that makes it hard for lawyers (such as myself) to think this is a true statement. If it was true, and I am not say it is not, but I am saying it seems odd to post something that could or could not have happen 5 years later.

How come the car company did not file fraud charges? No matter if the car was returned or not? I do not know any of the parties, but I do know when I seen something that just does not smell right.