ScamVictimsUnited.com

There is strength in numbers.

Scams in Today's News:


Bookmark and Share
It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:43 am



All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:54 am
Posts: 12
My purchasing manager has been dealing with a chemical supply company [cleaning supplies] called Texkem Inc, seems they are located in Ronkonkoma, NY, anyone ever hear or deal with this company before? I found this link at http://www.i-rate.org/rating.php?id=231775 and saw several people were claiming they were a scam, high pressure and fraudulent company. User submissions claim they were charged for orders not placed and were "bribed". We just began doing business with them and are wondering if anyone has anything to share that supports that. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:51 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:10 am
Posts: 583
First off... after reading the "ratings" from that link you provided I don't trust it... they all sound/look like they are coming from the same person and another red flag was they stated "they charged "my" credit card", this company only does business with other businesses and not individuals. (I called them and they were very nice with no pressure tactics whatsoever). I also found out that they have a major contract and do businesses with the Chicago Public Schools System.

Next I ran a BBB and the results for the past 3 years can be seen below. Nothing was reported in the past 12 months and only 4 reported in the 2 years prior and all 4 were resolved. keep in mind that the results can also be by one entity... They have a very good rating thru the BBB.... My observation is that they are a legit company and because of their size it is inevitable that they will get a complaint or two every now and then just like any other company this size.

http://search.newyork.bbb.org/reports.a ... Only=False


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:54 am
Posts: 12
Thanks for the quick reply, also found this, I doubt this is the same person connected to the first one, http://www.yale.edu/hronline/busmgr/060 ... ent_g.html, simple google searches, I just dont want to fall victim to something like this and want to know if anyone else has dealt with this company and can let me know how the business connection is going.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 6:15 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:10 am
Posts: 583
I've researched even further and still come up with nothing. They have been in business since 1992 (18 years) and have had very few complaints. They did business with the Chicago Public Schools System in 2002 and 2003 with no complaints. They are regulated and licensed by the State of Massachusetts. The second link you posted only says " The tactics used by this company mirror those used by Stone Cold Chemicals" however they have never been taken to court or found guilty of any fraudulent or deceptive practices. I contacted Yale and they said that report was posted back in 2006 and they have heard nothing in reply to that post to indicate any wrong doings by Texkem. I still think being in business for 18 years and finding very little as far as complaints or lawsuits only tells me that they are a legitimate business. I even ran them on "Ripoff Reports" http://www.ripoffreport.com/Search/Body/TEXKEM-INC.aspx and nothing shows up at all. Please keep us posted as to your dealings with them, we would not only like to list information on those companies who are fraudulent or deceptive but also list those companies who are legit and trustworthy so that anyone else who may inquire about them can find this information here on SVU.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:54 am
Posts: 12
Thanks again for the reply, we just need to consider what is out there and how others have responded. Nothing yet so far, just looking for someone else who has been in contact and doing business with them that could share their experiences. It is just always good to take in account what others have been saying. I also don't think others would make false statements for no reason, that's why I want to know what really happened. Anything else, please keep me informed, we don't want to fall victim to the "allegations" people are claiming.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:54 am
Posts: 12
Haven't posted in a while and are wondering if anyone has any updates on Texkem? It seems their BBB rating has rapidly decreased and they have an "F" standing. They are not accredited by the Better Business Bureau and have several complaints which have not been resolved. I sense a little bit of shadiness upon our dealing with the company and would like to know if anyone else feels the same and could shed some light. Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:07 pm
Posts: 1
Texkem (Caller ID says Texxem, Inc. but the phone number online is the same as Texkem) has been calling our home based office for quite some time and refuses to take us off their call list. Whenever I have requested it, they hang up on me. They called this morning at 6:20am and asked for my husband. When I asked who he was he responded that it was regarding "maintenance". I asked if he realized he was calling our home at 6am and he responded he did not know and asked for my husband again. I informed him we are on the DO NOT CALL list (have been on it for years and update frequently) and asked him to remove us from his call list.He stated that he does not have a list, that lists are a mystery to him and that he was going to call our home every single day until he got ahold of my husband and then hung up on me. I called his number from the caller ID a few hours later and asked to speak with a manager or owner of the company. Unfortunatley, I ended up with the same guy that called me at 6:20am this morning. He said there was a protocol and I could not speak with anyone. I told him I did not appreciate his early morning call, continued calls to our home, his threat to call us every single day, and let him know that we would not be purchasing anything from his company. He told me to go F--- myself and hung up on me. I have read elsewhere that they sell chemicals (although not sure what kind) which as farmers we may use but can guarantee you we will never purchase them from this company. We are sick of being harassed by these people and wish we knew how to get them to stop calling our home!


