• Report: #1035572

Complaint Review: Robert Van Hart

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Sun, March 17, 2013
  • Updated: Wed, March 20, 2013

  • Reported By: Mendy H — Lakeland Florida
Robert Van Hart
1742 E Edgewood Dr Lakeland, Florida United States of America
  • Phone: (863) 802-0207
  • Web:
  • Category: Lawyers

Robert Van Hart, Robert Van Hart Attorney at Law Liars, Attorney, falsifies papers, sneaky, akkows judge who is friends with his clients to rule on the case so they can win Lakeland, Florida

*Author of original report: Answer to your rebuttle

*Author of original report: Answers to Rebuttal

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: response to complaint

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: response to complaint

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: response to complaint

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

I would like to inform you of a case going on in Polk County. A child was voluntarily given to the paternal grandparents by the mother & father as a temporary primary residential custody. The grandparents just told the mother on March 2, 2013 that her son was going to be going to Orlando, FL to a mental / behavioral center.  The mother has had contact the whole time since last judgment in 2008. The grandparents have told facilities & even Polk County School Board that they have primary custody & have showed them all a falsified document saying they have primary custody.

The mother finally caught onto it & has released a world of hurt. They grandparents sent her 2 different judgments that the mother didnt catch at first (mainly due to being so upset with how they have been doing her). The attorney for the grandparents apparently sends 2 judgments to the judge (Now dead). One must have said temporary custody & the other primary. Why do I say this???? Because the mother just found out that the first page says primary but the last page says temporary. 

The mother called the facility her son is in in Orlando, FL (University Behavioral Center in Orlando, FL) & they still have not called the mother back even though she sent the center the proof that the grandparents falsified the documents. Other big named facilities that the grandparents gave these falsified documents are Polk County School Board (whom which the grandmother works for in Finance), Peace River, all nearby hospitals & Drs offices). What makes it better is not only is their attorney helping the grandparents falsify documents but they allowed a Dear friend that is a judge proceed on this case.

He is the one who made the first few judgments on the custody case. I will say the judge that is Dear friends with the grandparents is Judge Carpanini. The attorney is Robert Van Hart from Lakeland, Fl. If you want any more information from the case the case number is DR-2000-5598. Feel free to see all the documents as well as the loads & loads of documents the mother has recently filed. She has no attorney & is doing this all on her own. The mother is still trying to fight this.

I being the mother have been trying to see my son at University Behavioral Center since he has been admitted on March 6, 2013 so I can try to see what they have admitted him for since the grandparents refuse to tell me. The grandparents told me I couldnt see him for 3 months. I am being told by the facility that is not true. I was told at first I was not able to see or know anything about him because they have the papers saying I have no rights or custody.

I then find out the grandparents sent the facility the falsified papers. I was contacted by Brysons Dr at the facility. He informed me he did go over the papers & did not see where I could not know what is going on. He said he would put me on the list so I can see my son. On the other hand he also said I can only see my son when he talks to me & gradually allows me into my sons treatment. Yet his grandparents who lied about everything are able to see & make all the decisions. I have tried everything I can & have filed multiple complaints.

I even filed paperwork with the Polk County Court house & I currently have a April 25, 2013 court date. That is if the grandparents dont change the court date. In the mean time I cannot see my son because the grandparents gave them falsified papers. And it is very evident they have told them falsified information about me. With what the Dr said I can totally tell they did. I can tell you more when I can have a phone call or face to face conversation.


