Complaint Review: Adam Tracy - Attorney - Wheaton Illinois
Adam Tracy - Attorney Securities Compliance Group Ltd Deceptive Practices & Fraud - Attorney Services Wheaton Illinois
*Author of original report: Rebuttal to Adam Tracy
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Fugitive Extremist Mark Boswell Loses Further Credibility
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Mark Boswell a/k/a Rex Freeman Exposed
*Author of original report: The news gets worse on Adam Tracy
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
Click here now..
Summary of Affidavit listed below:
In September of 2014, Adam Tracy of Securities Compliance Group Ltd. has received fees for service and has egregiously refused to perform or even communicate with his clients. Despite some payment issues from one of the 3 plaintriffs, Tracy agreed to proceed on the case and accept the payment received.
From the period of August 2014 through the end of November, 2014 Tracy flat out refused to effectively communicate in any way with his clients. Phone calls were not accepted, nor returned. Emails were not answered. Skype communications were not responded to. The rare, infrequent incidents of communication that he chose to initiate, were continual promises to start the case, to file the case and each promise included his own self determined time frame which was typically, 'this week' or something similar.
When he failed to perform as promised, he subsequently refused to communicate in any way, shape or form. After 3 months of being completely disrespected and, frankly, pissed on, the clients have lost all faith and or confidence in the character of this individual and have no desire to work with him in any manner.
In early December he feigns an interest in moving forward on the case (as always). However, he fails to accept that the clients have no interest in working with a person of this character.
We have demanded a return of fees paid and he refused.
He has effectively STOLEN OUR MONEY UNDER THE FALSE PRETENCES AND THE FALSE PROMISES OF FILING A CASE ON OUR BEHALF!
He now claims that the original agreement was not honored as one of the parties has not paid him which is true. However, this argument ignores the fact that despite this situation, he accepted the payment which was sent and has agreed to proceed and file the case on numerous occasions. This constitutes 'contract' with offer, acceptance and consideration. By his continuing to use the original retianer agreement argument, which was superceded by subsequent agreement, it also indicates his incompetence as an attorney by failing to recognize that a valid contract eists. The current contract was created by no other than himself with his agreements subsequent to the original retainer agreement.
Clients have been misled as to his intentions with the case.
Clients have been lied to with respect to his false promises to work on the case.
Clients have been defrauded of their funds sent to Adam Tracy
Clients have no interest in working with a person of this character, regardless of his insistence of being willing to move forward at this very late stage which is well after clients have lost all faith and confidence in this false actor.
Affidavit of Fact
I, the undersigned, do hereby personally attest under penalty of perjury that the following list of facts are true, complete and correct and are not misleading. They are derived from personal first hand experience and are not ‘heresay’, so help me God!
1… On August 14, 2014 Adam S. Tracy, (AT) J.D., M.B.A. Attorney at Law, Securities Compliance Group, Ltd. Located at: 520 W. Roosevelt Road, Suite 200, Wheaton, IL 60187 and with Beverly Hills Office, 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210, presented a proposal and estimate for legal services relating to a financial fraud case, to three prospective clients who had agreed to be joint or co-plaintiffs in the case.
2… The three proposed client/plaintiffs were to be;
a) Rudius Holdings Group Ltd. - Hong Kong, (Rudius)
b) Sionyx Group, Bunbury, Western Australia, (Sionyx)
c) Novoa Inc., Chicago Illinois (Novoa)
3… August 30, 2014 parties request retainer agreement containing agreed upon terms of representation on the case.
4…August 31, 2014 - AT sent agreement which was so loose it was unenforcable.
5…Sept. 1, 2014 - Rudius sent AT proposed revisions
6…Sept. 2, 2014 - AT sent revised agreement in accordance with Rudius’ proposal.
7…Sept 3, 2014 - all plaintiff parties send signed agreement to AT.
8…Sept 3, 2014 - AT receives pro-rata retainer fee from Rudius and agrees to start work right away.
9…Sept 16, 2014
- Rudius has had no communication from AT and despite several attempts via skype, email and telephone, has had no reply from AT since Sept 03.
- AT responds to Rudius complaint saying the other parties have not paid.
- Clive, Rudius & AT mutually agree to drop Meza from the case for other reasons in addition to non-payment. AT agrees to proceed on the case in good faith ‘as is’ without further payment at this time.
- AT commits to moving forward and having the case filed the following week.
10..Sept. 24, 2014 -
- Rudius complains to AT again about a communication problem. Clients have had no communication from AT, nor has AT responded to several attempts to reach him.
- AT confirms again that he will hold up his end of the bargain.
11..Sept. 30, 2014 -
- Rudius and AT speak on the phone and AT confirms he will have the draft of the complaint ready for review ‘tonight’.
- Nothing was received or communicated.
12…October 8, 2014 -
- Rudius and Clive send detailed email confirming their good faith intentions and expectations in developing a good relationship with AT while at the same time expressing serious concerns about the behaviour and treatment they are getting from AT.
- AT confirms receipt of the email and commits to ‘follow up this afternoon’.
- There was no follow up from AT that afternoon and Rudius emails again informing AT that they are ‘standing by’ for his communication.
13… Oct. 10, 2014 - Rudius sends another detailed email asking AT if he has had a change of heart on the case and indicates that the relationship is in jeopardy.
14.. October 20, 2014 - AT sends an apology and re-commits to having he case filed ‘this week’. It wasn’t filed at all.
15.. Nov. 05, 2014 - The communication blackout continues from AT. Rudius sends a message to AT wishing to terminate the relationship and get a refund of the retainer fee.
16.. Nov. 07, 2014 - AT responds and he re-commits again, asking for the chance to continue with the promise to get good results. Clients agree to give him another chance.
17…Nov. 10, 2014 - At confirms his intent and on this Monday, commits to having the draft ready for review on Wednesday the 12th.
18.. Nov. 30 - as of this date there was no further communication to or from AT.
19.. AT has signed agreements to perform. He has received funds/fees to perform. He has failed to perform. He has continually ignored his clients and refused any normal communication that would be expected from a professional client relationship.
The above is confirmed by my signature below as being true complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signed on this the 31st day of December, 2014
M. B. - Attorney in Fact
For Rudius Holdings Group Ltd - Hong Kong
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/10/2015 08:03 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/adam-tracy-attorney/wheaton-illinois-60187/adam-tracy-attorney-securities-compliance-group-ltd-deceptive-practices-fraud-attor-1200807. 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
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.