A few years ago Jim Rosenberger, the Owner of ExecSearch Carolina LLC/RoseSearch , an experienced healthcare recruiter,(15 years experience) partnered with me, a brand new recruiter to recruit healthcare candidates for his clients. I, with my recruiters, filled 10+ positions which could net us $30,000!!! But Jim Rosenberger told me the check was in the mail, fooled me by tricks and hooks and in the end cut off his telephone line and disappeared. In total Jim Rosenberger netted $30,000 out of my inexperience. I tried to file lawsuit but was out of funds to do that. I tried to forget about this whole thing, which I blamed myself for my foolishness until today I found out his website and his new company information. He changed his company name from Rose Search to ExecSearch AND I JUST CALLED TO VERIFY IT WAS HIM!!!

 


The following is his contact information.


Jim Rosenberger

ExecSearch Carolina LLC/RoseSearch

15105-D John J. Delaney Drive, Suite 214

Charlotte, NC 28277

Phone: 704.752.5100

E-Mail:info@execsearchcarolina.com

Website: http://www.execsear chcarolina.com

Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jim-rosenberger/7/ab1/635

 

Donna

PS: Anyone interested to abolish such acts simply send an email to contact me and we can talk.

 

Views: 334

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It looks like to me that this is a poorly written split agreement that justified one party refusing payment to another and the other party not refunding for fallouts. No language as to how fall outs would be handled, no language as to fee schedules and guarantees or guarantee periods and who would do what if placements fell out or if refunds were due or if offset could be used.

Here's my take on this deal from what's been presented.

Donna referred five candidates who were placed.
She was paid on two candidates who fell out before the guarantee period was satisfied.
Donna did not refund what she had been paid but provided three more candidates.
Jim used Donna's share of one of those candidates to cover refunds or replacements.
This would seem to leave two more candidates that Donna referred who were placed that she was not paid her part of the split.

If those facts are correct Jim may be correct that the third was a wash for the two who fell out.
So how about the other two?

How about it Jim, if you owe her for the last two who were placed and didn't fall out how about you pay her?

How about it Donna, if you were paid on the first two who fell out how about the third being a make good for the two you got paid for who fell out that you didn't refund on. How about making an attempt to settle with Jim for the last two who didn't fall out instead of ignoring that he paid you for two who fell out.

Since your agreement didn't address what would happen in the event of fall outs it turned into a mess. But it would seem to be fair that if Jim took a hit on the two who fell out but you got paid, it would be fair to use the third to make the playing field level. If Jim pissadeared and didn't pay you for the two who didn't fall out it would seem fair that he do so. As attorneys have already been involved i doubt that any resolution will be reached on this deal but it would sure renew my faith in the ability of people to work out the results of a messy agreement without clarification of contingencies.

How about some real numbers as to what was paid to Donna for which candidate, which candidates fell out , which candidate was used as a wash and the balance left after the playing field got leveled. Then try for a settlement where both of you walk away thinking you only got popped a little bit. That's a good deal when a mess like this happens.

Or i guess due to a messy agreement you both can just continue to sling it in the court of public opinion which ain't good for anybody. Jim can remain accused and questionable , Donna can remain furious. Or everybody can end up in court for one thing or the other. Makes for some interesting reading and a strong reminder of the need for good agreements that address what happens if.....
Though I said I would not post anything else. Lets get the facts straight. 1. Donna failed to post the letter from my attorney to hers, which there was no response. 2. The law firm says there is no such person at the firm, though I could understand that he may have left, but did he quit being a lawyer? 3. There were only 3 placements. The two other candidates that are referred to were candidates that applied either directly to the company or to us before Eagle submitted them. This was detailed in an email to Donna's recrutier, and we have the acknowlegement, which was in fact part of the documents submitted to the law firm that Donna seems to either omitted, or quite possibly, never paid for the legal services, and the attorney never forwarded them to her.

Either way, Now I am Done with This. By the way, I do not post my picture because it just makes the girls crazy!!!!! Just adding a little humor, cause we all need that. The authorities are handling this. I am done. If I really wanted to get technical....she probably owes me money, as the refunded candidate was a much higher fee than the others. By the way, one of the candidates that applied on her own................quit in 26 Days

Sandra McCartt said:
It looks like to me that this is a poorly written split agreement that justified one party refusing payment to another and the other party not refunding for fallouts. No language as to how fall outs would be handled, no language as to fee schedules and guarantees or guarantee periods and who would do what if placements fell out or if refunds were due or if offset could be used.

Here's my take on this deal from what's been presented.

Donna referred five candidates who were placed.
She was paid on two candidates who fell out before the guarantee period was satisfied.
Donna did not refund what she had been paid but provided three more candidates.
Jim used Donna's share of one of those candidates to cover refunds or replacements.
This would seem to leave two more candidates that Donna referred who were placed that she was not paid her part of the split.

If those facts are correct Jim may be correct that the third was a wash for the two who fell out.
So how about the other two?

How about it Jim, if you owe her for the last two who were placed and didn't fall out how about you pay her?

How about it Donna, if you were paid on the first two who fell out how about the third being a make good for the two you got paid for who fell out that you didn't refund on. How about making an attempt to settle with Jim for the last two who didn't fall out instead of ignoring that he paid you for two who fell out.

Since your agreement didn't address what would happen in the event of fall outs it turned into a mess. But it would seem to be fair that if Jim took a hit on the two who fell out but you got paid, it would be fair to use the third to make the playing field level. If Jim pissadeared and didn't pay you for the two who didn't fall out it would seem fair that he do so. As attorneys have already been involved i doubt that any resolution will be reached on this deal but it would sure renew my faith in the ability of people to work out the results of a messy agreement without clarification of contingencies.