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 03/17/2013 06:01 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Robert-Van-Hart/Lakeland-Florida-33803/Robert-Van-Hart-Robert-Van-Hart-Attorney-at-Law-Liars-Attorney-falsifies-papers-sneaky-1035572. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Robert Van Hart

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author 0Consumer 3Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Author of original report

Answer to your rebuttle

AUTHOR: Mendy Harrison - ()

Here is my response to his Rebuttle:
(Paragraph #1)
"The accusations of "reporter" Mendy H. that I have unethical access to and control over judges are false and defamatory. As is  evident  from reading the "report" the minor's paternal grandparents obtained primary temporary custody of their grandson with the reporter's written consent.  I represent the paternal grandparents and prepared the paperwork that accomplished the temporary arrangement. The reporter implies that temporary and primary custody are mutually exclusive. They are not.  I do not represent the "reporter."  Since I am not (nor have I ever been) the reporter's attorney she is not a consumer or recipient of the legal services I provide. I have successfully and ethically assisted a minor child's paternal grandparents obtain temporary primary custody of the child."

(My Answer):
Yes you can probably call these comments I have made "accusations". Although the attorney Robert Van Hart does not know (unles he has recieved a lteer) that a complaint has been sent to the Florida Bar as of March 4, 2013 & was received on March 5, 2013. I have sent all the available "proof" of my "accusations". I actually have more proof than I did when I filed the
complaint. Yeshe does represent my ex-in laws & not me. I never said he represented me. I would NEVER want him to represent me. Yes I did agree on the "Temporary Primary Residential Custody". HOWEVER.... I DID NOT AGREE TO NOR WAS I EVER INFORMED OF THE CUSTODY EVER GOING TO PRIMARY CUSTODY. I have attached the paperwork I am referancing to & have sent to Florida Bar As my "proof". You will see in the "proof" that in March 2006 me & the father DID agree on the "Temporary Primary Residential Custody" as he stated. In July 2006 this was stated again along with some true information but also bogus information & rulings. In August 2007 you will then see how MAGICALLY the custody says PRIMARY CUSTODY but then on the last page it says TEMPORARY CUSTODY. This is also the same papers you can get from the POLK COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS case # DR-2000-5598. The papers submitted on March 6 does indicate the ex-laws do have temporary custody. However University Behaviorl Center did inform me the attorney's client's used paperwork that indicated I had no say so in anything that happens with my son. They provided the center with the same paperwork that I had showing they
have primary custody (other than my copy & the courts have Primary custody on first page & temporary on the last page). I asked if it said this on both first page & last page. I was told it just states they have custody & they are the only ones that can make judgements on my son. These papers were drawn up at his office with HIS signature. If he didn't approve of it then WHY DID HE SIGN THEM & SUBMIT THEM? Obviously there were two forms of the papers because because both me
& courts have same first & last papers but the center was given papers that said primary all the way through the papers. I have asked for them to prove to me the ex-inlaws have primary & how the center got the papers stating primary & they have neglected to show me anything. And probably because I don't have an attorney & they are taking advantage of this. Therefore they will probably say they don't have to answer. So this was all sent to the Florida Bar before filing
anything so that I had all the proof). If they did make a mistake on the papers then why not show it & prove to the courts (whom they also filed the falsified papers with) that there was a mistake & inform the center of this so I may have say so in my sons "treatments". But nothing is being done. Obviously something to hide?

(Paragraph 2):
The reporter has access to the court to change that arrangement if she can convince the court that she is fit and that it
will be in the child's best interest to change the current custodial arrangement.  The reporter was aware of this opportunity to regain custody at the time the primary temporary custody arrangement of the minor child by the paternal grandparents was established by court order with her consent. 

