Report: #66058

Complaint Review: Continental Properties, Eric Goldring Attorney, John Boyle, Judge

  • Submitted: Thu, August 21, 2003
  • Updated: Thu, August 30, 2007
  • Reported By: Berkeley Heights New Jersey
  • Continental Properties, Eric Goldring Attorney, John Boyle, Judge
    Eric Goldring 125 Half Mile RD Red Bank NJ
    Red Bank New Jersey, New Jersey

Continental Properties,Builders, Eric Goldring Esq.Attorney, John Boyle, Judge Builder, Attorney, Judge and MORE, Racketeering, ...where's the US Attorney? Red Bank New Jersey, Woodbridge, Union County, NJ New Jersey

*Consumer Comment: Wrong, Eric

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Maintaining a Posting of a Knowing False Report is Improper

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Formally NJ/moved to Fl/ back to NJ in 2002

I had purchased a condo from Continental Properties,in 1996.This developer builds with several other developers. After moving into the brand new constuction,Villas on the Park, Berkeley Heights, NJ, I began to feel very sick. The other four families that moved in also became ill...we found our homes to be over loaded with toxic molds and bacterias.There were 62 vacant units for sale at that time. We started picketing in order to warn potential buyers of the existing conditions,which is mandated by real estate law. I had filed a consumer fraud claim in the Law Division on Feb.6 1997. The builder filed a SLAPP suit in Chancery,on Feb 11,where the judges family is in real estate and land developing(a glaring conflict).His family, Degnan Boyle Prudential Realitors were selling and promoting these units, and stood to profit from sales of this builder's product. The judge sent a letter to me stating that I could not transfer to the Law Divion,(a jury trial) since the builder filed first.A blantant lie! I eventually got Legionnaires Disease from the conditions in my home. I was teated at Elizabeth Medical Center, where the judge had formerly been counsel to, and his family's real estate concern does office leasing to the doctors. The hospital changed my medical records and forged my doctor's signature to cover the fact that I had Legionnaires Disease, so that the builder could continue to sell the units.The judge imposed a gag order,restricting me from talking to the health department,DCA,my mortgage company, governor's office and all state agencies, which are designed to help victims.The story goes on...only to get worse.Eric Goldring, Esq. my replacement lawyer, stratigized with the builder and judge to impose a bogus settlement, which I never agreed to. No settlement was ever drafted nothing was ever signed and yet the judge enforced this outragous lie.

Berkeley Heights, New Jersey
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™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/21/2003 04:37 AM and is a permanent record located here: 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

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

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 Consumer Comment

Wrong, Eric

AUTHOR: Tim - (U.S.A.)

Face the facts, Eric. We live in a global economy now. We are no longer dealing with the five-and-dime down the street, where in such situation neighborhood "word of mouth" could alert potential consumers to potential problems.

RoR fills that void by allowing consumers to post their experiences with various companies, and by ensuring that these complaints get high billing on search engines.

But RoR goes beyond that . . . it also allows satisfied customers, employees, and owners of companies to contest the statements made in the original report, thereby allowing the consumer to get the full story. As such, RoR serves a hugely important purpose. Without it and other sites like it, it would be virtually impossible for potential consumers to get an actual consumer's viewpoint of how the company operates.

Further, as the owner of the company, you are given the opportunity to have your response to the complaint appear contemporaneously with the complaint itself, whereas with the five-and-dime example, mom and pop didn't have such a luxury.

You filed a rebuttal that certainly made me think twice about the validity of the report. Why you waited so long to do so is beyond me. But the fact remains that you were given the opportunity, and you should be thankful for it.

As far as the propriety of retaining a known false report, you are dead wrong. First, RoR barely has the resources to keep this ship afloat, it certainly does not have the resources to inquire into the validity of each and every complaint. That is why you are given the opportunity to rebut.

Further, the law is on the side of RoR. So long as the site merely provides a forum, there is no violation on the part of the site operators by allowing for postings, even if they are false. If said operators "know" the report to be false, that's another story, but a he-said she-said battle in no way validates or invalidates the report.
Respond to this report!

#2 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Maintaining a Posting of a Knowing False Report is Improper

AUTHOR: Eric - (U.S.A.)

The fact is that this report is simply false. For years I have seen this report posted and maintained as priority on various search engines. If the Ripoff Report wishes to have any credibility it should assure this site utilized for truthful complaints and concerns. By permitting posts such as hers to remain and to be given priority on search engines it is doing a great disservice.

Without violating any confidentiality constraints, suffice it to say her claims were rejected by the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, then the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division and then the Supreme Court of New Jersey. In each instance her claims were found to be meritless and, in fact, that she had voluntarily and willingly, with full knowledge and understanding, entered into a settlement which essentially fully compensated her.
Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.