The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

Jay Adkisson, Adkisson Riser LLP / Stole my money, cheating his clients

1 Newport Beach, CA, United States Review updated:
Contact information:
Phone: 949-607-0952

I hired Riser Adkisson LLP to protect me from a lawsuit and to help my family live on my income from my rental properties. I gave Mr. Adkisson over $25, 000 in fees and expected to be fully protected. Instead I ended up losing everything and still owing more. I only wish I had never met these corrupt and greedy characters. The plan involved a lot of smoke and mirrors and of course it blew up in a minute. Then they never returned any of my phone calls and tried to debit my bank account for more fees. Now I realize why they never even answer the phone..they got too many angry people to deal with. At their speech they talked alot of fancy legal talk and their web info seemed like they knew alot, but in the end it was alot of bogus trust and corp garbage I could have got from legal zoom for a few hundred dollars.

Jo
Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Br
      13th of Aug, 2008
    0 Votes

    I also got taken in by Adkisson Riser. After spending alot of money I got nothing back but hassles and headaches. I figure these guys are too busy talking at their meetings and really don't help clients much. Only if you've got mega-bucks are they even interested in your case, and then only if you keep feeding them more money. I now went to a small local attorney in my home town and with my CPA got all my questions answered. Just wish I had thought of that sooner.

  • No
      23rd of Aug, 2008
    -1 Votes

    This is clearly a bogus complaint. Jay D. Adkisson is a highly-respected lawyer in California who has appeared as an expert witness before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. As the creator of scam-fighting website http://www.quatloos.com scam artists hate his guts and thus post totally bogus "complaints" anonymously on boards like these. Call the State Bar of California to find out if there are any real complaints.

  • Ke
      23rd of Jan, 2009
    +1 Votes

    Here is a response to one of Jay D Adkisson alleged scam topics of Texas Joint Stock Company


    The old saying is that, “if you live in a glass house, it is not a good idea to throw stones at others.” This principle is especially true and applicable to the situation referred to in this write up. Apparently, Jay D. Adkisson has teamed up with Christopher M. Riser to write a book entitled, Asset Protection- Concepts and Strategies for Protecting your Wealth.

    First, we have to assume that serious errors that are found in the said book did not occur by accident or lack of knowledge or understanding. This is because it can be presumed that attorneys who claim to have done extensive research and study concerning estate planning and asset protection and who claim be experts along with being watch –dogs of the industry must have intended the advocacy of the serious errors, mistakes, misrepresentations, fraud, trickery and deceit that are found in their book. These master deceptions are going to be proven by references to book, chapter and verse of the law that is respected by the U.S. Supreme Court, other courts and statute.

    Again, regarding postings on this forum regarding ProAdvocate Group and services offered, in particular the Texas Joint-Stock Company, the intent is obvious. It appears that the purpose of the Quatloos organization is self-serving in the interest of promoting Jay D. Adkisson book and his related services and to discredit any and all alternative approaches to the competition. All of this is in the guise public service. If you can’t beat um, slander um and sell more books.

    The competition to us in asset protection knows that their program and strategies do not work in the real world. Thus, they must attempt to discredit a program that offers an asset protection program that has a legal defense that is reasonable and is backed up with the book, chapter and verse of the law.

    The detractors of the Texas Joint-Stock Company are correct in stating that it is an unincorporated entity. They also wrongly state that it is much like a general partnership. The Texas Joint-Stock Company is considered in some respects as a species of general partnership, but it also has all of the corporate characteristics except limited liability of shareholders. When the Texas Joint-Company is combined with a Revocable Living Trust, the equivalent of limited liability of shareholders is accomplished. Therefore, the combination of the Texas Joint-Stock Company and Revocable Living Trust (TJSC/ RLT) becomes much like the corporation and the opposite of the general partnership. In other words the TJSC/ RLT has the advantages of the corporation and the general partnership while eliminating all the disadvantages. In addition, the Texas-Joint Stock Company is setup by a private contract which is not the case with a general partnership.