(My answer):
Yes I do have access to the courts. And I have sued this access on March 5, 2013. As well as you have filling your answer without actually answering anything I have proof of other than the fact that your clients state they have been
"hospitable". If you call making me, my husband, & my youngest child to sit outside every time I go see him unless my parents with me then I was able to go inside "hospitable". Then yes I guess they were. But making use sit outside even when it was REALLY COLD or even when it was REALLY HOT is not "hospitable". Making me sit outside with the
mosquito's biting me is not hospitable. Having to hear them yell & scream at my son is not "hospitable". Complaining when I can not make it & stretching the situtaiton to their comforts is not "hospitable". They are aware of my health problems that can cause me to not be able to go. Though I have sent my youngest (his brother) to go see him with my
husband I then get told by my sons father that I can not do this & his mom told him this as well. I have to be there when he goes. Them constantly yelling & putting me down, me constantly having to prove myself about crap that is not true stresses me out. Trying to make suggestions as to help them with my son & them turning my words around stresses me out. With me having Fibromyalga stress makes it worse than it should. They "say" they have this but if they did then they
wouldn't stress me out. Oh & lets talk about medical issues. The grandfather telling my son he got Shingles due to my son stressing him out is BS. Anyone & Everyone knows Shingles is cause by being around someone with chicken pox...... I tried telling my son this & they go behind me & tell him I am wrong..... why not check this out:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001861

So you say they are being hospitable???? REALLY??? beyond the fact you allow the papers to go through with all these lies??? You sign it??? Do you research before putting things on paper & submitting them to the courts??

(Paragraph 3):
The editor and the website have failed to use due diligence in this situation to identify what is obviously the frustrated
venting of a confused and uninformed mind.  I have received phone calls from individuals seeking to help me repair my business reputation.  Those phone calls are proof that unwarranted harm is being caused to my business and reputation already.  Ripoffreport.com offers such reputation repair assistance for a price I fully expect just as it provides a forum for business harming "reports" to be disseminated.  Judging from the fact this report was posted I have convincing reason
to believe that no review was made of the report by the editor of the site.  I expect you will find it it to be in your best interest to read reports before posting them in the future.

(My answer):
If the editor was to look into the ENTIRE situation he or she would totally see my point of view & realize what has happened. Whether it be you or your secretary. Whoever drew up the papers, & you sign them. Yes I am frustrated but I am telling the truth & I am not venting once again I am telling the truth. Uniformed mind? The only thing "Uniform" about this is that your an attorney & you say things to "win". I am sorry if what you have done is causing you troubles.
Imagine what you have done to allow your clients to have papers saying they have PRIMARY CUSTODY. I have not been able to do anything as a mother due to you signing papers saying they have PRIMARY CUSTODY. How do you think this does to me??? You probably do not think about this because that is not harming your pocket. It on the other is harming me
physically, emotionally & financially. And yes Ripoffreport.com should read reports before publishing them. I will provide you with the papers that are form March 2007, July 2007, August 2007, & the papers submitted for the current submissions. This will let everyone know that what I am saying is true. Yes they should read them in the future to provent other people from being harmed. You on the other hand need to be reviled as to what you allow your clients to do that is immoral & just plain out wrong. But hey you get paid the "BIG BUCKS" to do this right??? Got to win!!

(Paragraph #e):
If this report #1030194 against me-Robert Van Hart-is not promptly and permanently removed from the internet,
Ripoffreport.com and Mendy H.  should expect to be sued for an injunction to retract and to cease and desist the publication of this defamatory false material as well as for compensatory and punitive
damages. 

(My answer):
You should know this will not be removed. I also know this because prior to hitting "SUBMIT" I knew this. I will not submit anything that is not true. Harmful maybe true yes. Don't harm me & I wont harm you. Fix this situation with what
your clients have done & what you have allowed them to do then maybe everything will be fixed.

(Paragraph #6):
Of course Ripoffreport.com is undoubtedly the deeper pocket. Ripoffreport.com is equally culpable as the reporter is because
Ripoffreport.com obviously failed to even cursorily examine the reporter's accusations before it broadly disseminated and thereby greatly compounded the damage caused initially by the reporter's false and misguided complaints and accusations to internet users who seek information about legal service providers, like myself,  online. 

(My answer):
Once again I ask everyone to read the attached to see for youself who is lying here. Who is trying to cover up? Who is trying to fix this & get done what needs to be done?