Last edited by Farmer on Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:52 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:10 am
Posts: 583
At this point it's considered harassment and that's against the law... go to this site and follow the instructions as they pertain to you so that you can put an end to this person's harassing you by phone:

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs3-hrs2.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:29 pm
Posts: 1
Texkem owner name is Ronald Venza.I checked through lxis/nexis.
Seems he's had some federal charges (mail fraud/wire fraud)against him in past for same type of operation.
I did business with them once...and that was 1 too many times.
A complete fiasco.
HI Pressure, tried to tell me I'd ordered again and was going to ship even if I canceled.A bunch of slimy animals.
Some companies need to be kept far away from humans...and this is one of them!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:54 am
Posts: 12
any other word on this venza character?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:54 am
Posts: 12
from another scam website:

with a little research, it seems this Venza character is no stranger to chemical sales and the justice system... :roll:

Source: LexisNexis

2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 10462,*;8 Fed. Appx. 105
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v., , RONALD VENZA, a/k/a John Roberts,
No. 00-1762
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
8 Fed. Appx. 105; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 10462
May 17, 2001, Decided
NOTICE:

[*1] RULES OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Thomas C. Platt, Judge).
DISPOSITION:

AFFIRMED, except with respect to daily reporting requirement and travel ban imposed as conditions of Venza's probation which are VACATED and REMANDED to District Court for clarification and further findings.
COUNSEL: Appearing for Appellant: Robert C. Gottlieb, New York, NY.

Appearing for Appellee: Robert P. Larusso, Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Lorretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney, Cecil C. Scott, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), New York, NY.
JUDGES: PRESENT: HON. RALPH K. WINTER, HON. CHESTER J. STRAUB, HON. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Ronald Venza appeals from a sentence entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Thomas C. Platt, Judge) after Venza pled guilty to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. [*2] On October 27th, 2000, Venza was sentenced to five years' probation with six months' home confinement. As conditions of his probation Venza was prohibited from traveling outside the Eastern District of New York during the five-year period (without exception) and was required to report daily to the Probation Department. On appeal, Venza argues that the travel ban and daily reporting requirement were abuses of the District Court's discretion and that the District Court erred by refusing to allow Venza's counsel to fully and freely speak on his behalf at the time of sentencing.

Venza, along with six other defendants, was indicted for conspiracy and mail fraud violations arising from Venza's employment as a sales representative for Chemtrex International Corporation. The indictment alleged that Venza and his co-defendants defrauded customers through high pressure and fraudulent sales techniques, including payment of bribes to purchasing agents in order to sell products at grossly inflated prices. In exchange for the government agreeing to submit a motion to the District Court affirming Venza's cooperation in the investigation in the hope of securing leniency in sentencing, Venza agreed [*3] to plead guilty to one count of the indictment and to assist the government with its investigation.

On October 27, 2000, the District Court held a sentencing hearing. There, Venza's counsel argued in favor of probation rather than imprisonment and informed the court that since his guilty plea, Venza has led a law-abiding, family life. Moreover, because Venza was employed as a salesman for his wife's business, Venza's counsel argued against home confinement. Despite these arguments, the District Court stated that it found Venza to be "a totally irresponsible person" and imposed a sentence including six-months home confinement and a five-year probation period; in addition, as conditions of probation the court imposed a daily reporting requirement and a complete travel ban. Venza now argues that the imposition of the travel ban and daily reporting requirement were abuses of the District Court's discretion because by precluding him from lawful employment as a salesman in his wife's business, Venza's sentence fails to promote the aims of the Federal Probation Act--rehabilitating the defendant and protecting the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3651.

