Wendy
Sun Prairie,#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Fri, February 27, 2009
Forgot to mention my husband went through all security checks, Name check, Finger Printing, CIA, FBI, IBIS, FBI "National" Name check. Yeap, came up clear, my husband is legit and has never had any problems with the law. So be sure to stop the slander of my husband Roth. It doesn't make you look any better in the people's eyes.
Wendy
Sun Prairie,#3Consumer Comment
Fri, February 27, 2009
Amazing John........ You are a complete liar, and you stoop to no level to make others try and look bad. First of all let me tell you, If you recall, it was "YOUR" NY office who placed me in the Alabama office, they are not the ones that hired me. Secondly, you stated in your own words "Michael P. Poles Has Never Bothered To Pick up A law Book". This of course made me feel reaaalll comfortable in knowing that you have such incompetents working for you. As far as my husband goes, seeing as you were "NOT" familiar with Dominican Republic, (in fact I was your first case at the time) you have no idea about the corruption out there, and this is why I "NEEDED" your help, or lack of. No where did I ever state that my husband was "GOING" to pay anyone off, in fact my exact words were, the corruption out there is so bad, that many take payment just to wipe the record clean, which is true, this is the way the DR is. truth be told, it was YOUR secretary "Chantelle" who had actually made the statement that it would probably be easier to do this, because DR is very hard to get documentation because the government is so corrupt and there is no order in the way they do things. As you already know UNDER NO Circumstances did my husband pay anyone off!! So please, stop trying to "LIE" about this, you know the conversation very well, you are just PO'ed that I even dear asked for any type of money because your firm is a joke, and they do "NOT" live up to what they advertise. For the record John, my husband was "NOT" involved with numerous crimes, in fact, that was "PROVEN" but seeing as you did not take the time to try and sort through things with us, you would of never of known this. I had to get legal help in DR to sort through everything. My husband was "DETAINED" one time, and was "NOT" charged with anything, and I have the "COURT PAPER" signed by the "JUDGE" proving that. So once again, you accusations are BS. You just do not want to pay for "YOUR" wrong doing. How P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C you really are to even try and put me in a catagory of a woman with 14 children, you really are a low down, dirty lawyer that has no ethical morales. Just admit it John, you are just a shyster. As far as me getting any money back from you, I know you would never give any of the $1,800 I paid for your "SO CALLED" great service, but why don't you tell everyone here, why you have not returned the $250 that I paid, for you to fill out the 1 page co-sponsor sheet?? Why is that John, don't tell me that it is because the so called extra work you did for me was worth more than I paid, so you decided to keep the $250, this was not in any agreement, nor was it ever mentioned. You owe me that money, because "YOU" never filed out that form, not to mention, that even if you had, it would have been no good, because DR Embassy was not excepting the I 134 any longer, they were taking the I 864, but because as usual, you had no idea of what was going on in DR, and it was OBVIOUS. So in closing folks, Mr. Roths "ACCUSATIONS" of what happened in our case were "NOT" true, and he knows it. But just like I mentioned earlier, he always puts blame on the client, and tries to make them look bad. Hey John, don't you think you, as an attorney, you might have just violated the attorney/client confidentiality about my and other cases?? I believe so, don't worry john, I'm not looking for any comp for this (yet another wrong on your part), but it is just food for thought for others you have broke the confidentiality with (on here). and don't worry, if someone would like to do something about it, he can "NOT" disclose unrelated information to get back at you or ruin your reputation, like he is trying to do with "everyone" here who has had a problem with his services. John, the only money I am asking for is my $250 for the paper "YOU" NEVER filled out. You never filled the form I paid for, and I never received it. So, the big question is........ Why did I not receive this money back, when you never filled out and gave me the form?? What is the deal with that John?? After this, I just give up, you are nothing but a shyster, who DOES NOT care about any of your clients, you are only out to take the money, and after that who cares. By the way, if you are so "hard up" for that $250, just keep it, I am sure you would of came up with some BS story as to why you are not going to return a fee that was never used. Please be careful everyone, this guy is a BIG JOKE!! I almost feel sorry for him
John
Nanuet,#4REBUTTAL Owner of company
Sun, February 15, 2009