(Paragraph #7):
Until you have succeeded in removing the report #1030194 from the internet entirely, this rebuttal must be posted
prominently on the site in order to mitigate the damage you are causing my reputation and livelihood by this defamatory nonsense.  Be aware that just because the report is patently nonsense - which is disclosed by even a cursory inspection-  that does not make it harmless. Many potential customers of legal services look only at the fact there is a complaint without examining whether a complaint has merit before the complaint influences their perspective of the attorney who is the
subject of the negative comments.

(My answer):
They indeed posted your "Rebuttal" however I do have the right to answer it. So I am. I am also going to be submitting proof. If the page will not allow me to do so I will open another page with titled IN REFERENCE TO CASE # 1030194. This will make the decision for everyone. It is in black & white & you signed it.

(Paragraph #8):
You have a responsibility to take corrective steps immediately in this situation to prevent further harm.  Failure to do so
will compound the damages caused by Ripoffreport.com's reckless negligence which due to the information conveyed by this message now constitutes a willful and intentional act for as long as it continues.

(My
answer): Read the page & you will see that there is a reference to lawyers like you. They do not care if you go after them. We as the posters know this could indeed happen. Though I have all the "proof" I will be sending this email to the Florida Bar as well to show them what has been posted & for them to refer to the papers I sent.

(Ending Remark):
Govern yourself accordingly.

(My answer):
Trust me I will.
_______________________________________________________________________
Of course Ripoffreport.com is undoubtedly the deeper pocket. Ripoffreport.com is equally culpable as the reporter is because
Ripoffreport.com obviously failed to even cursorily examine the reporter's accusations before it broadly disseminated and thereby greatly compounded the damage caused initially by the reporter's false and misguided complaints and accusations to internet users who seek information about legal service providers, like myself,  online.   Can I ask what planet are you on?  Sue, and see what happens YOU will end up paying us. You want to sue us?!! Any attorney worth his or her salt will know, Ripoff Report has been sued more than 60 times. People have tried to lie, pulling all kinds of tricks and they end up paying, including us  We NEVER LOST A CASE anytime we have been sued. Never.  We dont let them walk away until
they pay us for our costs.  Weve even sued attorneys and they had to pay us too. Also, did you know the lawsuit you file will be found when someone Googles your company name? That will also be around forever.
Best to take a different approach.

Its the 21st century.. people writing about their customers is a reality in doing business today. Its no longer just buyer beware.. its more so, ..seller beware ..

Read this link to learn more about suing  http://www.ripoffreport.com/ConsumersSayThankYou/WantToSueRipoffReport.aspx 

________________________________________________________________________
My Response to this email sent to me & attorney from Ripoffreport.com:

Like I will state again (THANK YOU FOR REPEATING WHAT I SAID RIPOFFREPORT.COM).
Once it is put on there is no turning back. I personally only put the truth on there. I have a few reports I have made & in the end I got back the best of the best. I find Ripoffreport.com a awesome bipartisan web site that helps get the word about about anyone we want to talk about. You are warned about once you hit "SUBMIT" it will NEVER COME OFF. but you can submit rebuttals. Which has obviously been done already. aND AS MY RIGHT TO EXPRESS HOW i FEEL & WITH THE PROOF OF WHAT i AM SAYING IS ok AS WELL. Once again I will be sending this all to the Florida Bar to go with the already report in
progress.

