X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1415966

Complaint Review: STEVEN GREYSON (FAKE FREEDOMWORKS LEGAL FOUNDATION,FAKE MEDIATOR,FAKE DOCUMENT SPECIALIST) - Beverly Hills California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Anonymous — City Of Angels California United States
  • STEVEN GREYSON (FAKE FREEDOMWORKS LEGAL FOUNDATION,FAKE MEDIATOR,FAKE DOCUMENT SPECIALIST) 9903 Santa Monica Blvd #520 Beverly Hills, California United States

STEVEN GREYSON (FAKE FREEDOMWORKS LEGAL FOUNDATION,FAKE MEDIATOR,FAKE DOCUMENT SPECIALIST) He scammed me out of $750 two months ago for legal document preparation services & has not produced a single document to me. Beverly Hills California

*Consumer Comment: Steven R. Grayson

*Author of original report: Attachment to Down With The Con

*Author of original report: Down With The Con

*Consumer Comment: Bravo For Taking A Stand

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

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

This man is an extremely dangerous individual.He posts on Los Angeles Craigslist a hundred times a day advertising himself as a "legal ghostwriter".His business card claims he is certified by the "Los Angels County Bar Association" however......I called them & they googled his name & declared him a conartist.They suggested I report him to the Dept of Consumer Affairs & the police.STEVEN GREYSON is NOT a legal document assistant (the proper term in California).

He may change his CL ads after this report but the substance of his con is below:

IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, I CAN HELP YOU!!! FIRST, I AM NOT A LAWYER, BUT I'VE BEEN DRAFTING LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR OVER 30 YEARS. I WAS TAUGHT HOW TO DO THIS BY A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO TRAINED ME FOR OVER 3 YEARS. AFTER MY TRAINING, I FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND I PROSECUTED MY CASE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN ARIZONA. I PREPARED ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS MYSELF AND GAVE MY ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE CHIEF FEDERAL JUDGE. I WON THE CASE, BUT THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED THE CASE TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. I PREPARED MY LEGAL DOCUMENTS MYSELF, AND I GAVE MY ORAL ARGUMENT WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ATTORNEY, IN FRONT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ALEX KOZINSKI, WHO SAID "I WAS BETTER THAN MOST ATTORNEYS WHO CAME BEFORE HIM". OBVIOUSLY, A HUGE COMPLIMENT FROM A FEDERAL JUDGE! I WON THE APPEAL IN SPITE OF 2 ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT WITH MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN I HAD. The growth of pro se litigants can be attributed to the high cost of litigation, anti-lawyer sentiment, and the advent of do-it-yourself law services. However, self-represented litigants may still need legal representation in order to navigate the litigation process. Legal ghostwriting is one way in which clients can receive legal counsel while maintaining control of their case and avoiding higher legal costs. Attorneys offering legal ghostwriting services often charge a flat fee rather than billing by the hour as is typical for full-service attorneys, but they charge much more than I do.

I'M A PROFESSIONAL LEGAL GHOSTWRITER AND HAVE OVER 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH PREPARING LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES, AND I'M VASTLY LESS EXPENSIVE THAN ATTORNEYS! One must recognize the extent to which Pro Se litigants receive special lenience in the courts. It is well-established that Pro Se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. The generous manner in which courts construe Pro Se pleadings is not limited to giving the pleaded facts their maximum effect. Some courts also recognize possible legal causes of action suggested by the facts alleged in the pleading, even if the pleading itself makes no mention of such causes of action. Further, courts must also give Pro Se litigants wide leeway to amend deficient complaints and must explain to the litigant why such complaints are legally deficient and how they might be amended. In other words, the court must do more than simply advise the Pro Se plaintiff that his complaint needs to be shorter and more concise. Also, the lenient reading of Pro Se pleadings applies not only to motions for dismissal on the pleadings, but also extends to Pro Se responses to motions for summary judgment against them. Finally, courts will tolerate substantial procedural errors by Pro Se litigants that would not otherwise be permitted. I CHARGE A FLAT RATE FEE FOR PREPARING YOUR LEGAL DOCUMENTS. THE FEE IS BASED ON WHAT COURT DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE FILED. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF THE OUTCOME OF YOUR CASE! YOU CAN CALL ME ANYTIME FOR A FREE CONSULTATION. I'M AVAILABLE 7 DAYS A WEEK AND IF YOU LEAVE ME A MESSAGE, I WILL CALL YOU BACK THE SAME DAY."

I met him in person & he seemed like a nice caring individual.I paid him $750.00 for legal document preparation services nearly two months ago & as of today (12/17/17) he has produced NOTHING!   Every other week he has been in the "hospital" asking for personal details or just not responded.I believe this behavior was to keep me from suspecting I have been conned.Only now am I just realizing that this man isn't working on any legal documents for me at all & I have been scammed out of $750.I am currently attending college & that $750 was the last of my financial aid money for the fall semester.When I emailed the day before Thanksgiving he was "sick all week &  couldn't work on my legal complaint documents".

