Processserverone.com Reports & Reviews (1)
Processserverone.com Contacts
If you know any contact information for Processserverone.com, help other victims by adding it!
Add new contacts
SCAMPULSE
|
SCAMPULSE
If you know any contact information for Processserverone.com, help other victims by adding it!
Scammer's website processserverone.com
Scammer's address 13395 Voyager Parkway Suite 130 PMB 311, Colorado Springs, CO 80921, USA
Scammer's email [email protected]
Country United States
Victim Location DC 20016, USA
Total money lost $201
Type of a scam Worthless Problem-solving Service
Initial means of contact Not applicable
Legal Services
3.2. The agreement included a clause referencing “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-308. This clause was improperly used and misleading. UCC 1-308 allows a party to perform or accept performance without prejudicing their rights, but Defendant used this language to improperly limit Plaintiff's rights. See UCC § 1-308; Baker v. Leonard, 264 F. Supp. 3d 838 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (misapplication of UCC provisions).
3.3. The client agreement/payment authorization form created by Ed Sullton did not include a detailed invoice summary, making it unclear how the total amount of $201.34 was determined. This lack of transparency violates D.C. Code § 28:2-305, which requires clear and itemized invoicing. See D.C. Code § 28:2-305; Levin v. Ponderosa P, 474 A.2d 158 (D.C. 1984) (detailed invoice requirement under contract law).
3.4. Duncan provided proof of service that falsely stated the summons was delivered to an officer or director of the university institution. Evidence shows that the summons was not delivered as claimed, constituting perjury under D.C. Code § 22-2405 (false swearing) and a violation of D.C. Superior Court Rule 4(h). See D.C. Code § 22-2405; Smith v. United States, 502 A.2d 877 (D.C. 1986) (false swearing under D.C. law).
3.5. Sanchez, the case manager, committed accessory to perjury by sending the falsified proof of service and attempting to justify it in emails dated April [Year]. This constitutes aiding and abetting perjury and misrepresentation under D.C. Code § 22-2405 and § 22-3221. See D.C. Code § 22-2405; D.C. Code § 22-3221 (accessory to perjury).
3.6. Despite Plaintiff’s emails requesting another attempt at service, Sanchez responded with obscene language and failed to rectify the situation. This behavior violates D.C. Code § 28-3904 (Consumer Protection Procedures Act), which prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices. See D.C. Code § 28-3904; Montgomery v. U.S. Bank Nat’l [censored]’n, 225 F. Supp. 3d 163 (D.D.C. 2016) (consumer protection violations).
3.7. Defendant also sent falsified documents to Plaintiff’s bank, falsely representing that the payment was for services rendered when it was not. This constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation under D.C. Code § 22-3221. See D.C. Code § 22-3221; Fitzgerald v. GTE Mobilnet of D.C., Inc., 48 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999) (fraudulent misrepresentation claims).