A little note to editor of Ripoffreport.com there are court cases of people trying to sue Robert Van Hart over stuff he did to them It also states those people who submitted the information never showed to court. I am unsure of how. I would love to
find a day to go see those (Public Knowledge). But I am not backing down as far as saying what he did. If I can get out what these papers say I will. Mr. Van Hart you signed the paper that says PRIMARY CUSTODY with TEMPORARY CUSTODY on the last page on my papers & the papers submitted to court. But on the other hand the facility my son is in states they seen the ones that the entire paper said PRIMARY CUSTODY. And all of these papers are from you (Well lets get technical. They are
drawn up by a secretary of worker. You sign it or there is a signature she can cut & paste it onto the papers. I don't know how your offices works. Either way you had to approved these papers. To have two different sets of papers for the same judgement is a little fishy. I have now been told by the Dr my son is seeing he will put me on the list your clients refused to put me on because they have "PRIMARY CUSTODY" (per their mouth & papers signed by you). With the papers I sent
them letting them know the grandparents are using falsified papers that you Mr. Van Hart signed. Your papers they gave them have been over ruled & they are now excepting my papers that are the truth & are the ones at the court. Obviously what I gave them shows what everything should be. I do have my rights & still have partial custody. The throw your name into everything. Mr. Van Hart says this.... Mr. Van Hart says that..... go through our attorney. So they must be getting this
information from you if they say to go to you????? YES

On another note. If you want me to stop showing this to people then do me a favor (not as my attorney but for you doing the right thing), fix this situation. What is the situation? The fact that the Clem's have been using falsified papers saying I have no right. They have been saying this to EVERYONE. Family members, her son has told me, her son has told my dad, friends of David talk to my friends & they all have said this & the fact that you agreed & signed this. If you can let me know how this happend & lets make this right then it will be something we can both put on here on our agreement & what would /
has been done. Otherwise I will fight to the end. My motherly rights have been taking from me. I wrote a letter to the judge as well as a submited paper asking you to prove how the papers got from temporary to primary & then back to tempoaray. And why the Clem's have been using it against me. Why I have not been apart of any of this without having
to pay an arm & a leg to do so. Making me pay $70 every week to talk to Mrs. Craig is beyond ridiculous. You know that was going to be used. Why not work with me instead of working against me? Why not look at what the Clem's are telling you & see what is truly going on? I guarentee you will see I am not what they say I am. Until I am going to let everyone know about this case.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

Answers to Rebuttal

AUTHOR: Mendy Harrison - ()

(Paragraph #1)
"The accusations of "reporter" Mendy H. that I have unethical access to and control over judges are false and defamatory. As is  evident  from reading the "report" the minor's paternal grandparents obtained primary temporary custody of their grandson with the reporter's written consent.  I represent the paternal grandparents and prepared the
paperwork that accomplished the temporary arrangement. The reporter implies that temporary and primary custody are mutually exclusive. They are not.  I do not represent the "reporter."  Since I am not (nor have I ever been) the reporter's attorney she is not a consumer or recipient of the legal services I provide. I have successfully and ethically assisted a minor child's paternal grandparents obtain temporary primary custody of the child."

(My Answer):
Yes you can probably call these comments I have made "accusations". Although the attorney Robert Van Hart does not know (unles he has recieved a lteer) that a complaint has been sent to the Florida Bar as of March 4, 2013 & was
received on March 5, 2013. I have sent all the available "proof" of my "accusations". I actually have more proof than I did when I filed the complaint. Yeshe does represent my ex-in laws & not me. I never said he represented me. I would NEVER want him to represent me. Yes I did agree on the "Temporary Primary Residential Custody". HOWEVER.... I DID
NOT AGREE TO NOR WAS I EVER INFORMED OF THE CUSTODY EVER GOING TO PRIMARY CUSTODY. I have attached the paperwork I am referancing to & have sent to Florida Bar As my "proof". You will see in the "proof" that in March 2006 me & the father DID agree on the "Temporary Primary Residential Custody" as he stated. In July 2006 this was stated
again along with some true information but also bogus information & rulings. In August 2007 you will then see how MAGICALLY the custody says PRIMARY CUSTODY but then on the last page it says TEMPORARY CUSTODY.

This is also the same papers you can get from the POLK COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS case # DR-2000-5598. The papers submitted on March 6 does indicate the ex-laws do have temporary custody. However University Behaviorl Center did inform me the attorney's client's used paperwork that indicated I had no say so in anything that happens with my son.
They provided the center with the same paperwork that I had showing they have primary custody (other than my copy & the courts have Primary custody on first page & temporary on the last page). I asked if it said this on both first page & last page. I was told it just states they have custody & they are the only ones that can make judgements on my son. These papers were drawn up at his office with HIS signature.