  He ignored my phone calls & emails for the most part.In my very last contact with him.....yet again....he is "in the hospital until next Friday & your funds are NON refundable".   As of 12/17/17 STEVEN GREYSON has not produced a SINGLE PHYSICAL LEGAL COMPLAINT DOCUMENT that I paid him to do.He is a con artist & I hope this prevents anyone else from becoming victimized by this man.I have filed a police report in the area where he maintains a private P.O.Box.I have also filed complaints with the California Attorney General's office,the LA County Dept of Consumer Affairs & the FTC.   He spends a great deal of his times drinking away the money he cons from people on Craigslist at a restaurant in West Los Angeles.On the night we met the bartender recognized him & even said "Hey Steven" because he drinks there so much.

This man is a very sofisticated con artist & unlike many of his previous victims I will make sure this behavior stops immediately.   STEVEN GREYSON is behind all of the responses on this website to any complaints against him via fake accounts he has created.People have better things to do then waste their time on Ripoff Report.If someone takes the time to file a report here,its because its the truth. 

I will have justice not just for me but for everyone he has conned in the past.This behavior will end.   

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 12/09/2017 12:19 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/steven-greyson-fake-freedomworks-legal-foundationfake-mediatorfake-document-specialist/beverly-hills-california-90212/steven-greyson-fake-freedomworks-legal-foundationfake-mediatorfake-document-specialist-1415966. 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!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author
2Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#4 Consumer Comment

Steven R. Grayson

AUTHOR: Algernon - (United States)

POSTED: Saturday, May 19, 2018

All of you who have been scammed by Steven R. Grayson you should file a complaint with the FTC and the Attorney General of the State of California.

Steven Grayson tells people in his Craigslist ad that he won a case against the US Attorney on appeal before the 9th Circuit. 

This is what Steven says on his Craigslist ad - 

AFTER MY TRAINING, I FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND I PROSECUTED MY CASE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN ARIZONA. I PREPARED ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS MYSELF AND GAVE MY ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE CHIEF FEDERAL JUDGE. I WON THE CASE, BUT THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED THE CASE TO THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA. 

I PREPARED MY LEGAL DOCUMENTS MYSELF, AND I GAVE MY ORAL ARGUMENT WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ATTORNEY, IN FRONT OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ALEX KOZINSKI, WHO SAID "I WAS BETTER THAN MOST ATTORNEYS WHO CAME BEFORE HIM". OBVIOUSLY, A HUGE COMPLIMENT FROM A FEDERAL JUDGE!

I WON THE APPEAL IN SPITE OF 2 ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT WITH MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE THAN I HAD.

Steven Grayson is lying!  He Lost!!!

Here’s the case - 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/945/1064/289408/

Last paragraph of opinion - 

When prison officials have legitimate administrative authority, such as the discretion to move inmates from prison to prison or from cell to cell, the Due Process Clause imposes few restrictions on the use of that authority, regardless of any additional motives which are claimed to exist.5  It doesn't matter what label is placed on the action or what other reasons may be behind it; nor is it relevant that the conditions of confinement may become less pleasant as a result. We must allow prison officials the freedom to exercise their administrative authority without judicial oversight. Some administrative actions will inevitably make prisoners feel cheated; nevertheless, this does not give them a federal cause of action. See Fano, 427 U.S. at 225, 96 S. Ct. at 2538.Conclusion

We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.  <— This proves that Steven lost.  He did not win.

If you relied on Steven’s representation that he WON his case as a basis for hiring him and he did not perform - or took your money and then ignored you - then I suggest you file a report with the State of California and the FTC.

Here are the links you’ll need.

ftc.gov/faq/consumer-protection/submit-consumer-complaint-ftc

and here - 

oag.ca.gov/consumers

Good luck.  

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

Attachment to Down With The Con

AUTHOR: Anonymous - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, March 21, 2018

 

UNITED STATES vs STEVEN GREYSON,1983

 

Hopefully this knowledge prevents this man from victimizing anyone else.The DOCX wouldnt upload so I cut & paste it here.Its legible despite the breaks in the text.

BEWARE OF SWEET OLD MEN ON CRAIGLIST ADVERTIZING LEGAL SERVICES FOR CHEAP.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

FILE NO. 3--6268

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 

In the Matter of

 

STEVEN R. GRAYSON     

 

 

INITIAL DECISION

.

 

.

-----------------

 

APPEARANCES:      

 

Ronald K. Stifrin and Mitchell J. Albert,

of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the commission, for the Division of Enforcement.

 

 

Steven R. Grayson, pro se.