    The detractors show their true motives and colors by falsely stating that Section 31.10 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code requires that any person conducting business as a Texas Joint-Stock Company must file in each county in which the entity is doing business a statement setting forth that a fictitious business name will be used.

    THERE IS NO SECTION 31.10 of the TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE !!!

    Section 31 is reserved for future use by the Texas State Legislature. The name given and adopted by the Texas Joint-Stock Company is not a fictitious name; it is the real name of the Texas Joint-Stock-Company.

    It is true that ordinary general partnerships provide very little, if any, in the way of asset protection. But the Texas Joint-Stock Company has numerous vast differences when compared to a general partnership which are as follows:

    1.) Has all the corporate characteristics, except limited liability of
    shareholders.
    2.) Formed by private contract creating a separate entity.
    3.) Recognized by a specific Texas State Statute, but not regulated by the Uniform Partnership Act.
    4.) A shareholder cannot bind other shareholder concerning liability, etc., etc.,

    It is beyond me, how judgments can be made without so much as a phone call to understand the basis of the program and yet there seems to be enough time to speculate and categorize us as just another scam, and we all know that there are many out there. I would challenge any of you to learn about the underlying principles that support the programs and then deal with what issues you may have.

    I can assure you that programs offered by ProAdvocate Group are backed by absolute book, chapter and verse of the law that supports every principle of what is taught and implemented, Unlike many other “so-called” asset protection strategies, we put it on all on the table. There have been many attorneys and CPA’s to review the material and not once has any skepticism been substantiated. In fact, the biggest skeptics become the strongest advocates.

    Some may say that if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. I am confident that a little time spent in understanding the program instead of blasphemy, the facts would become clear. These programs are a quantum leap over anything else out there and all perfectly legal.

    Regarding one of the principles, Karl L. Dahlstrom, it is indeed true that he had a legal issue with the IRS. If the government is intent on persecution, it can be done, If you want a clear picture of Karl L.Dahlstrom, Check out U.S. v. Dahlstrom, (713 F2d.1423) a landmark IRS case.
    Just a little indication of what a fighter is all about in the name of justice. This case was won by Karl L. Dahlstrom at the Federal Circuit Court level and the U.S. Supreme Court.


    Again, I suggest that anyone with concern deal with the real issues instead of stooping to slander as a technique of self-promotion. When the income tax issues were taken to Tax Court, we lost and therefore ceased advocating income tax savings with foreign pure trust organizations in the early 1980’s. What has continued to work for over thirty (30) years is avoidance of probate, avoiding federal estate taxes and asset protection.

    Another detractor, who undoubtedly uses an alias, Bill Smith, also attempts to defend the legal profession’s stand on asset protection starts out by equating us with what other organizations are attempting to do with the Pure Trust.

    First, what exactly is the “Pure Trust” Scam? It is where the “Pure Trust” was used to avoid filing tax returns and paying income taxes.
    No one involved with the ProAdvocate Group ever advocated that the U.S. Pure Trust could be used to avoid filing tax returns or pay income taxes and never will. However, the pure trust has been successfully used for avoiding probate and asset protection.

    Second, Mr. Bill Smith who undoubtedly is an attorney or representing an attorney, shows his total ignorance when he looks for exceptions in the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UTFA). The UTFA is a statute and numerous court decisions give us the civil exclusionary rule of interpretation which states that, “when the statute states something, it is to the automatic exclusion of all else”. The statute does not give us all the exceptions because they are usually too numerous to list. The state legislatures were well aware of the Constitution provisions dealing with private contracts when they passed the UTFA. But, they deliberately chose not to include private contracts in the UTFA which is proof of their intent not to do so.

    Thirdly, the analogy or example used by Mr. Bill Smith, the so-called self appointed expert on the law shows that he is nothing more than a master deceiver. He says, the following is an absurdity,
    “If two people enter into a private contract to commit murder, they couldn’t be prosecuted
    under state law because the U.S. Constitution would be supreme to the contrary state law.”