This is a scam. Anyone familiar with RipOff Report will know that it is a very clever extortion business masquerading as a consumer advocacy organization. Any and all complaints are encouraged, no facts are checked, the complaints are packaged for maximum damage to the complained against business (who sees the tiny link at the bottom for rebuttal? you, dear reader, are rare), complaints are never removed and their effects can only be minimized by paying RipOff Report thousands of dollars under its Corporate Advocacy Program. Lately the public is getting in the act, throwing up dubious or completely false complaints in the hope of shaking down businessmen themselves. That's plainly what Wendy is doing here. She is an unemployed mother of two living on disability (which didn't stop her from making repeated trips to the Dominican Republic to visit her boyfriend) who was engaged to a Dominican national who had a multiple arrest record. She saw a chance to use a trumped-up gripe (which really makes no sense at all) and ignore all we had done for her to shake a little money from my firm through internet blackmail (a common use of RipOff Report lately). She's a hyper-needy and at times delusional user of the con to get what she thinks she is entitled to in life. Think of the currently notorious Nadya Suleman and you'll have a pretty good picture of Wendy as well. Wendy in fact received far more service than she was entitled to. She was an extremely difficult client to deal with and the case had indicia of a sham marriage in the making. I was horrified when our Alabama office (now closed) took the case. The previous attorney had numerous contacts with Wendy, I had numerous telephone conversations with Wendy, with her father (who we were trying to enlist as a co-sponsor because Wendy could not meet the minimum income requirements of the visa) and she had a huge amount of contact with our firm. Wendy was constantly writing us to report that her fianc had been arrested once again and looking for us to fix the situation, even though of course we could do nothing (by the way, we would have been well within our rights to insist on a higher fee after this very serious complexity occurred after the client hired us; we did not). Finally she suggested that her fianc could pay a bribe to the police to get his record cleaned. We became very concerned that he would do just that and, although we continued to perform all our obligations under the contract, we of necessity started to put some distance between our firm and any attempt by the client to deceive the U.S. Embassy. A couple of our warnings follow: 12/16/07 Wendy, We have a very serious problem here. An attorney is not allowed to represent a client (I'm speaking of [fianc name deleted] now, not you) who is not telling the truth, either to the attorney or the government. He has to come completely clean with us right away, or we will be forced the withdraw from the representation. We need a complete list of his convictions (this includes ones that were later "cleaned", as you put it, from his police certificate). We also need to know exactly what the crimes were. He must not pay anyone to remove crimes from his record (this doesn't help, anyway, because they are still crimes for U.S. immigration purposes). We need to see his current (accurate!) police certificate. Very truly yours, John F. Roth Law Offices of John F. Roth 3/10/2008 (2 days before her fiance's interview) The reason for the delay is that we still haven't received an accurate and reliable list of arrests of Jhon hey. What I finally decided to do was send you the forms with a continuation sheet listing the arrests. You will write in the arrests later. Our firm name is not on any of the forms because we can not sign off on forms that will be modified later by the client. The lack of our name and signatures will not effect the processing of the forms, however. The Consulate will accept them. A word of warning: if we find out that either of you have been less than honest about Jhon hey's arrest record, will remove ourselves from the case. We have heard so many stories by now that we scarcely know what to believe anymore. ==== I think Wendy got the idea for a shake-down when she saw that another women, also married to a person with an arrest record, made a compliant against us on RipOff Report. That woman and her fiance were judged to be untruthful in the end by a U.S. Embassy (as I predicted in my rebuttal, months before it actually happened). You would think this is our specialty area U.S. women with bad boy foreign fiancs but in fact these two cases are the only such cases we've had in years. Both tried to rip us off, and both ended up on RipOff Report. Birds of a feather, I guess. We'll certainty be careful to avoid this flock in the future. You'll note that Wendy is still miffed that I haven't paid her the money I "stold" from her. I refused on principle the first time, and I continue to refuse. In fact, very few people read these kinds of reports because there are far more reliable ways to evaluate a lawyer and in each of those forums a potential client will see dramatically opposite reviews of my firm than Wendy portrays. A serious person can contact the New York State Bar Association to check my record, can see the hundred of testimonials on my web site, or can visit other web forums where my performance is evaluated and you will get exactly the opposite impression than what Wendy tries to create in her latest attempt to get money for nothing. It's a pity that lawyers don't have any place to go to to complain about bad clients. If you handle as many cases as we do per year, you run into some real beauties eventually. In fact, though, most of our clients are great. But that's why we have to push back from time to time on the one or two who want to elbow out anyone else who wants our attention. It's tough, too, because we want ever client to leave our practice happy. With some people, it just seems impossible, though.
Wendy
Sun Prairie,#5Author of original report
Thu, December 11, 2008
I am the original person to file this report, and thought I would just update that, to date, I have still not heard any feed back from Mr Roth in regards to my complaint (only of what I have originally posted already). But I have noticed in searching, that Mr. John F. Roth and Associates have had yet "ANOTHER" report filed. Now there are a total of three reports filed in regards to his bad business ethics. Reports filed are numbers: #362705 #393227 #277237 Please Beware Folks, this man is not reputable, and has no concern for his clients, and this is evident with the reports that have been filed.
