Complaint Review: Richard F. Scholz III

IARDC.Org Complaint Response. www.ScholzSucks.Com

C. Richard Wray               

No. 2013IN03999

3161 W White Oaks Dr. Suite 301

Springfield, IL 62704

In my response to the letter marked September 18, 2013 by Mr. Richard F. Scholz III, I am sorry to say that I not only disagree on his claims that he met with us for at least an hour and twenty minutes, but by analyzing Mr. Scholz’ statements in the way he claims things happened and presenting one key piece of evidence, I can prove we left BEFORE 5:00pm.

THIS PARAGRAGH IS TO DESGRIBE WHY I BELIEVE MR SHOLZ IS LYING ABOUT HIS TIME

The first reason I say this, is if his secretary does get off at 5:00pm like he claims she does, and if we were truly there for the hour and twenty minutes Mr. Scholz claims he spent with us; then it wouldn’t be his receptionist’s signature on our 500$ receipt. In Exhibit A, it’s highlighted where Mr. Scholz makes specific claims that don’t fit the puzzle.

(HOW I KNOW IT’S HIS RECEPTIONIST’S SIGNATURE ON OUR RECIEPT): The first and foremost reason I know it’s her signature on our receipt is I watched her write the receipt out myself. However, Exhibit F bears the same signature as the receipt dated 7-23-2013 (exhibit D).  Exhibit F is a written message FOR “Riff” (aka Mr. Scholz), written by Mr. Scholz’ secretary…meaning that his secretary is the only person who bears this signature. This signature is on BOTH Exhibit F and Exhibit D.

THE WAY THINGS HAPPENED: During the consultation, what I was hearing is that he would extend the time and we’d pay him the amount of money out of that retainer for how much work he did. We paid Riff AFTER we explained our situation to him for the fifteen minutes we spent with him. We went out of the consultation room and paid the 500$ in cash to Mr. Scholz’ receptionist. Mrs. Stutheit gave us a receipt (See Exhibit D).

(PLEASE CONSIDER WITNESS RELIABILITY) Please note that Mr. Scholz is Mrs. (Ms.) Stutheit’s superior, and there are consequences pertaining her job should she not agree with Mr. Scholz, this is why Mrs. Stutheit is not a reliable witness. The only reason I mentioned her was because I have written confirmation that she was there when we left.

HOW I KNOW I DID NOT PAY MR. SCHOLZ BEFORE OR DURING THE CONSULTATION

Let’s say that Mr. Scholz’ claims are true in all content (even though they are not), if we were to re-enact the day, consider these observations. If I paid $500 BEFORE the consultation, he wouldn’t have known enough to accept the case. Just in case he tries to claim we paid him before he would talk with us, keep in mind Mr. Scholz makes his statement in exhibit B, “I made that clear AT the conference on July 23^rd…” of a non-refundable retainer. He makes it very clear that it was proclaimed DURING the consultation inside his own response; which would mean if I DID pay the 500$ before consultation, he would have still stolen my money by saying it was ‘non-refundable’. And if we ever did agree to a “non-refundable” retainer, it would have been WAY LESS than 500$. And if Mr. Scholz’ claims were accurate, by saying his receptionist only entered the room (according to him, see exhibit A) only to inform him she was leaving, it would insinuate that she left the building without further interaction. If Mr. Scholz’ statements are in any way consistent, it would be HIS signature on our receipt, not his receptionist’s. BUT being that Mr. Scholz’ statements are not accurate, being as I paid his receptionist AFTER the consultation, the receipt acknowledges that his secretary was STILL there. She was there to the very end of our fifteen minutes, to write and sign the receipt. This not only means we got out BEFORE 5:00pm, but also that Mr. Scholz’ claim of his secretary only interacting to inform him that she was leaving is false as well. Meaning that Mr. Scholz is lying about his timing and who was there. This gives his other statements less validity as well.

THE REASON I KNOW I DID NOT AGREE TO A ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’ RETAINER

We would not have paid 500$ BEFORE we understood what he could do for us. IF I knew that I wasn’t going to be able to get at least SOME of my money back, I would have never asked for his legal representation. He DID say that ALL he COULD do was extend the time line. Sure, I wouldn’t mind extending the timeline, but if I knew his demands were going to be NON-refundable (which he NEVER said) I would have KEPT my money. I would not pay someone $500 non-refundable when they tell me there’s not much I can do and the job is the NEXT day. Plus, why would anybody pay 500$ non-refundable to a person BEFORE they did the job without contract, no matter what their profession? That would be stupid; there would be no warranty that they would accurately DO their job after they got paid. I would NEVER pay ANYONE a non-refundable payment without a letter of engagement, in writing, BEFORE I paid them. Neither would Mr. Heeger. A statement PROMISING that they would do their job. And since we never made that agreement, since I have common sense enough to not waste money like that, the retainer was nothing MORE THAN a regular retainer.

THE REASON I KNOW MR. HEEGER WOULD HAVE NEVER AGREED TO A ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’ RETAINER

Being that Mr. Heeger is a tougher negotiator than I am and requires everything in writing (not to mention I was right next to him confirmed by Mr. Scholz in Exhibit A). A good example of him requesting things in writing is his request for an itemized statement, talking to Mr. Scholz through email only, and getting receipts of all messages/money given to Mr. Scholz. He would not have agreed to a non-refundable payment either. As Mr. Scholz gives in his exhibit E, Mr. Heeger has obviously done his research on how to get everything in writing. Why would a person who reads books such as this agree to a non-refundable form of payment and NOT get it in writing? Since, Mr. Scholz said that there was not much he could do for us, why would we agree to a non-refundable payment if he couldn’t do much more than we could ourselves? To accuse someone of having a grudge against the system, showing that they’re educating themselves about the system and then trying to make a claim that they made a non-refundable payment agreement without having it in writing (an ignorant move). However Mr. Scholz shows that he is not an ignorant person when pertaining to these matters. That’s an inconsistent and non-realistic statement by Mr. Scholz.

