Attorney Cheryl Erber <br />
1900 Birch Street <br />
Palo Alto, CA 94306<br />
<br />
Re: Refund of our Retainer Payment of $2000. to You and Your Non-Performance on your Retainer Agreement for legal services for Michael and Stacy. <br />
<br />
Dear Ms. Erber: <br />
<br />
Following our previous Demand for return of our Payment of $2000. due to your Non-Performance, you then wrote us back saying, essentially, that you were going to reconcile your billing to see if any monies were due back to us. <br />
<br />
We would like to advise you that if you did perform any work in our behalf, we would be willing to pay for it, for example: <br />
<br />
1. Did you File an Attorney Substitution with the Court? We think not. <br />
2. Did you File and Serve our Amended Complaint? We think not. <br />
3. Did you File and Serve our Ex-Parte Injunction / TRO? We think not. <br />
4. Did you plan to represent us in Court? Well, we know the answer to this question as you already wrote us saying that you probably could not make it, but that you would "Attempt to be there" but we were not to forget that "You [we] are still In Pro Per." So, again, we think not. (And as of 02/10/2010 you did not show to our court for we were there and you were not!) <br />
5. Did you call our Bankruptcy Attorney as requested? We know you did not, per our Bankruptcy Attorney. <br />
6. Did you perform a Review of our File? We think you did because you wrote us, confused, but who is to really know, asking if there were two cases and when were they to be Heard even though I specifically provided you this same detailed information via emails regarding the same to ensure that there was no confusion? However, nevertheless, a Review of the File is Complimentary per your own Advertising and Retainer Agreement, yet you now want to charge us for what is free? <br />
7. Did you in fact violate your Retainer Agreement? We believe you absolutely did without a doubt on several issues! <br />
1. Non-performance & not meeting the deadlines outlined on your Retainer Agreement. <br />
2. Not properly protecting all our legal rights and interests. <br />
3. Leaving your clients in an untenable position and in pro per, just two days before two court case hearings even though we retained you more than a month prior, paying you $2000. etc... etc... etc... 8. Did you commit a minimum of at least fraud against us by taking money and not performing? We think very much so! <br />
<br />
We think that this behavior of yours was Premeditated, Willful, Malicious and thus fraudulent! Therefore, we respectfully submit that you have NOT performed ANY Services on our behalf and again issue a Demand for the full return of our $2000. retainer payment immediately. If you do not do so within 24 hours of this notice, we will take every action and means possible to recoup that which is owed us by you and shall do so using the full extent of the law. <br />
Respectfully, <br />
Michael & Stacy <br />
<br />
What was our reply from this hack? A misquote of my letter and an attempted scare tactic. See for yourself below. It is really very tragic and laughable! <br />
<br />
Michael; <br />
<br />
I find your emails very disturbing and threatening. You tell me to give you $2, 000. in the next 24 hours or you "will take every action and means possible to recoup that which is owed to you". <br />
<br />
Please clarify this at your earliest convenience so that I can notify the Palo Alto Police Dept. and District Attorney about this threat. <br />
Best regards, <br />
Cheryl <br />
<br />
Dont worry Cheryl, I will save you the effort for I will be contacting both the Palo Alto Police Dept. and District Attorney about your apparent Fraud committed agaisnt us and that which you have committed to other clients of yours. Oh, by the way, I will also be filing a complaint with the California State Bar. <br />
<br />
In Conclusion: IT IS MY OPINION THAT EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH OUT FOR THIS HAG, HACK, RIP OFF ATTORNEY!!! YIKES!!!