If he didn't approve of it then WHY DID HE SIGN THEM & SUBMIT THEM?  Obviously there were two forms of the papers because because both me & courts have same first & last papers but the center was given papers that said primary all the way through the papers. I have asked for them to prove to me the ex-inlaws have primary & how the center got the papers stating primary & they have neglected to show me anything. And probably because I don't have an attorney & they are taking advantage of this. Therefore they will probably say they don't have to answer. So this was all sent to the Florida Bar before filing anything so that I had all the proof). If they did make a mistake on the papers then why not show it & prove to the courts (whom they also filed the falsified papers with) that there was a mistake & inform the center of this so I may have say so in my sons "treatments". But nothing is being done. Obviously something to hide?????

(Paragraph 2):
The reporter has access to the court to change that arrangement if she can convince the court that she is fit and that it
will be in the child's best interest to change the current custodial arrangement.  The reporter was aware of this opportunity to regain custody at the time the primary temporary custody arrangement of the minor child by the paternal grandparents was established by court order with her consent. 

(My answer):
Yes I do have access to the courts. And I have sued this access on March 5, 2013. As well as you have filling your answer without actually answering anything I have proof of other than the fact that your clients state they have been
"hospitable". If you call making me, my husband, & my youngest child to sit outside every time I go see him unless my parents with me then I was able to go inside "hospitable". Then yes I guess they were. But making use sit outside even when it was REALLY COLD or even when it was  REALLY HOT is not "hospitable". Making me sit outside with the mosquito's biting me is not hospitable. Having to hear them yell & scream at my son is not "hospitable". Complaining when I can not make it & stretching the situtaiton to their comforts is not "hospitable". They are aware of my health problems that can cause me to not be able to go. Though I have sent my youngest (his brother) to go see him with my
husband I then get told by my sons father that I can not do this &  his mom told him this as well. I have to be there when he goes. Them constantly yelling & putting me down, me constantly having to prove myself about crap that is not true stresses me out. Trying to make suggestions as to help them with my son & them turning my words around stresses me out. With me having Fibromyalga stress makes it worse than it should. They "say" they have this but if they did then they wouldn't stress me out. Oh & lets talk about medical issues. The grandfather telling my son he got Shingles due to my son stressing him out is BS. Anyone & Everyone knows Shingles is cause by being around someone with chicken pox...... I tried telling my son this & they go behind me & tell him I am wrong..... why not check this out:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001861

So you say they are being hospitable???? REALLY??? beyond the fact you allow the papers to go through with all these lies??? You sign it??? Do you research before putting things on paper & submitting them to the courts??

(Paragraph 3):
The editor and the website have failed to use due diligence in this situation to identify what is obviously the frustrated
venting of a confused and uninformed mind.  I have received phone calls from individuals seeking to help me repair my business reputation.  Those phone calls are proof that unwarranted harm is being caused to my business and reputation already.  Ripoffreport.com offers such  reputation repair assistance for a price I fully expect just as it provides a forum for business harming "reports" to be disseminated.

Judging from the fact this report was posted I have convincing reason to believe that no review was made of the report by the editor of the site.  I expect you will find it it to be in your best interest to read reports before posting them in the future.