    The analogy attempted here is to equate murder to asset protection with a Texas Joint-Stock Company. There is nothing like using apples and oranges when you are trying to deceive someone to win a point. A private contract to commit murder is completely different than a private contract to set up a Texas Joint-Stock Company for asset protection.

    First, murder is a mala in se crime or a crime in itself and could of course never be a basis for entering into a legal private contract. If entering into a private contract to form a Texas Joint-Stock Co was a crime, which it is not, it could only be a mala prohibita crime, a crime that is not a crime in itself, but a crime created by the legislature or congress in a prohibition statute. For example, in the earliest part of the 19th Century, no license was required to sell securities, now it is a crime to sell securities without a license, because the state legislature or the federal congress made it a crime.

    Now, let’s have Mr. Bill Smith give us the statutes were the legislature or congress made it a crime to enter into a private contract forming a Texas Joint-Stock Company. There is none!
    Oh, Bill Smith may or would erroneously argue that a private contract cannot be made to violate the UTFA. But the UFTA is a civil statute, not a criminal statute and the UFTA does not even mention a private contract or prohibit using a private contract for asset protection. If the UFTA could impair the obligation of a private contract, then taken to the extreme, business and commerce could be shut down by every real or imagined creditor concerning property or assets. This is absurd and unrealistic!

    However, a die hard master deceiver would not give up. Mr. Bill Smith would or may still try to argue that you can not use a private contract to even civilly defraud creditors, but this is not the issue because higher legal considerations have to be made first. The right to contract privately is a constitutional right under the liberty clause of due process and equal protection of the 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and there are numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding this right to contract. Therefore the rights of creditors do not supersede or exceed the liberty of the constitutional right to private contracting before the creditor reduces his claim to a court judgment. If creditors feel defrauded from the use of private contracts, they can lobby the legislatures to change the law. Until the law is changed which has little or no chance of happening, they will have to reduce their claims to a court judgment before the private contracts take place.

    Everyone should challenge Mr. Bill Smith to cite a valid court case where a legal private contract was impaired by the UFTA. He can not use the pure trust cases where persons set up pure trust private contracts to avoid filing income tax returns because that is a completely different situation and context. The non-filing of income tax returns is a crime.

    It is ludicrous to equate murder, a crime in itself, to the liberty of right to private contract which is not only legal, but a constitutional right of due process and equal protection of liberty and freedom to enter into a private contract for asset protection. Therefore, it is not an absurdity for two people to enter into a private contract to exercise a liberty interest protected by the U.S. Constitution to accomplish asset protection. It is a common law and constitutional right backed up by book, chapter and verse of numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Bill Smith apparently puts his erroneous opinions above the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court to deceive the public trying to protect his own self-interest and eliminate the competition.

    Yes, the Texas Joint-Stock Company by itself does not limit the liability of the shareholders for the debts and obligations of the Texas Joint Stock Company. This is why the TXJSC is used in conjunction with other legal entities to achieve the desired end result of asset protection. Just because Mr. Bill Smith is ignorant of how or why this works, this doesn’t result in it not working. Also, even if an entity does not achieve limited liability of shareholders which is one type of asset protection which is known as “inside direct piercing”, this has nothing to do with the “outside reverse piercing” type of asset protection. Most persons interested in asset protection are looking for “outside reverse piercing” asset protection. This is where an individual or entity is concerned about losing its assets to a future judgment and transfers those assets to a third-party separate legal entity. Asset protection in this case is to eliminate the “outside reverse piercing” or avoiding or stopping the creditor or judgment holder from obtaining the assets from that third-party legal entity. If an asset protection plan does not offer limited liability for shareholders, this does not mean that “outside reverse piercing” asset protection can not be accomplished.

    ProAdvocate Group is not blatantly misrepresenting how the real world LP’s and LLC’s work to protect assets. The real world is that L.P.’s and L.L.C.’s were created for larger groups of participants. In many cases involving private closely-held L.P.’s or L.L.C.’s, when a creditor or judgment holders obtain a charging order, they will successfully request that a court, issue an order based on the “equity doctrine”, to liquidate the L.P.’s or L.L.C.’s to the charging order holder. This is the real world of L.P.’s and L.L.C’s and how they do not “work” to protect assets.

