Freed man sues for rights again

Not many folks are making big ticket purchases these days, so at the very least you could say their behavior was stupid. It does sound like they were yanking his chain, and you have to wonder to what purpose.

Rick wrote:

Besides, if he has millions in the bank why would he have to finance this car???

I don't see where that would make any difference. If the finance terms are good, it could be cheaper to take out a loan on the balance rather than use his own money. Or, his money may be tied up.

I'm sure that there is more to this story than was reported, but, Rick, your response gave credence to his complaints. Rather than giving the other side of the story, you decided to be sarcastic and insulting. Which makes me wonder if that's the way you treat your customers?

I used to work for a car dealership and this is soo TYPICAL!! And people wonder why the auto industry is so F'd up!! Most sales people and managers treat people as thought they are doing them a favor by selling them a car!! I hope this guy sues and WINS again!! Dumb azzes!

Rick, you sound a bit bitter. Larry didn't "win" the lottery. He was convicted on the false testimony of Pam Fish who said that the semen recovered "could have" belonged to him when in fact it wasn't even the same blood type.

With a $20,000 cashiers check in hand, it sounds like he was more than patient with them. Perhaps if you were the salesperson who was selling him the car his paperwork wouldn't have gotten "lost." Kind of hard for them to run the paperwork if they can't find it on a manager's desk.

I thought you had insider information, but all you offered was biased speculation and prejudice.

Go for it Rick! I'm sure they already know all about Ms. Fish. They'll probably enjoy a good giggle that you don't.

I'm not worried about this getting traced back to me. I always find it very amusing when people can't reasonably discuss a topic and start sputtering accusations about me personally. Just a hint dude, when you have to resort to accusing someone of being an attorney or PI, you've lost the debate. It's better to walk away with your tail between your legs before it gets to that point.

I stayed on the topic of Grossinger North and Larry Ollins, you are the one that fell into the lamest of accusations that must be an attorney or PI just because you're incapable of debating the topic on hand.

What's funny is that your accusation isn't even original. It's a loser's fall back position.

How unoriginal.

Why it would take two days to verify a cashier's check is ridiculous. Banks are open on Saturdays and a simple phone call could have solved the problem. When a person of color comes into one of these establishments and hands them a large amount of money, there are red flags that go off and immediately managers have to scrutinize their finances to see if they are a drug dealer or something. The gentleman got andgry and handled this in the wrong way, but I understand his anger. He was falsley imprisoned, otherwise there would have been no settlement made by the state. He would have been retried for the crime. I suppose if any of the posters on this forum were put away for 15 years for acrime they did not commit, they would tell the prosecutors "no hard feelings" and move on. I personally would have told the sales manager to give me back my check and go buy an American car. Lawsuits only benefit lawyers so therefore I am against them. But I suspect that there was a bit of profiling that went on in that dealership.

RIP OFF REPORT

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/223/Rip...

The Better Business Bureau received information that the People of the State of Illinois, by and through Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General that Grossinger Autoplex, Inc. Grossinger Chevrolet, Inc. Grossinger City Autocorp, Inc. and Grossinger's North Autocorp, Inc. hereby enter into this Assurance of Voluntary Compliance pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The Attorney General alleges that:
Respondents have created a series of pricing advertisements to appear in Chicago area newspapers during parts of 2002 and 2003. Repondents advertised that certain vehicles were available to consumers for certain prices. In at least fourteen occasions, vehicles which were advertised at specific prices were either sold at prices above the advertised prices or not available at the advertised price. Respondents claimed that advertisements had expiration dates and the sales occurred after the expiration date, however the Attorney General alleges that the expiration dates were not clear and conspicuous. In two cases the vehicles had been modified and were not available at the advertised price as designed by the manufacturer. The Attorney General alleges that to describe a vehicle as new, with no other limiting information, when the vehicle is not as designed and manufactured by the manufacturer is deceptive advertising. In advertisements, multiple vehicles were advertised at specific prices, however, there were not multiple vehicles available at that price. One consumer visited the respondent to view an advertised Cadillac Seville and he was told the advertised price was only available to current Cadillac owners and not to all consumers, even though no restrictions were listed. On at least one occasion there was a description of a vehicle advertised and there was no such vehicle for sale.