How about some real numbers as to what was paid to Donna for which candidate, which candidates fell out , which candidate was used as a wash and the balance left after the playing field got leveled. Then try for a settlement where both of you walk away thinking you only got popped a little bit. That's a good deal when a mess like this happens.

Or i guess due to a messy agreement you both can just continue to sling it in the court of public opinion which ain't good for anybody. Jim can remain accused and questionable , Donna can remain furious. Or everybody can end up in court for one thing or the other. Makes for some interesting reading and a strong reminder of the need for good agreements that address what happens if.....
Ah the plot thickens. If what Jim states is fact that the other two candidates had applied on their own or had already been sourced and Donna/her recruiter had been notified. It's all over. The court of public opinion is adjourned. Opps, Donna may be in a whole nother mess. Isn't it fun to see more info being squeezed out drip by drip.

Jim, maybe the lawyer died. God knows that working with recruiters would make any lawyer want to.

Looks to me like at this point hit don't make no differnce who shot John. The old boy is dead and it be time to bury him before he starts to stink.

The real question may be where did both of you find all these candidates who quit so fast?
Jim,

Assuming all the far-fetched stories you told were true, (I will respond to that later) can you explain the 6 emails you sent regarding "the checks are in your mailbox" which kept me checking daily for months, which never APPEARED?? Why did you have to keep lying to have me work for you??

Jim, you may be more experienced, more equippped with language skills, but the sad news is that you are on the wrong side of truth!

Donna



Jim Rosenberger said:
Though I said I would not post anything else. Lets get the facts straight. 1. Donna failed to post the letter from my attorney to hers, which there was no response. 2. The law firm says there is no such person at the firm, though I could understand that he may have left, but did he quit being a lawyer? 3. There were only 3 placements. The two other candidates that are referred to were candidates that applied either directly to the company or to us before Eagle submitted them. This was detailed in an email to Donna's recrutier, and we have the acknowlegement, which was in fact part of the documents submitted to the law firm that Donna seems to either omitted, or quite possibly, never paid for the legal services, and the attorney never forwarded them to her.

Either way, Now I am Done with This. By the way, I do not post my picture because it just makes the girls crazy!!!!! Just adding a little humor, cause we all need that. The authorities are handling this. I am done. If I really wanted to get technical....she probably owes me money, as the refunded candidate was a much higher fee than the others. By the way, one of the candidates that applied on her own................quit in 26 Days

Sandra McCartt said:
It looks like to me that this is a poorly written split agreement that justified one party refusing payment to another and the other party not refunding for fallouts. No language as to how fall outs would be handled, no language as to fee schedules and guarantees or guarantee periods and who would do what if placements fell out or if refunds were due or if offset could be used.

Here's my take on this deal from what's been presented.

Donna referred five candidates who were placed.
She was paid on two candidates who fell out before the guarantee period was satisfied.
Donna did not refund what she had been paid but provided three more candidates.
Jim used Donna's share of one of those candidates to cover refunds or replacements.
This would seem to leave two more candidates that Donna referred who were placed that she was not paid her part of the split.

If those facts are correct Jim may be correct that the third was a wash for the two who fell out.
So how about the other two?

How about it Jim, if you owe her for the last two who were placed and didn't fall out how about you pay her?

How about it Donna, if you were paid on the first two who fell out how about the third being a make good for the two you got paid for who fell out that you didn't refund on. How about making an attempt to settle with Jim for the last two who didn't fall out instead of ignoring that he paid you for two who fell out.

Since your agreement didn't address what would happen in the event of fall outs it turned into a mess. But it would seem to be fair that if Jim took a hit on the two who fell out but you got paid, it would be fair to use the third to make the playing field level. If Jim pissadeared and didn't pay you for the two who didn't fall out it would seem fair that he do so. As attorneys have already been involved i doubt that any resolution will be reached on this deal but it would sure renew my faith in the ability of people to work out the results of a messy agreement without clarification of contingencies.

How about some real numbers as to what was paid to Donna for which candidate, which candidates fell out , which candidate was used as a wash and the balance left after the playing field got leveled. Then try for a settlement where both of you walk away thinking you only got popped a little bit. That's a good deal when a mess like this happens.

Or i guess due to a messy agreement you both can just continue to sling it in the court of public opinion which ain't good for anybody. Jim can remain accused and questionable , Donna can remain furious. Or everybody can end up in court for one thing or the other. Makes for some interesting reading and a strong reminder of the need for good agreements that address what happens if.....
Sandra Judge,

Thank you for your dedicated efforts! I am grateful for your involvement. I need more people like you to engage in this matter. This relates to every recruiter in one way or another, I think.

Thanks again and I'll supply with more facts.

Donna


Sandra McCartt said:
Ah the plot thickens. If what Jim states is fact that the other two candidates had applied on their own or had already been sourced and Donna/her recruiter had been notified. It's all over. The court of public opinion is adjourned. Opps, Donna may be in a whole nother mess. Isn't it fun to see more info being squeezed out drip by drip.

Jim, maybe the lawyer died. God knows that working with recruiters would make any lawyer want to.

Looks to me like at this point hit don't make no differnce who shot John. The old boy is dead and it be time to bury him before he starts to stink.

The real question may be where did both of you find all these candidates who quit so fast?
Not the mommy and not the judge Just an interested bystander.

That is an interesting question though. Not that it matters much because to my knowledge, "the check's in the mail" may be chicken but it ain't illegal. But ,it does beg the question, if nothing was owed why was there a promise to pay? So maybe it might be a little more than chicken, Was there inducement to continue a relationship under false pretenses that would benefit one partner? But if there were and there were no benefits derived then it would seem to flip back to just chicken. Not a lawyer so i sure don't know.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Subscribe

All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2020   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service