20 August 2007

Remember the Vericomm credit card management scam? Kelly Ayotte blew it off because she hates KingCast, but Boston area attorneys are very interested.

Just getting caught up on old blog posts and what do I see about the Vericomm Scam:

Chris,
I am very interested in what more you have found out about this scam. I am an attorney in Boston and have a client who just presented me with a very similar set of facts regarding MBF Leasing, Vericomm, and a contract for credit card services. Send me an email when you get a moment: r[blankety-blank]pc.com
[Blank]
By Anonymous, at 1:11 PM

We are from Texas and the same thing happened to my sister. The business that fronted for MBF Leasing was Integrity of Texas. But it is the same. IT is all over. I was in Lousiana and someone was talking about the same thing happening to them another front company but MBF or Northern Leasing was behind it.
By Cynthia Homuth, at 10:29 AM

But what did Kelly do, despite the fact that there are lawsuits going on all over the country for false and deceptive practices?

She dismissed the complaint a couple of weeks ago instead of talking with the 4 merchants I have spoken with who are ready to talk to her about it. She apparently doesn't appreciate that pending RSA 91-A Right-to-Know litigation in the Franconia shooting tragedy, or the Ethics Complaint I filed against her that coughed up 3 new witness interviews. One of those interviews shows that Gregory W. Floyd, at 49 years of age, told Sam Stephenson he did 3 tours of Vietnam, which may provide a reasonable trier of fact some basis to discount his credibility about the events of 5/11.

I told you she's a big business dupe, unethical and will do whatever it takes to keep the little guy down almost every time, the exception being the data mining case, in which drug companies prey on the American Public and get them hooked on drugs like Oxycontin.

6 comments:

Christopher King said...

Well, Huckster LS Light Shiner do you have any comment on me helping a local merchant who knew I clerked for a law firm?

Please do tell.

Anonymous said...

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION

v.

KING


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









Columbus Bar Association v . King.



[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 93.]



Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for time served — Failing to fulfill purpose of mentorship imposed at previous disciplinary proceeding — Engaging in conduct indicating inability to function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom or afford clients adequate representation — Failure to pay costs imposed at previous disciplinary proceeding.



(No. 98-423 — Submitted January 8, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.)

On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-115.

__________________





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

Per Curiam. In December 1998, for conduct in January 1996, we suspended Christopher King, now of Dallas, Texas, Attorney Registration No. 0062199, from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but stayed the suspension on the condition that during that year he be placed on probation and work with a mentor appointed by the relator, Columbus Bar Association. Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 174, 702 N.E.2d 862. We also imposed costs of that proceeding on respondent.

On February 19, 1999, relator appointed Guy L. Reese II, a former Franklin County Municipal Court Judge and a former Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge, to be respondent’s mentor. Based upon the mentor’s report to the relator and respondent’s failure to make the payment ordered in our December 1998 order, relator requested on September 13, 2000, that respondent’s probation be revoked that his stayed suspension be reinstated, and that respondent be held in contempt. Respondent opposed this request, and the matter was heard by a panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court.

At a hearing on June 6, 2001, the panel considered testimony, exhibits, and stipulations. It received evidence that on January 9, 1998, Judge David Cain of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed a Civ.R. 11 sanction on respondent in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in thirty days for frivolous behavior in continuing to pursue an action despite his client’s own acknowledgement that she had no claim. Respondent did not appeal the order or pay the sanction. Instead, he wrote a letter to the judge and filed suit against him. The panel received evidence that on September 9, 1998, Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio fined respondent $1,500 in attorney fees and $1,311.73 in costs for his conduct in Lampley v. Vagnier (1998), No. C2-96-337. Respondent did not appeal this sanction or two others in the same case that totaled $5,139, nor did he pay them, except for possibly $300 of the attorney fees. On February 28, 2000, Judge Sargus ordered respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay the sanctions.

The panel also received evidence that on February 11, 1999, Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held respondent in contempt for the manner in which he comported himself in Belcher v. Ohio Dept. Human Serv., (S.D.Ohio 1999), 48 F.Supp.3d 729, and ordered him to complete a six-week preceptorship with Professor Shirley Mays of the Capital University Law School. Respondent did not at any time comply with the requirements of the preceptorship.

The panel received further evidence that on July 7, 1999, Visiting Judge John Martin of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held respondent in contempt and granted a mistrial due to respondent’s conduct in Smith v. Professional Cellular Serv., Inc., No. 95CVH-12-8949, and ordered him to pay attorney fees and court costs. Respondent instead filed a complaint against Judge Martin.

