This constitutes the factual basis for my complaint against david edward martinez doing business as edwards detective agency.i am an attorney and retained the agency on december 24, 2010 by payment of $800 paid to martinez for the service of conducting surveillance at a certain property location from december 25, 2010 at 2 pm to december 26, 2010 at 4 pm.
I inquired about the status at approximately 4 pm on december 25, 2010.martinez claimed he had "an associate" at the property conducting the surveillance.he asked me where i was, which seemed irrelevant to me, and i told him truthfully that i was in san francisco.later i realized that this question was asked so that i could not verify that he was not actually at the property.
I asked him to take a photograph of the scene.an hour and a half later, he told me could not, that it was too dark.he is supposed to be a private detective.he should have been taking photographs periodically all day and any time any movement occurred.i did not get a single photograph, did not get a chronological log of events occurring at the property, and i did not get any reliable information as to what was happening during the surveillance.what i believe is that mr. Martinez took my money, went by the property at most once, and that was the sum total of everything he did.attached as exhibit a is his ad highlighting his skills in surveillance.
Edwards Detective Agency Reviews
This constitutes the factual basis for my complaint against david edward martinez doing business as edwards detective agency.i am an attorney and retained the agency on december 24, 2010 by payment of $800 paid to martinez for the service of conducting surveillance at a certain property location from december 25, 2010 at 2 pm to december 26, 2010 at 4 pm.
I inquired about the status at approximately 4 pm on december 25, 2010.martinez claimed he had "an associate" at the property conducting the surveillance.he asked me where i was, which seemed irrelevant to me, and i told him truthfully that i was in san francisco.later i realized that this question was asked so that i could not verify that he was not actually at the property.
I asked him to take a photograph of the scene.an hour and a half later, he told me could not, that it was too dark.he is supposed to be a private detective.he should have been taking photographs periodically all day and any time any movement occurred.i did not get a single photograph, did not get a chronological log of events occurring at the property, and i did not get any reliable information as to what was happening during the surveillance.what i believe is that mr. Martinez took my money, went by the property at most once, and that was the sum total of everything he did.attached as exhibit a is his ad highlighting his skills in surveillance.
That amounts to fraud.