In all future sales of advertised vehicles, the respondents shall sell at amounts no greater than the advertised price. In all future advertisements for sale of a new vehicle, if the vehicle has been modified from the manner in which it was designed and manufactured by the manufacturer, the advertisement shall clearly and conspicuously disclose the modification. If the respondents advertise that a specific vehicle is for sale at a stated price, the advertisement shall contain the stock number and the vehicle shall be available to be purchased at the advertised price. If the stated price has a time limitation, that limitation shall be clearly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement. If the advertised vehicle is available only in limited quantities, the number of vehicles available at the time of the ad shall be stated in the advertisement.

And, this is what Larry was dealing with the full force of a corrupt police department and a crime lab who was willing to falsify results and perjure themselves to secure a false conviction.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-...
----------

Fish also has been accused of testifying falsely in the prosecutions of four men convicted of the rape and murder of medical student Lori Roscetti in 1986. Recent DNA tests have shown that none of the four--three of whom are serving life prison terms--can be linked to the semen recovered from Roscetti.
----------

Although the article doesn't state when this event at Grossinger occurred, I understand that it happened shortly after Larry settled with the city in 2007. I guess the salespeople were willing to forgo their commission at that time to just jerk a guy around a bit for their own amusement.

Rick wrote:

RIP OFF REPORT OF FACTS....
Again, JavaJunkie is trying to distort the facts and that is why he brought up an old case when the economy was far better and dealers were capable of ripping the less intelligent off. Today, any dealership or business for that matter will bend over backwards to get your business.
Omar Saunders, Calvin Ollins and his cousin Larry Ollins are NOT IN JAIL on this case however I am sure that they will be back.
Marcellius Bradford was paroled but later convicted of burglary and sent back to prison.
Oh, how I wish I was Council on the Defense and finally met you.
<quoted text>

I know that they're not in jail. I simply quoted an article on how they were convicted in the first place.

Are you seriously saying that Grossinger's past sales practices were acceptable simply because the economy was better when the report was made? I think you're longing for those bygone days when there was always another chump around the corner.

You posted historical information on the false confession. I posted the historical information on the false testimony of Pam Fish of the IL crime lab. Unlike you, I actually bothered to provide a link, sourcing the information for those who would like to actually learn more about the case for themselves. I fail to see how anyone could misconstrue that I was misleading readers by sourcing an article from the Chicago Tribune.

The event occurred at Grossinger in 2007 during a happier economy than the one were facing today. It seems likely that they were having too much fun back then to worry about sales. Bet you wish you took that sale.

First of all lets get a couple of things straight, the settlement from the wrongful conviction was 4 mill that had to be split between two people, so you do the math. Secondly, the tribune got the attorneys name wrong. His attorney is andre grant. Lastly, know the facts before you judge and prosecute someone. Seems like RICK is the p.i here or a defense attorney working with Grossinger or Lincolnwood police.

Rick, I can vouch for the fact the Java Junkie is not Charles Allen, nor is she Kathleen Zellner, the attorney who got the Ford Heights Four exonerated. She is just someone who has followed this and other similar cases closely and has more knowledge about them in her little finger than you have in your whole body.
Until you have been in the shoes of someone who has spent a long time in prison for a crime he or she has not committed, you have absolutely know expertise to comment on their behavior or attitude.
Attacking other posters because their views differ from yours, and claiming that they're a lawyer or a PI, and trying to denigrate Ollins' behavior here just shows that your point is lost and your arguments make no sense.
Also, it appears that the charges filed against Ollins in this incident were dropped.
And by the way, it's "Counsel" for the Defense, not "Council". That's basic English grammar. While we can't say that you have poor spelling, we can certainly tell that you're not a lawyer or a PI.