 

 

 

 

BEFORE:  Warren E. Blair, Chief Administrative Law Judge

..

 

These public proceedings were instituted by order of the Commission dated July 12, 1983 ("Order") issued pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 19(h) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 ("Exchange Act") to determine whether allegations made by the Division of Enforcement ("Division") against the respondent, Steven R. Grayson ("Grayson"), were true and what,

if any, remedial action would be appropriate in the public

1/

interest.

In substance, the Division alleged that Grayson was convicted on October 25, 1982 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on two counts

of mail fraud and one count of securities fraud in connection with the offer and sale of municipal bonds.    Additionally, the Division alleged that on November 3, 1982 the United States District Court for the Central District of California permanently enjoined Grayson from further violations of Section !0(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule l0b-5 thereunder and Sections 17(a)(l) and 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act

of 1933 ("Securities Act").

In a letter dated July 25, 1983, which was deemed

 

a sufficient answer for the purposes of Rule 7 of the Rtiles

]:_/

of Practice, Grayson indicated that he would not be

     


lf       Sectiori IB of the Order was amended at the hearing in accordance with an oral motion by the Division.

(Tr. 35-36).

 

]:_/   17 CFR 201.7.

 

-        2 -

 represented by counsel.After being advised of his rights at the outset of the hearing held on August 23, 1983 Grayson affirmed that he wished to proceed without counsel.

As part of the post-hearing procedures, successive filings of proposed findings, conclusions, and supporting briefs were specified.  Timely filings thereof were made by the parties.

The findings and conclusions herein are based upon the preponderance of the evidence as determined from the record and upon observation of the witness.

 

Respondent

From about 1973 to May, 1979, Grayson was a municipal bond salesman with MuniciCorp of California ( "MuniciCorp"),. a Los Angeles broker-dealer engaged in the sale of municipal securities funds.         About May, 1979 Grayson left MuniciCorp for Gibralco, Inc. ("Gibralco"), a California broker-dealer selling municipal bonds, where he was employed as a muni­ cipal bond salesman until on or about January 4, 1982.

While with each of those firms, Grayson was responsible for placing and carrying out orders for the purchase and sale of municipal bonds and for ensuring the proper handling

and safekeeping of bonds and money on behalf of the firms' customers.

 

-        3  -

 Criminal Conviction

On October 25, 1982 the United States District Court for the Central District of California, upon Grayson's plea of

3/

"Guilty," convicted Grayson on two counts of mail fraud and

 one count of securities fraud in violation of Sections 17(a)

4/

and 24 of the Securities Act. Grayson was thereupon sentenced

to serve two three-year periods of imprisonment concurrently on the two counts of mail fraud and on.the other count given five-s/

years probation with imposition of sentence suspended.- At

the time of the hearing in these proceedings, Grayson was still serving time at a federal prison camp.

 

Permanent Injunction

As a result of a complaint filed by the Commission against Grayson, a permanent injunction was entered on November 3, 1982 by the United States District Court for the Central District of California enjoining him from engaging in acts and practices in violation of Section lO(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule lOb-5 thereunder and Sections 17( )(1)

and (2) of the Securities Act in connection with the purchase or sale of municipal bonds or any other securities.  The permanent injunction remains in effect.

 

     

 

..        ii       18 u.s.c. §§1341 and 2(b)•

ii       15 u.s.c. §§77q(a) and 77x.

/        CR-82-489 (C.D. Cal. October 25, 1982).

 

-        4  -

 

 

Public Interest

Having found that Grayson had been convicted on October 25, 1982 for felonies involving mail fraud and securities fraud and had been permanently enjoined from engaging in certain conduct and practices in connection with the offer and sale of securities, it is necessary to consider the remedial action appropriate in the public interest.

Underlying the felony convictions and the permanent injunction were Grayson's fraudulent actions through which he unlawfully converted to his own use around $400,000

belonging to ten or more customers of MuniciCorp and

7/

Gibralco.-  Grayson accomplished his ends primarily by

retaining and converting to his own use proceeds from sales of municipal bonds which customers had entrusted

to him for the purpose of exchange into new bonds carrying higher interests rates. After gaining possession of

/

 

7.

 

SEC v. Steven R. Grayson, Civil Action No. 82-453-CHH D.  Cal. Nov. 3, 1982).

 

Grayson admitted that the losses to customers were about $400,000.          The Division's contention that the losses totaled between $779,000 and $1,500,000 is not supported by the record.

 

-        5 -

 customers' bonds, Grayson concealed his fraud by deceptive acts and practices designed to lull customers into believing he was continuing to act in their best interests.    His lulling tactics included false representations that·lengthy delays

,         would be involved in obtaining suitable new bonds, delivery

of some new higher-yielding bonds to customers but in dollar amounts far smaller than those obtained from his victims, delivery to customers of checks purportedly representing interest on bonds he had sold, and assurances that customers'

old bonds were being held in safekeeping for them at his brokerage firm.