Wendy
SUn Prairie,#6Author of original report
Wed, September 17, 2008
No one said he did not have a Law Degree, Mr. Roth (from his own mouth) stated "Michael P. Poles never bothered to pick up a law book". which I believe, because just about all info that he had given me was "NOT" correct. Here is the complaint e-mail I sent to Mr. Roth: Re: Could You Please Forward To John Roth/Having Problem With Alabama Office Thursday, May 3, 2007 9:00 PM From: "WENDY Add sender to Contacts To: [email protected] Message contains attachments E-mails and Responses.doc (280KB) Hi Mr. Roth, My Name is Wendy, I am writing you today because I am having problems with getting questions answered from the Alabama office. It is in regards to co-sponsor information that I need answered and have still to this day have not heard anything back. A while back Michael Poles stated that I "would" be able to combine incomes of the co-sponsor(s) and myself. Then I had found something on the USCIS official site that stated different. I finally had everything together and ready to go (you will see in attachment) based on what he had told me. Now, I have questioned him about what I had came across and I still have not heard anything back (approx 1 month and 2 weeks). I am not much of a complainer and I am sorry that I am bothering you with this, but I truly believe that enough is enough. I hired you guys based on yours and my conversation (I am sure you do not remember) but I felt very comfortable when speaking to you that, I really believed that I would be in good hands. I have had a few problems with them getting back to me in the past, but because I am basically a push over I just delt with it and just said it was due to them being busy. But now I am feeling like I have wasted my money. When I did not get a response to questions I had, I would end up researching things myself. I had also asked Gay Lynn if they have had people going through Dominican Republic before, she stated yes. Though I could not prove it, I believe that this is not true. They had no idea about the Extensive waiting list for an interview in the DR, and the Embassy package they sent me had instructions that said to call this number to schedule a interview once my fiance has obtained all the information needed. The SDO Consulate has not been having people call this number for the past 2-3 years, I believe it was 2004 to be exact they quit doing this. I know there are many big changes that have started in this consulate, one being the elimination of the back log. In order to try and do this they are now having the NVC obtain all the information needed for the interviews. Once all the information has been received by the NVC, they will then schedule your appointment and send your information to the consulate, this in turn is going to help, (along with other things) eliminate the long waiting list for an interview. So I am expecting the list to start moving faster over the next few months. With this being said, I need to know these answers to my questions about co-sponsor. So my question to you is...... seeing as I have paid for full services and "one co-sponsor, am I able to get monies back that were not used? If not can you at least change me to someone who cares about trying to help me?? I have attached a copy of 11 e-mails, 4 of which were replies. Please take the time to read and understand where I am coming from. The are short e-mails with the dates and times. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Wendy P.S. If after you read the e-mails, you truly think that I am over reacting, then please tell me, I am an understanding person, maybe I am missing something here. Here are the 11 e-mails that lead up to this one: 1st e-mail Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 18:36:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "WENDY Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: RE: I need this information ASAP To: [email protected] Hi Michael, This is Wendy, my kids and I just got back from a month in Dominican Republic. I am writing to you today because awhile back you had told me that the co-sponsor and I can combine our total incomes. But I was just looking through the official site for USCIS to pass some time and found this: Who can be a joint sponsor, and when is a joint sponsor allowed? If the visa petitioner's household income is not sufficient to meet the requirements of INA section 213A and 8 C.F.R. 213a, INA section 213A permits a joint sponsor to sign an affidavit of support, in addition to the affidavit of support signed by the visa petitioner. A joint sponsor is someone who is willing to accept legal responsibility for supporting your family member with you. A joint sponsor must meet all the same requirements as you, except the joint sponsor does not need to be related to the immigrant. The joint sponsor (or the joint sponsor and his or her household) must reach the 125 percent income requirement alone. You cannot combine your income with that of a joint sponsor to meet the income requirement. Is this true???? Or is this outdated or something?? I have everything finally squared away for the co-sponsor and was going to get all paper work together once my fiance was 12,000 on the waiting list and send it to you, he currently is 24,757. Now I need to know if I have to start looking all over again for someone who makes the total amount alone, and if I do, I need to start this NOW. Please get back to me soon, thank you, Wendy. 2nd e-mail Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:11:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "WENDY Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: Re: Change of number for Fiance To: [email protected] Hi Gay Lynn, Just wanted you to know that Fiance has a new number, he lost his other phone so had to buy a new one. The new number is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Do you inform Immigration?? If not is there anything that I need to do???? Thanks, Wendy. 