In addition, the panel received evidence that respondent informed his monitor, Judge Reese, that additional sanctions had been imposed against him of $1,852.50 by Judge David Cain in Oglesby v. Columbus, Franklin C.P. No. 97-CVC-03-3823, of $2,077.59 by Judge Nodine Miller of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court in Hamm v. Gahanna City Council, No. 95CVF085484, of $200 by Judge Cain in Michael v. Whitehall, No. 97CVC012333, and of $1,000 by Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Archer v. Roman, No. C-2-95-1187.

On the basis of this evidence the panel found that respondent had not fulfilled the purpose of his mentorship and that his conduct indicated that he could neither function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom nor afford his clients adequate representation.

In addition, the panel further found that respondent had not paid the costs imposed in our December 1998 order. The panel recommended that respondent’s probation be terminated and that his suspension from the practice of law be reinstated.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the panel. It is clear from the numerous sanctions that respondent received during his term of probation for his conduct in several courts, sanctions that remain unpaid, that the mentor’s report is credible. Further, in three years respondent has not paid the costs we imposed in December 1998, costs that we ordered paid within ninety days.

We have already revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his suspension on October 4, 2001, “pending entry of a final order by this court.” 93 Ohio St.3d 1438, 755 N.E.2d 901. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year with credit for time served. Respondent is further ordered to pay the costs of the original proceeding in the amount of $1,363.71 plus interest of ten percent from March 8, 1999 until paid. Respondent shall further pay the costs of these proceedings.



Judgment accordingly.



Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.



__________________



Julia A. Davis, Bradley N. Frick and Anthony M. Roseboro, for relator.

Christopher King, pro se.



__________________


[Cite as Columbus Bar Association v. King, 95 Ohio St.3d 93, 2002-Ohio-1945.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. KING.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. King (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 93.]

Attorneys at law — Misconduct — One-year suspension with credit for time

served — Failing to fulfill purpose of mentorship imposed at previous

disciplinary proceeding — Engaging in conduct indicating inability to

function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom or afford clients

adequate representation — Failure to pay costs imposed at previous

disciplinary proceeding.

(No. 98-423 — Submitted January 8, 2002 — Decided April 24, 2002.)

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 96-115.

__________________

Per Curiam. In December 1998, for conduct in January 1996, we

suspended Christopher King, now of Dallas, Texas, Attorney Registration No.

0062199, from the practice of law in Ohio for one year, but stayed the suspension

on the condition that during that year he be placed on probation and work with a

mentor appointed by the relator, Columbus Bar Association. Columbus Bar Assn.

v. King (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 174, 702 N.E.2d 862. We also imposed costs of

that proceeding on respondent.

On February 19, 1999, relator appointed Guy L. Reese II, a former

Franklin County Municipal Court Judge and a former Franklin County Common

Pleas Court Judge, to be respondent’s mentor. Based upon the mentor’s report to

the relator and respondent’s failure to make the payment ordered in our December

1998 order, relator requested on September 13, 2000, that respondent’s probation

be revoked, that his stayed suspension be reinstated, and that respondent be held

in contempt. Respondent opposed this request, and the matter was heard by a

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the

Supreme Court.

At a hearing on June 6, 2001, the panel considered testimony, exhibits,

and stipulations. It received evidence that on January 9, 1998, Judge David Cain

of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas imposed a Civ.R. 11 sanction on

respondent in the amount of $5,000 to be paid in thirty days for frivolous

behavior in continuing to pursue an action despite his client’s own

acknowledgement that she had no claim. Respondent did not appeal the order or

pay the sanction. Instead, he wrote a letter to the judge and filed suit against him.

The panel received evidence that on September 9, 1998, Judge Edmund A.

Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

fined respondent $1,500 in attorney fees and $1,311.73 in costs for his conduct in

Lampley v. Vagnier (1998), No. C2-96-337. Respondent did not appeal this

sanction or two others in the same case that totaled $5,139, nor did he pay them,

except for possibly $300 of the attorney fees. On February 28, 2000, Judge

Sargus ordered respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be held

in contempt for failure to pay the sanctions.

The panel also received evidence that on February 11, 1999, Judge

Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Ohio held respondent in contempt for the manner in which he comported

himself in Belcher v. Ohio Dept. Human Serv., (S.D.Ohio 1999), 48 F.Supp.3d

729, and ordered him to complete a six-week preceptorship with Professor

Shirley Mays of the Capital University Law School. Respondent did not at any

time comply with the requirements of the preceptorship.