IT WASN’T AN EVICTION

                Also another thing I would like to acknowledge is that this case wasn’t an eviction case, it was a demand for possession of property. We didn’t have a rental agreement with the petitioner. This detail shows the lack of effort/time Mr. Scholz put into our representation, meaning that he doesn’t deserve all $500.

TRYING TO PAINT A NEGATIVE PICTURE ON ME WITH MR. HEEGER’S DEEDS DOESN’T SOLVE ANYTHING FOR MR. SCHOLZ

May I also say that I, Cora Newbold, have NEVER filed any complaints against ANY lawyers until now. Nor have I put up ANY sites of any negative content about the opposing parties OR of Mr. Scholz. Exhibit E features books that I, Cora Newbold, have NEVER read. The only reason I know that those books exist is Mr. Heeger showed me what he used to inform himself during his Mercantile lawsuit in 2007. All of the things Mr. Scholz is using to put ‘us’ in a ‘bad light’ were results of Mr. Heeger’s actions. However, even WITH these actions it DOES NOT give Mr. Scholz an excuse for taking our Money. As he CLEARLY states he represented BOTH of us meaning that I have every right to file this complaint.

                AN EXPLAINATION ON ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL’ PROBLEMS

As it states in the paper, I was very scared about the thought of being homeless. However, that does NOT mean that I carry ANY grudge against the legal system. The only ‘problem’ that I psychologically had, had NOTHING to do with the legal system, they had MORE to do with the fact that I had a 10month old, about to get kicked out of a house with nowhere to go. This would make ANYONE in that position anxious. Or as Mr. Heeger likes to colorfully describe it as in Exhibit F “...having a mental break down…”. For Mr. Scholz to take the words ‘psychological problems’, harness them, and use them to create a stereotypical picture, that I am out to harm him in some way due to some mythical ‘grudge’, is unprofessional. Not only is Mr. Scholz not authorized to make that assessment; but to take people merely having a difficult time and blowing it up to insinuate that they’re crazy, (when it’s not their category of expertise) is defaming and discriminatory. Not only that but this subject was brought up to do nothing more than for you to form a negative opinion about me and to avoid the REAL problem.

AGAIN MR. HEEGER’S ACTIONS

The website, www.ScholzSucks.com, was put up by Mr. Heeger AFTER we found out that Mr. Scholz was wrongfully keeping our money. I admit that Mr. Heeger’s ways of expression are eccentric, but they are nothing more than him expressing his disappointment of Mr. Scholz’ unjust enrichment. Mr. Heeger does have a right to be disappointed, had this not happened in the first place there wouldn’t be a “Scholzsucks.com”. Had Mr. Scholz performed his responsibilities professionally, there would have been no conflict. Sean and I had actually agreed at the time after the court date to give Mr. Scholz $200 out of the original 500$ retainer we paid, out of gratitude for his short-notice representation. However, since Mr. Scholz has created a conflict, drug the conflict out, and has treated us with disrespect, we have changed our minds.

                NO MATTER WHAT THE EXCUSE IT’S AN EXCUSE NONE THE LESS

Psychological problems, “grudge against the system”, either way it’s NOT an excuse for Mr. Scholz to take the attention off of his wrong doing and to place it on me. The thing is MOST of these things Mr. Scholz is trying to point a finger at, were all done by Mr. Heeger. I, Cora Newbold, am the one filing the complaint. Not because of ANY ‘grudge’, spite, or ‘psychological’ problem but because I DID NOT AGREE (nor did Mr. Heeger) to a NON-Refundable form of payment! Mr. Scholz has still not proven, if anything he’s disproven, his statements in saying the retainer was non-refundable. He still has neglected to show any way in which the money was used, or PROOF of his work besides in-court representation. Even with his in-court representation, Mr. Scholz was within the court house prior to our hearing anyways, so it wasn’t a big effort to get there. He’s not even on the public court records AS representing us. I still believe that Mr. Scholz owes us at the VERY LEAST $350 in refund.

                I believe that Mr. Scholz’ response is nothing more than an act to take the attention off of himself and place Mr. Heeger and myself in a bad light. I sincerely believe that this response of his was more an aggressive defense than a factual response. I am a VERY LOGICAL, analytical and realistic person. I do NOT impulsively run on emotions like Mr. Scholz is trying to paint me as. I have no conflict with any other lawyer, including Ms. Lannerd, except for Mr. Scholz. You will come to find that everything that Mr. Scholz has said about me pertaining Ms. Lannerd is also another conflict of Mr. Heeger’s. I just want what’s rightfully mine.

And since Mr. Scholz so openly tried to put myself in a bad light, let it be known that this is NOT the FIRST time Mr. Scholz has been accused of stealing large sums of money. I will say that these statements come from reports from the media. The comments from another former “client” show how displeased she was with him (Exhibit H), notice how the date is December 21, 2011 showing that it was not recently posted to ‘conspire’ against Mr. Scholz. Then a report from KHQA (a local news group on channel 7) reports on their web site Mr. Scholz being accused of not cashing checks for his client’s estate (see exhibit G). Exhibit I are the comments that are connected to the KHQA report and they too were posted on January-September of 2012 as to again not be accused of any ‘conspiracy’. There IS one positive comment, but that was an interpretation based upon what the rest of his family has done, obviously without knowing him personally. The rest of them are negative, agreeing with ‘Riff’ being a thief.  

Thank you,

09/23/2013