    To all of the self-promoters of this site concerning asset protection, I challenge you to at least give this organization a phone call and post real information about what works and what doesn’t. Be professional and deal with the facts if you are going to tout a public service web site. What have you got to lose other than your own credibility?



    The detractors become more outrageous when they state that 1st & 14th Amendment Medical Associations can be created only by statute. The following is our answer to them that should convince any one that what they are attempting to do is legal treason against our form of government and its legal system.

    You have to be kidding! Now, you are changing the entire basis of the legal system in the United States and Texas. Our founding fathers in the U.S. decided to base our legal system on English common-law, not a civil code system. When the State of Texas was established, the legal system was determined to be based on the common-law of the several states by the Texas legislature which adopted a statute to that effect in 1840.

    Apparently, you wrongly believe that our legal systems are based on a civil code or statutory system. The basic principle of a civil code system is that, “A person cannot do something unless there is a statute or code that authorizes a person to do something.” The basic principle of a common-law system is that, “A person can do anything except what the law specifically forbids”.

    Three (3) Federal judges of the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals agree and have confirmed the above correct explanation of our legal system, in the U.S. when they ruled and taught,
    “There are places where, until recently, ‘everything which [was] not permitted [was] forbidden…. [W]hatever [was] permitted [was] mandatory…. Citizens were shackled in their actions by the universal passion for banning things.” Yeltsin Addresses RSFSR Congress of People’s Deputies.
    “Fortunately, the United States is not such a place and we plan to keep it that way. If the government wants to forbid certain conduct, it may forbid it. If it wants to mandate it, it may mandate it. But we won’t lightly infer that in enacting 18 U.S.C. § 371 Congress meant to forbid all things that obstruct the government, or require citizens to do all those things that could make the government’s job easier. So long as they don’t act dishonestly or deceitfully, and so long as they don’t violate some specific law, people living in our society are still free to conduct their affairs any which way they please.” U.S. v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir.1993)

    After reading this case, I don’t believe you could find many attorneys who would publicly agree with your position on how our legal system works! Therefore, unless there is a law forbidding the formation of 1st & 14th Amendment Medical Associations, we have the liberty and freedom to create them.


    Our comprehensive approach is different from other asset protection programs. We believe that you should understand and have the book, chapter and verse offering legal backup for your asset protection plan. We have no book to sell unlike others who make false claims and misquote the law for their own benefit. You as a smart consumer should read the facts and always be aware of who has your best interest at hand.

    Stay Informed!!

    If after reading this you want to find out about Asset Protection where you are shown the book, chapter and verse to substantiate and answer any questions email me at kenyee@mail.com. If you are looking to educate yourself in the area of asset protection we offer a seminar that will fully refund your money at the end if you are not completely satisfied (in fact if you have a lawyer they can attend with you at no charge), the only thing we need is the course notes to be returned before leaving. We will cover the pros and cons of all areas of asset protection (including Nevada Corporations, LLC's, Family Limited Partnerships, how equity stripping can land you in jail and more).

  • Ry
      22nd of Jun, 2010
    0 Votes

    Of course I agree with this complaint. These liars disparage everyone else's asset protection strategies to create doubt in the consumer so the consumer will call them. We have HAD it. Moreover, Adkisson's strategies don't even work. They have been tested and failed over and over again. If they want to promote their scam in a positive light, that's up to them. But I'm done with these jerks ripping everyone else's techniques.

  • Re
      29th of Sep, 2010
    0 Votes

    It sounds to me like two apposing teams on the battlefeild. I have utilized the service of Jay Atkin & Riser. Found them to be honest, reliable, much more knowledgable than most other firms that charged 4 to 10 times as much for the same services and some of them actually turned around and hired Jay Adkisson & Riser to draft their agreements. Attorneys, for the most part are...________ put in whatever word best discribes your experience.
    I have nothing but praise for those guys, but then again- I've never come up against them in court...

