Lawyer Cheryl Erber
1900 Birch Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Re: Reimbursement of our Retainer Cost of $2000. For You As Well As Your Non Performance in your Retainer Contract for legitimate solutions for Michael and Stacy.
Dear Ms. Erber:
Pursuing our prior interest in return of our Cost of $2000. Because of your Non Performance, after this you published us back stating, basically, that you simply were likely to reconcile your payment to determine if any funds were due back again to us.
We'd prefer to counsel you that should you did execute any work-in our account, we'd be prepared to purchase it, for instance:
1. Did you Document A Lawyer Replacement using the Courtroom? We believe not.
2. Did you Document and Function our Revised Problem? We believe not.
3. Did you Document and Function our Ex Parte Injunction / TRO? We believe not.
4. Did you intend to represent us in Courtroom? Well, we understand the clear answer for this issue while you previously published us stating which you possibly couldn't ensure it is, but that you simply might "Make An Effort To be there" but we weren't to overlook that "You [we] continue to be In Pro Per." Therefore, again, we believe not. (so that as of 02/10 you didn't display to the courtroom for we are there and also you were not!)
5. Did you contact our Bankruptcy Lawyer as required? We all know you didn't, per our Bankruptcy Lawyer.
6. Did you execute a Overview Of our Document? We believe you did since you wrote us, puzzled, but who's to actually understand, wondering if there have been two instances so when were they to become Noticed despite the fact that I particularly offered you this same comprehensive info via e-mails concerning the same to make sure that there is no distress? However, nonetheless, Overview Of the Document is Complimentary per your personal Marketing and Retainer Contract, nonetheless at this point you wish to cost people for what's free?
7. Did you actually break your Retainer Contract? We think you definitely did let me make it clear on many problems
1. Non performance & not achieving the deadlines defined in your Retainer Agreement.
2. Not precisely guarding all our rights and pursuits.
3. Departing your customers within an untenable place as well as in expert per, simply two times before two court case proceedings despite the fact that we maintained you greater than a month preceding, spending you $2000. Etc... Etc... Etc... 8. Did you devote no less than atleast scam against us by getting cash and never doing? We believe greatly so
We believe that this conduct of yours was Premeditated, Willful, Harmful and therefore deceptive! Consequently, we respectfully submit that you simply haven't done ANY Providers on our account and again problem a the entire return of our $2000. Retainer fee immediately. Should you not achieve this within twenty four hours of the notice, we shall consider every motion and means feasible to recover what is owed people by you and will achieve this utilizing the total degree of regulations.
Professionally,
Jordan & Stacy
That which was our response out of this crack? A misquote of my notice and an attempted shock tactic. Notice on your own below. It's truly really heartbreaking and laughable
Michael;
I discover your e-mails really troubling and threatening. You tell me to provide you with $2,000. Within the next twenty four hours or you "will require every motion and means feasible to recover what is owed for you".
Please explain this at your earliest convenience to ensure that I will inform the Palo Alto Police Dept. And District Attorney about that risk.
Sincerely,
Cheryl
Dont fear Cheryl, I'll help you save the time and effort for I'll be calling both Palo Alto Police Dept. And District Attorney about your obvious Scam dedicated agaisnt us which that you have devoted to additional customers of yours. Oh, incidentally, I'll even be processing a using the California State Bar.
To conclude: it's my opinion that everyone should look out for this hag, crack, rip-off lawyer!!! Yikes!!!
0 comments