(My answer):
If the editor was to look into the ENTIRE situation he or she would totally see my point of view & realize what has happened. Whether it be you or your secretary. Whoever drew up the papers, & you sign them. Yes I am frustrated but I am telling the truth & I am not venting once again I am telling the truth. Uniformed mind? The only thing "Uniform" about this is that your an attorney & you say things to "win". I am sorry if what you have done is causing you troubles. Imagine what you have done to allow your clients to have papers saying they have PRIMARY CUSTODY. I have not been able to do anything as a mother due to you signing papers saying they have PRIMARY CUSTODY. How do you think this does to me??? You probably do not think about this because that is not harming your pocket. It on the other is harming me physically, emotionally & financially. And yes Ripoffreport.com should read reports before publishing them. I will provide you with the papers that are form March 2007, July 2007, August 2007, & the papers submitted for the current submissions. This will let everyone know that what I am saying is true. Yes they should read them in the future to provent other people from being harmed. You on the other hand need to be reviled as to what you allow your clients to do that is immoral & just plain out wrong. But hey you get paid the "BIG BUCKS"to do this right??? Got to win!!!!

(Paragraph #e):
If this report #1030194 against me-Robert Van Hart-is not promptly and permanently removed from the internet,
Ripoffreport.com and Mendy H.  should expect to be sued for an injunction to retract and to cease and desist the publication of this defamatory false material as well as for compensatory and punitive damages. 

(My answer):
You should know this will not be removed. I also know this because prior to hitting "SUBMIT" I knew this. I will not submit anything that is not true. Harmful maybe true yes. Don't harm me & I wont harm you. Fix this situation with what
your clients have done & what you have allowed them to do then maybe everything will be fixed.

(Paragraph #6):
Of course Ripoffreport.com is undoubtedly the deeper pocket. Ripoffreport.com is equally culpable as the reporter is because Ripoffreport.com obviously failed to even cursorily examine the reporter's accusations before it broadly disseminated and thereby greatly compounded the damage caused initially by the reporter's false and misguided complaints and accusations to internet users who seek information about legal service providers, like myself,  online. 

(My answer):
Once again I ask everyone to read the attached to see for youself who is lying here. Who is trying to cover up? Who is trying to fix this &  get done what needs to be done????

(Paragraph #7):
Until you have succeeded in removing the report #1030194 from the internet entirely, this rebuttal must be posted
prominently on the site in order to mitigate the damage you are causing my reputation and livelihood by this defamatory nonsense.  Be aware that just because the report is patently nonsense - which is disclosed by even a cursory inspection-  that does not make it harmless. Many potential customers of legal services look only at the fact there is a
complaint without examining whether a complaint has merit before the complaint influences their perspective of the attorney who is the subject of the negative comments.

(My answer):
They indeed posted your "Rebuttal" however I do have the right to answer it. So I am. I am also going to be submitting proof. If the page will not allow me to do so I will open another page with titled IN REFERENCE TO CASE # 1030194. This will make the decision for everyone. It is in black & white & you signed it.

(Paragraph #8):
You have a responsibility to take corrective steps immediately in this situation to prevent further harm.  Failure to do so
will compound the damages caused by Ripoffreport.com's reckless negligence which due to the information conveyed by this message now constitutes a willful and intentional act for as long as it continues.

(Myanswer):

 Read the page & you will see that there is a reference to lawyers like you. They do not care if you go after them. We as the posters know this could indeed happen. Though I have all the "proof" I will be sending this email to the Florida Bar as well to show them what has been posted & for them to refer to the papers I sent.

(Ending Remark):
Govern yourself accordingly.

(My answer):
Trust me I will.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company

response to complaint

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

The accusations of "reporter" Mendy H. that I have unethical access to and control over judges are false and defamatory.  As is  evident from reading the "report" the minor's paternal grandparents obtained primary temporary custody of their grandson with the reporter's written consent and that of the child's father.  

I represent the paternal grandparents and I properly and ethically prepared the paperwork that accomplished the temporary arrangement according to the judge's ruling and instructions. The reporter implies that temporary and primary custody are mutually exclusive. They are not.  

The reporter has had access to the court for seven years and counting to change that arrangement if she can convince the court that she is fit and that it will be in the child's best interest to change the current custodial arrangement.  The reporter was aware of this opportunity to regain custody at the time the primary temporary custody arrangement of the minor child by the paternal grandparents was established by court order with her and the child's (often absent due to nature of work) father's consent.  