  • Uk
      3rd of Jan, 2011
    0 Votes

    Chris Riser and Jay Adkisson run the hate site Quatloos (Quatloosia) which is virulent against fraud of any kind, yet those two bandits are currently facing jail sentences in England for falsely holding Chris out to be a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England when he is unqualified. The UK Law Society in December 2010 begun criminal investigations which will surely lead to the arrest and conviction of these two bandits. Call Chris now and ask him to show you his Solicitor's practising certificate, then call the UK Law Society and check with them, as I did. They are adamant that he is not qualified to act as a Solicitor. See in addition: http://www.criminalsolicitor.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6860&PN=1 (Criminal Solicitor, UK).

  • Ja
      18th of Mar, 2011
    0 Votes

    From the Solicitor's Regulation Authority re: Riser Adkisson LLP - Chis Riser confirmed as unlicenced solicitor - him and Jay are crooks lying to their clients that they are qualified. However checks out. He is a distinguished lawyer can legal academic having published widely in the field. I have seen his links on Google which show that is is a well-respected lawyer and businessman. Jay, my friend, pick on someone else, you are out of your class. Ask Chris to get a licence and stop trying to cheat people.

    "Thank you for your email of 02 March 2011. I have checked the records held by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for a Mr Christopher Michael Riser and can confirm that he has never held a practicing certificate.

    I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further queries that you would like to discuss, please contact us by telephone on 0870 606 2555. Our lines are open 09.00 to 17.00 Monday to Friday. If you are calling from overseas please use 44 (0) 1527 504450. Please note calls may be monitored/recorded for training purposes. Alternatively you can e-mail us on contactcentre@sra.org.uk.

    Thank you for contacting the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

    Yours sincerely

    Lucinda Jones
    Contact Centre Officer
    Solicitors Regulation Authority
    (: 0870 606 2555
    7: 0207 320 5964
    *: contactcentre@sra.org.uk
    P Go green – keep it on screen

    Follow the SRA on Twitter - http://twitter.com/sra_solicitors
    Subscribe to our YouTube channel - http://youtube.com/user/SRAsolicitors

    The SRA is transforming its approach to regulation. Our current consultation is the last chance to comment on the new regulatory handbook, including the new Code of Conduct, which will underpin the regulation of solicitors and law firms from October 2011. See www.sra.org.uk/consultations".

  • Ry
      30th of Jul, 2011
    +2 Votes

    Agreed. Jay Adkisson's strategy is, "I you can't beat 'em, slander 'em." He slams everyone else's asset protection techniques. Yet, his own have proven over and over again not work. I he just promoted his own, fine. But for discrediting everyone else's techniques, he's but himself right in the firing line in my book.

  • Ry
      30th of Jul, 2011
    +2 Votes

    Agreed. The strategy of Jay Adkisson - I you cannot beat them, slander them. He slams the asset protection techniques of everyone else. Yet, his own have proven over and over again not work. I he just promoted his own system, fine. But for discrediting everyone else, he has put himself right in the firing line in my book; and I'm going to take as many shots as I can to discredit this deceiving liar.

  • An
      17th of Dec, 2015
    0 Votes

    I lost $100, 000 in asset protection listening to this guy. He built my trust when he calls everyone else a scam artist and with his ties to law enforcement. I was told to put money in an account for a trust fund. Then when I went to see my account the money was gone. I have no savings for my children because of him. Don't waste your money on this guy.

  • Re
      17th of Dec, 2015
    0 Votes

    Of course, if any of these complaints were real, they would have been taken up with one of the five Bar Associations where Adkisson is licensed and he would have been disbarred. Instead, of course, he continues to be in good standing today.

    These are must more of the same lies by scam artists who Adkisson has exposed through his Quatloos.com anti-fraud website, i.e., anonymous slimebags probably most of whom like Karl Dahlstrom have felony backgrounds. Just go to http://www.bop.gov and look up:


    KARL L DAHLSTROM
    Register Number: 12894-054

Post your comment