Federal district [*4] courts are accorded broad discretion to fashion the conditions of a probation sentence. See United States v. Tolla, 781 F.2d 29, 32 (2d Cir. 1986). Because we will intervene only when the conditions of probation amount to an abuse of the district court's authority, a defendant seeking to overturn a condition of probation faces a heavy burden. See id. One of the few limitations placed on a district court is that "conditions of probation be reasonably related to the simultaneous goals of rehabilitating the defendant and protecting the public." Id. at 32-33. A condition of probation is reasonably related to the these goals so long as it is not "unnecessarily harsh or excessive." Id. at 34. For example, in Tolla, we upheld a probation sentence that prohibited a defendant who made false statements under oath from teaching religious education. In doing so, we stated that denying the defendant the satisfaction she derived from such activities "should serve as a potent but not unreasonable deterrent against the temptation to perjure herself in the future, thereby reinforcing her continued rehabilitation." Id. at 34. [*5] Similarly, in United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 925 F.2d 604, 608 (2d Cir. 1991) we upheld a sentence prohibiting a defendant from traveling to Europe because travel restrictions "reinforc[ce the defendant's] perception that misdeeds do result in constraints on freedom," thereby furthering the rehabilitative goal of probation.

In the instant case, however, the District Court failed to adequately state how the travel restrictions are "reasonably related to rehabilitating the defendant and protecting the public." United States v. Friedberg, 78 F.3d 94, 96-97 (2d Cir. 1996). Without a more developed record that includes the District Court's reasons for imposing the travel ban in light of the goals of the Federal Probation Act, we are unable to determine if the District Court exceeded its allowable discretion. We thus remand to the District Court for further findings to determine if the travel ban is reasonably related to Venza's rehabilitation and the protection of the public. See id.

In addition, we also remand to clarify the daily reporting requirement. During the sentencing hearing, the District Court stated that:

I'm going [*6] to put you on probation for five years. You're going to do six months home confinement and you will report daily to your probation officer if you aren't home. If necessary you will wear a bracelet.It is not clear from this statement whether the District Court intended the reporting requirement to be limited to the six-month home confinement period or to extend throughout the entire probation period. Therefore, we remand so that the District Court may clarify Venza's reporting obligations. n1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1

Venza requests that we remand to a different judge due to Judge Platt's "overt hostility" to him. Brief for Defendant-Appellant at 17. However, remanding to a different judge is an extraordinary remedy that we will entertain "only in the rare instance in which the judge's fairness or the appearance of the judge's fairness is seriously in doubt." United States v. Bradley, 812 F.2d 774, 782 n.9 (2d Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Here, we see no reason to question Judge Platt's fairness and decline this request.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[*7] Finally, Venza argues that his counsel was denied an opportunity to speak on his behalf during the sentencing hearing. During the hearing, while engaged in an exchange directly with the defendant, the District Court cut off an attempt by Venza's counsel to interject, directing him to "be quiet for a minute." Later, when defense counsel argued against the travel ban, the court again cut him off and then stated that "I'll tell you now, you're going to argue him into jail. . . ." Venza now argues the District Court's actions violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(3)(B) which requires the court to "afford defendant's counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant." The isolated exchanges that Venza identifies, however, fail to capture the totality of the sentencing hearing. After reviewing the transcript, it is clear that the District Court afforded both Venza and his counsel ample opportunity to address the court.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED, except with respect to the daily reporting requirement and travel ban imposed as conditions of Venza's probation which are VACATED and REMANDED to the District Court for clarification [*8] and further findings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TEXKEM INC, RONKONKOMA NY, SCAM?
PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:54 am
Posts: 12
anything new? :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 



All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Untitled document

 cron

Disclaimers, Message Board Guidelines and Privacy Policy   

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group