The reporter has twice sought to regain custody but each time the judge presiding has not been persuaded that a change in custody is in the child's best interest.  The reporter is trying again and the court will again consider the fitness of the child's mother and what is in the child's best interest. 

Sadly and tellingly, the reporter is elsewhere distributing personal information about herself as well as the child loosely and recklessly in a misguided campaign to prove her fitness just as this groundless and unwarranted attack on me contradicts such a claim.  For everyone's sake she should change her tactics from casting undeserved blame upon others and overcome the issues that led to the paternal grandparents to find it necessary to take on child rearing responsibility at an age they never expected to have it but took it out of love and concern for their grandson.  She should also actively get involved with the professionals who are dedicated to helping the child.  

I will not be surprised if a surrebuttal follows with more nonsense.  Here's hoping she gets the point and reorients her efforts sooner rather than later before she causes more harm to all involved.  
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 REBUTTAL Owner of company

response to complaint

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

The accusations of "reporter" Mendy H. that I have unethical access to and control over judges are false and defamatory.  As is  evident from reading the "report" the minor's paternal grandparents obtained primary temporary custody of their grandson with the reporter's written consent and that of the child's father.  

I represent the paternal grandparents and I properly and ethically prepared the paperwork that accomplished the temporary arrangement according to the judge's ruling and instructions. The reporter implies that temporary and primary custody are mutually exclusive. They are not.  

The reporter has had access to the court for seven years and counting to change that arrangement if she can convince the court that she is fit and that it will be in the child's best interest to change the current custodial arrangement.  The reporter was aware of this opportunity to regain custody at the time the primary temporary custody arrangement of the minor child by the paternal grandparents was established by court order with her and the child's father's consent.  

The reporter has twice sought to regain custody but each time the judge presiding has not been persuaded that a change in custody is in the child's best interest.  The reporter is trying again and the court will again consider the fitness of the child's mother and what is in the child's best interest. 

Sadly and tellingly, the reporter is elsewhere distributing personal information about herself as well as the child loosely and recklessly in a misguided campaign to prove her fitness just as this groundless and unwarranted attack on me contradicts such a claim.  For everyone's sake she should change her tactics from casting false blame at others and overcome the issues that led to the paternal grandparents to find it necessary to take on child rearing responsibility at an age they never expected to have it.   She should also actively get involved with the professionals who are dedicated to helping the child.  

I will not be surprised if a surrebuttal follows with more nonsense.  Here's hoping she gets the point and reorients her efforts sooner rather than later before she causes more harm to all involved.  
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 REBUTTAL Owner of company

response to complaint

AUTHOR: Robert - ()

The accusations of "reporter" Mendy H. that I have unethical access to and control over judges are false and defamatory.  As is  evident from reading the "report" the minor's paternal grandparents obtained primary temporary custody of their grandson with the reporter's written consent and that of the child's father.  

I represent the paternal grandparents and I properly and ethically prepared the paperwork that accomplished the temporary arrangement according to the judge's ruling and instructions. The reporter implies that temporary and primary custody are mutually exclusive. They are not.  

The reporter has had access to the court for seven years and counting to change that arrangement if she can convince the court that she is fit and that it will be in the child's best interest to change the current custodial arrangement.  The reporter was aware of this opportunity to regain custody at the time the primary temporary custody arrangement of the minor child by the paternal grandparents was established by court order with her and the child's father's consent.  

The reporter has twice sought to regain custody but each time the judge presiding has not been persuaded that a change in custody is in the child's best interest.  The reporter is trying again and the court will again consider the fitness of the child's mother and what is in the child's best interest. 

Sadly the reporter is distributing sensitive personal information about herself as well as the child loosely and recklessly in a misguided campaign to prove her fitness just as this groundless and unwarranted attack on me contradicts such a claim. 
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.