The panel received further evidence that on July 7, 1999, Visiting Judge

John Martin of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court held respondent in

contempt and granted a mistrial due to respondent’s conduct in Smith v.

Professional Cellular Serv., Inc., No. 95CVH-12-8949, and ordered him to pay

January Term, 2002

3

attorney fees and court costs. Respondent instead filed a complaint against Judge

Martin.

In addition, the panel received evidence that respondent informed his

monitor, Judge Reese, that additional sanctions had been imposed against him of

$1,852.50 by Judge David Cain in Oglesby v. Columbus, Franklin C.P. No. 97-

CVC-03-3823, of $2,077.59 by Judge Nodine Miller of the Franklin County

Common Pleas Court in Hamm v. Gahanna City Council, No. 95CVF085484, of

$200 by Judge Cain in Michael v. Whitehall, No. 97CVC012333, and of $1,000

by Judge James L. Graham of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Ohio in Archer v. Roman, No. C-2-95-1187.

On the basis of this evidence the panel found that respondent had not

fulfilled the purpose of his mentorship and that his conduct indicated that he

could neither function as a professional lawyer in a courtroom nor afford his

clients adequate representation.

In addition, the panel further found that respondent had not paid the costs

imposed in our December 1998 order. The panel recommended that respondent’s

probation be terminated and that his suspension from the practice of law be

reinstated.

We have reviewed the record and adopt the findings of the panel. It is

clear from the numerous sanctions that respondent received during his term of

probation for his conduct in several courts, sanctions that remain unpaid, that the

mentor’s report is credible. Further, in three years respondent has not paid the

costs we imposed in December 1998, costs that we ordered paid within ninety

days.

We have already revoked respondent’s probation and reinstated his

suspension on October 4, 2001, “pending entry of a final order by this court.” 93

Ohio St.3d 1438, 755 N.E.2d 901. Respondent is hereby suspended from the

practice of law for one year with credit for time served. Respondent is further

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

ordered to pay the costs of the original proceeding in the amount of $1,363.71

plus interest of ten percent from March 8, 1999 until paid. Respondent shall

further pay the costs of these proceedings.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

Julia A. Davis, Bradley N. Frick and Anthony M. Roseboro, for relator.

Christopher King, pro se.

__________________

Anonymous said...

duck butter

Phresh ink said...

Mr. King I need you to please contact me. I have been a victim of this vericomm scam and i dont know what to do. I was trying to ue some research and i found this page with peoples complaints about vericomm and mbf. Please cntact me as soon as possible to see if you can PLEASE help me out in way possible.. My email add is ptuma@phreshink.com

Phresh ink said...

Mr. King I need you to please contact me. I have been a victim of this vericomm scam and i dont know what to do. I was trying to ue some research and i found this page with peoples complaints about vericomm and mbf. Please cntact me as soon as possible to see if you can PLEASE help me out in way possible.. My email add is ptuma@phreshink.com

Christopher King said...

1:07 I'll shoot you an email in a minute. Didn't know you had posted on this because it's an older post and since the opt-in for comments came about I often don't know when people post to older threads.


5:27 Thanks for part of the story.

There is more:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2008/05/kingcast-show-cause-motion-for-civil-or.html

2 Comments:

*

Ohhhhhhhhhh Yaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!

Can't wait for the outcome of this one. Well done Chris !

By Anonymous LAJFA, at 8:28 AM
*

Thanks. I woke up this morning and it just occurred to me. Now if I was in Ohio of course I would have been sanctioned for it. Seriously, in a Show Cause Motion Judge Nodine Miller blasted me for writing that the (in)actions of the Defendants in Hamm v. City of Gahanna were "contemptible."

The town failed to grant zoning for a cul-de-sac housing project on the Hamm's own property for the frail, elderly handicapped based on stereotypes and property values, a no-no. She had ordered the town to grant the zoning then they never did, and I sued them in Federal Court then we almost settled but the town wanted a permanent easement and that gave us the Willies so then I exit stage left under a hail of judicial gunfire and Sandy Spater (Spater, Gittes et al) took over the case and it dragged on for another 6 years or so and the project never got built.

Incredible.

Anyway, Judge Miller never issued a Final Order for me to appeal the sanction, so there you have a situation where I am sanctioned to my detriment and the Ohio Supreme Court included that against me, yet I couldn't appeal it.

Nice.

When I got my mentor I wrote a letter to her asking her to file the Final Entry but she never did.

I think I like litigating in Grafton more than litigating in Ohio for the most part. I can assure you I'm not going to be sanctioned for filing this Motion.

What will happen is we will get some answers to what the hell is going on.

Namaste.

By Blogger