1st Response From: "Gay Lynn Smith" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: "'WENDY Subject: RE: Change of number for Finace Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:47:20 -0500 Any news on a co-sponsor???? Sincerely, Gay Lynn Smith Legal Assistant Roth & Associates 3rd e-mail Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:55:05 -0700 (PDT) From: "WENDY Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: Re: Yes To: [email protected] Hey Gay Lynn, I am/was all set with the sponsors, and was going to send all information in to you once Fiance reached 12,000. But I just wrote Michael 2 days ago about something I read on the Official site of USCIS, which states: Who can be a joint sponsor, and when is a joint sponsor allowed? If the visa petitioner's household income is not sufficient to meet the requirements of INA section 213A and 8 C.F.R. 213a, INA section 213A permits a joint sponsor to sign an affidavit of support, in addition to the affidavit of support signed by the visa petitioner. A joint sponsor is someone who is willing to accept legal responsibility for supporting your family member with you. A joint sponsor must meet all the same requirements as you, except the joint sponsor does not need to be related to the immigrant. The joint sponsor (or the joint sponsor and his or her household) must reach the 125 percent income requirement alone. You cannot combine your income with that of a joint sponsor to meet the income requirement. He had told me a while back that I could "COMBINE" the incomes of me and any sponsors. So I was all set and ready to go and sending you the papers in a reasonable time. But now I am waiting to hear from him on if this stuff is true or out dated or what is going on. I need to know NOW if I have to start looking "All Over Again" for someone who covers the income requirement alone, or if I can in fact combine all incomes, Wendy. 4th e-mail Sorry Gay Lynn, I forgot to mention also that Fiance has quite a bit of time to wait, he had started at 27,165 when he first got on the list on Dec 29th, and as of now (still waiting for March update list) he stands at 24,727. He has not moved much in the two months he has been on the list, and at the rate that Santo Domingo Consulate is moving on average (1,000 - 1,500 per month) he is not going to have his interview for "at least" 18 more months. This month they had less interviews scheduled (a lot less) because of the amount of emergency cases they had to deal with. He did not even make moving 500 places on the list this month. But the answer to your question (if I heard anything about the sponsor) yes, for sure, if I can combine incomes, you will receive all information needed , along with another payment for another co-sponsor once he hits 12,000. If I can not combine then I am not ready with a co-sponsor, and I need every single minute to find one by the time he reaches 12,000. Wendy. 2nd Response From: [email protected] Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: "WENDY Subject: Re: Re: Forgot to mention Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 8:05:13 -0400 Yes dear, you can combine 3rd Response From: [email protected] Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: "WENDY Subject: Re: Re: Yes Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 8:11:32 -0400 I will double check this with Mike and let you know later today. 5th e-mail Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 05:55:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "WENDY Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: Re: Ok To: [email protected] Hey Gay Lynn, Thanks for getting back to me, if I sound stressed out, it is only because "I AM". Thanks again for getting back so quick, Wendy. 4th response From: "Gay Lynn Smith" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: "'WENDY Subject: RE: Yes Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:32:29 -0500 Dear Wendy: We are double checking (researching) this issue. Sincerely, Gay Lynn Smith Legal Assistant Roth & Associates 6th e-mail Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:23:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "WENDY Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: RE: Wendy To: [email protected] Dear Gay Lynn, Just got your other e-mail saying that you are researching the issue. Please don't forget about me cause I really need to know asap. I wait to hear from you, thank you, Wendy. This Was The Last Time I heard From them (March 21st, 2007) 7th e-mail Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 06:28:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "WENDY Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert Subject: Re: Wendy/Fiance To: [email protected] Dear Gay Lynn, I last contacted you and Michael on March 21st, 2007, then called and spoke to Michael via phone on the 23rd in regards to the combining incomes of two sponsors. Michael assured me (promised) that he would call me as soon as he found out. It is 1 day short of a month from my last contact with you guys and I still have not heard nothing. I know that the USCIS site stated that I could not combine the income of "ME" and the Co-Sponsor, but it did not say as to whether or not I could combine the income of "TWO Co-Sponsors". I would appreciate an update even if the answer is not known as of yet, Thank you. Sincerely, Wendy This report is based on John F Roth and Associates, and at the time of me hiring them, Michael P. Poles was working with the firm. They are all incompetent, and no concern about their clients, only the money, once they have it, they could care less what happens. If Mr. Roth would have accepted responsibility for his mess up and offered to "at least" some compensation for it, I could of lived with that, but he is so greedy that he could not even give me the money back for the I 134 (co-sponsor form) that "I paid to have them fill out" and "NEVER" received!! $250, can you believe a man who makes "plenty of money", would not even pay back a measly $250 for work they "DID NOT" do?? Pretty sad to me that this man has no morals whatsoever. Does anyone find it a bit funny that the rebuttal to me was by "Anonymous from Mobile Alabama"?? Just a little food for thought.
Anonymous
Mobile,#7Consumer Comment
Wed, August 27, 2008
Michael P. Poles has not worked for John F. Roth & Associates since July 2007. Mr. Poles is a my attorney, and did a wonderful job for my case. I had immediate turn around. No problems of any kind were encountered. Mr. Poles does have a law degree. I have been in his office and have seen his law degrees.