Pointing to the long duration and elaborate techniques used to carry out the egregious fraud committed by Grayson, the Division insists that only a bar from association with

a broker or dealer can prevent Grayson from "once again lining

his pockets with funds and securities of investors."

Grayson concedes that he violated "SEC rules and regulations

and committed fraudulent acts to which he pled guilty." However, he believes that when mitigating factors are taken into account he should not be barred or, if a bar is imposed, it should terminate upon the expiration of his incarcerationand term of probation.

  

Division Brief, October 7, 1983, at 12.

Grayson's Response to Division's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, November 8, 1983, at 6.

 

-        6 -

In mitigation of his offenses, Grayson urges that consideration be given to the fact that he suffers from a "Compulsive Gambling" disease which is now recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, and that prior to

his incarceration he had sought help for his problem through the Gamblers Anonymous program and from a psychiatrist in Los Angeles.  He also refers to the severe punishment he  has received for his misdeeds, citing his present incar­ ceration and the loss of his business, reputation, money

and marriage. He further states that he is deeply remorseful for his misconduct and that he recognizes the "roots of

his transgressions and because of this knows he will never

10/

violate the law again."

Upon careful consideration of the record and the arguments and contentions of the parties, it is concluded that in the public interest, Grayson should be barred from association with any broker or dealer.Assuming, without deciding, that Grayson had a mental disease which led him to be a compulsive gambler is of no help to him in determination of the appropriate remedial action to protect public investors, for the record has insufficient evidence to establish whether the disease has been cured or is merely in remission through the

 

Respondent's Exhibit B indicates that in 1980 patho­ logical gambling was certified as a mental disorder

by the American Psychiatric Association and Respondent's Exhibit C indicates that Grayson had a compulsion to gamble.

 

-        7 -

 

force of his present circumstances. To allow him to return to the securities business without a strong showing that he no longer poses a threat to the public interest would be

an imposition of an undue risk upon the investing public. In view of the danger of a repetition of his misconduct, it does not appear possible at this time to specify a time limit for the bar that is being imposed upon Grayson.

Re-entry into the securities business must necessarily await a showing over a period of time that he is again worthy of being trusted, and his present expressions

of remorse for his misconduct and regrets over his losses

 

of money, reputation, family, and ,friends cannot substitute 

for that showing.As argued by the Division, the conclusion based on this record must be that Grayson is simply

not suited for the securities business.

  

"A determination that future securities activities by [a sal·esman] would be consistent with the public interest should be made on the basis of a showing of .the nature of the proposed activity and the conduct of the s.a.1esman in question prior to and subsequent to the

mis­conduct here found." 

Ross Securities   Inc. 41 S.E C 56

517,  n       10   (1963).        

 

See also Vanasco v. SEC, 395       .2d    ·

349;  353 (2d Cir. 1968).     -

 

All proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the parties have been considered, as have their contentions.    To the exent such proposals·and con­ tentions are consistent with this initial decision, they are accepted.

 

-  8 -

 

ORDER

 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Steven R. Grayson be barred from association with a broker or dealer.

This order shall become effective in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Rule 17(f) of the Rules of Practice.

 

 

 

Pursuant to Rule 17(f) of the Rules of Practice, this initial decision shall become the final decision of the Commission  as   to  each   party   who  has   not,   within   fifteen  days after service of this initial decision upon him, filed a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,petition for review of this initial decision pursuant to Rule   17(b),   unless   the  Commission,   pursuant  to  Rule   17(c), determines on its own initiative to review this initial decision  as to him.       If a party timely files a petition for review, or the Commission takes action  to  review  as  to  a party,         the initial decision shall not become  final  with respect to that party.

 

                 

 

Chief Administrative Law Judge

 

 

 

Washington, D.c. December 9,      1983

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

Down With The Con

AUTHOR: Katerina - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Here is PROOF that this man was fined by the SEC for FRAUD in 1983......in FEDERAL court,mind you.

Its just sad that this man has nothing better to do than drink his troubles away with his victims money.

A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT was entered against STEVEN "ROBERT" GREYSON on 1/26/2018 at the SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE of LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.

(court documents attached below)

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

Bravo For Taking A Stand

AUTHOR: Algernon - (United States)

POSTED: Friday, March 02, 2018

It's good to see so many people taking a stand against this awful man who prays on innocent victims.

He sleeps all day.  All day!  He goes to Islands on Pico at night and, like a spider, traps someone in need of help.

Steven was convicted of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from innocent victimes when he worked in a Muni Bond company.

He was sent to prison, which is where he learned his meager "legal writing" skills.  He did argue his appeal on his own, but he lost.

Run from this man.  

Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now