Boy, when you resort to this you've really lost the argument with this one, Rick. You've certainly dumbed down this discussion to the lowest common denominator.

Denigrating people for where they live - my my, I guess living in Orland Park makes you a superior intellect.

Funny about that, I never equated Orland Park with Kenilworth or South Barrington.

And I wouldn't assume that Rick is YOUR real name either.

Rick wrote:

Boy's. School is out as I can't seem to think of any reasonable reason to keep teaching you 2 clowns.
Consider the fact that you are from dive areas and do not even have the courage to use a real name.
See me after class on Monday....
JavaJunkie
Round Lake, IL
&
chi town finest
Justice, IL

chi town finest wrote:

First of all lets get a couple of things straight, the settlement from the wrongful conviction was 4 mill that had to be split between two people, so you do the math. Secondly, the tribune got the attorneys name wrong. His attorney is andre grant. Lastly, know the facts before you judge and prosecute someone. Seems like RICK is the p.i here or a defense attorney working with Grossinger or Lincolnwood police.

Andre Grant was the attorney in another case I was interested in, but lost track of, Leonard Robinson Jr. Although, there hasn't been much press on that case.

I never make fun of people for spelling errors, where they live, what they do for a living, what the color of their skin, how they chose to pray, or as Alex (Itasca) knows, who they vote for. Nor do I belittle anyone for those qualities. Not everyone has the benefit of a good education, a strong family unit, or even food regularly on their table.

I'm sorry you experienced such a terrible tragedy in your life and for the loss of your brother. However, you are suggesting that because of your experience, anyone accused of a crime must automatically be guilty. Illinois has a long and sorted history of false confessions, corrupt LE, privileged protected prosecutors, crime lab fraud and judges on the take. I fail to see how your experience translates into your unreasonable anger at Larry Ollins.

I pointed out earlier that you were bitter and it seems I was right on that observation.

Though only indirectly related, thank you posters for bringing up that POS Pamela Fish who's shotty testimony for CPD crime lab has not only wrongly implicated probably 100's of individuals, uncovering of her incompetence has perhaps ironically allowed some guilty individuals to go free. The real crime here (aside of the initial thread where ignorant dealership management lost a car sale ...) is that Pamela Fish has never been arrested and if I am not mistaken is still working in a crime lab for the Illinois State Police!

She should have been prosecuted. Hundreds of cases collapsed due to her perjuring herself and falsifying evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Fish

Pamela Fish is a former police crime lab analyst for the Chicago Police Department, whose work has been embroiled in controversy since 2001.

In 1986, Fish stated that there were no semen stains available in the case of the rape and murder of a medical student in Chicago. Subsequently, four men were charged and convicted of the crime. Later investigators found semen stains where Fish had found none, and in 2001, the four men were all exonerated.[1]

In the case of a 1992 rape conviction, the accused demanded DNA testing, which he claimed would exonerate him. Fish acknowledged that semen samples did exist, but contended that the amount of sample available was not adequate for conducting a test. In 2006 testing was finally conducted, and indicated that the man convicted of the rape was, in fact, not guilty.[2] Furthermore, evidence has been uncovered indicating that Fish actually gave sworn testimony which contradicted her own lab notes regarding some accused.

In the late 1990s, the Chicago Police Crime Lab was absorbed by the Illinois State Police, and Fish thus became a state employee. As a result of these and other incidents impugning her work, in 2001 Fish was moved to a new position, with the title, "administrative section chief of research and development".[3]

Rick, although I'm moved by your loss, I'm taken aback by your posting style which I believes reveals far more about who you are than you realize. You have made untrue assumptions, accusations, been sarcastic, and condescending in your attempt "school" us poor dimwitted "clowns".

Although I'm sure you think very highly of your opinion and yourself, I suspect that if you really went back through the conversation and looked at it with an unbiased eye, you'd be ashamed of your behavior. People can disagree without resorting to the arsenal of sarcasm that you unleashed.

I would have welcomed a hearty debate and good conversation on this topic.