As an aspiring law student, the individual who posted the comments on 12/30/08 (yes, even though the posting is made anonymously, enough was said that the identity of the poster is known) concerning the management and staff of Euclid Court Apartments should be very well aware of the fact that his statements, which are false and malicious in nature constitute slander upon the manager and maintenance person at Euclid Court. In the event he is keeping tabs of responses to his blatant attempt to cause harm to the professional reputations of the staff and management, he should know that a civil lawsuit is currently under consideration.

In addressing the accusations, it can only be said that any rational individual experiencing problems such as claimed in the posting on 12/30/08, would have voiced concern to management, owners and the appropriate law enforcement authorities. No such contact ever occurred. ( It is worth noting that upon moving out, a litany of complaints was given along with assurance that law enforcement officials had been notified and an investigation was underway. This is untrue. No such reports were ever made. )

As for the theft of his vehicle, it was, in fact, stolen from the premises of Euclid Court Apartments. It is an unfortunate fact that we must face such problems in our lives, however when a number of vehicles is left unattended in a parking lot, however well lit, occassional accidents, thefts and vandalism will inevitably occur. His vehicle was eventually recovered by the authorities and neither the manager or any other member of the staff at Euclid Court was implicated in the theft.

It remains unknown how the individual who anonymously made the original posting can claim that the locks on his apartment were changed at any time while he was a resident at Euclid Court. When he abandoned the premises, he returned the very same keys that he was given the day that he took possession of the premises. Never was there any report of an inability to operate any lock, doorknob or deadbolt.

Although the internet allows one a degree of anonymity in making statements of such a slanderous nature with a relative degree of safety from legal recourse, when one goes to the trouble publishing such malicious, untrue, statements, he should not make the mistake of making the same statements, verbatim, by other media or outlet and signing his name to them. The likelihood of two unrelated individuals making identical written statements months apart is inconveivable. It is quite obvious who made the original posting (as I am sure it is obvious that I am intimately acquainted with the individuals whose behavior has been called into question). Such a malicious attempt to damage the professional reputations of an individual by spreading false accusations and publishing untrue stories concerning their conduct is prohibited by law. For whatever reason the individual feels a need to cause harm or to exact some sort of retribution on the injured parties, there are appropriate channels to voice concerns and solve disputes. Never is behavior such as what has been exhibited appropriate or justifiable and will not be tolerated.

User Responses
From: Anonymous	Date: 01/07/2009
In response to the so called malicious statement one has boosted in responding post. The ideas that were allocated in such post was that you wish to sue for deformation and slander. You should know the facts of issue before you further establish more legal action that may be brought against particular individuals. For any landlord or legal representative of a living community has a higher degree of responsibility for defamation against a previous renter in the light of our legal system. Fact of the situation is as follows: a vehicle was in fact stolen from the Euclid court apartment, many vehicles have been vandalized, and broken into, and stolen from Euclid court apartment. The area that the vehicle in question was stolen from was in fact well light, and secluded from the street in a residences area. Contact was made on this occasion to the Manager of the Euclid court apartment, and the response from the manager of the Euclid court apartment was, ??????what the hell are you calling me for, it??????s not my problem.?????? At that time officer were called to the seen of the crime, and they were approached by another individual that reside at the complex in a regard that her vehicle had suffered the same type of damages in the same week, and that the only thing that had stopped them from stealing her car was that she had the club. At that time the officer informed the victim that they would place the vehicle as a stolen car. Inside of the car was a 2007 laptop under the seat of the passenger side. Two weeks after the vehicle was reported stole the laptop turned up in the dumpster next to the victim??????s home stripped of all the inner contents. Police were contacted. Since you have already admitted to this on your post which has been captured as evidence, then giving police report No are not a necessity. After a month of living at the residence one of the worker attempted to gain access to the apartment without any warning, or work order while renter was sleeping on the couch, resident heard the door opening, and met the worker at the door. The worker had an individual with them, and a nap sack with a small blanket. When the door was fully opened by the renter the worker just look surprised, and said nothing. The person that was with the work was shocked. After several moments, the surprised work and the guest turned around and left the building with out saying anything. Facts: when resident moved into the home they were given a key to the post office box, after several attempts to unlock the P.O. Box concerns were directed to the manager of the complex. At which time the manager of the complex did in fact change the PO Box lock at the request of the renter. The new key was slide under the door of the residence. Two week later while at school someone entered into the renter residence and took possession of the PO Box key from the residence key hanger with out permission. The mail man was informed of the situation, and was allowing the residence to gain access to the mail box buy meeting them at the mail box at certain time of the day. After a week went by while meeting the mail man at the PO Box it was discover that the key had been left in the lock with the door to the box left open. Police reports were made of these incidents. Atlanta police complaint information report NO. 081922008 investigators W.J. Lyons. Fact: While at school someone gained access to renter apartment again, and took an Ipod from the residence with out permission of the renter. No sign of forced enter were noticeable, and all windows and doors to the residence were in fact locked. Also, one Tommy hill figure shirt was missing form the belongs of the resident. Also, one Tommy hill figure belt was taken from the resident at a different time. Small item were being taken from the renter at different times. Fact: when resident moved into the complex they were given a key that gained access to the front and the back door of the residence. Renter only used the back door due to that was where they parked the car, but did use the front door to move into the residence. One key unlocked both door to the residence, as the responder to previous post has already stated in their response, which has been captured as evidence. Which you have already stated too in your response was returned to you, renter tried to use said key to unlock the front door from the outside of the apartment. Every attempt to unlock the door with the key went unanswered. After careful examination it was discovered that the lock had been changed, and that the key in possession of the renter would no longer work. Witness to these events would be an officer of the Atlanta police department. Which you have stated in your response post that the key did in fact unlock the door. I guess you will now say the police officer is lying too. Atlanta police report NO. 082241550. After careful examination of the event, a thirty day notice was written, and signed by the renter that he would in fact be vacating the premises within thirty days. These events were witness by constituencies, and such notice was given to the Euclid court apartment, which was also witnessed. Although the responder in previous post would like people to think that renter abandoned the apartment, all that has to be done is to read his statement that they have previously posted carefully to see that these are in fact false statements. They states that the apartment was abandoned, then they says that a detailed list was given for reason why renter made the choice to move. This detailed list, which was the thirty day written notice, is what the responder is writing about. Abandonment of the premises was in fact an overly zealous attempt by writer of the post to make thing sound in the favor of the complex that would try to make the renter look like they were doing anything other then removing themselves from an unsafe, hap hazardous situation atmosphere. Fact: rent tried to obtain the owner number form the manager of the complex on several occasion by telephone. Messages were left on the manager telephone. Response by the manager was that he would not give that information to renter, after he did an inquisitive inquiry into why renter wanted owner telephone number. Which I believe is against the law as well. What manager did not know is that that information was obtained in county record tax information, and is accessible to the general public under the freedom of information act, and sunshine laws. I would advise the manger of the Euclid court apartment that when messing with anyone who studies law to make sure that that person has not symmetrically started building a case against you over the course of a year. Collecting evidence, and making report, and hiding camera inside residence. I would further make sure that none of his Euclid court staff, has ever been arrested for anything, and has never plead guilty to any type of criminal charges no matter what they are. I would make sure that they have never been confined, detained, or placed in to custody of any type for any period of time, that they have no criminal record what so ever in the state of Georgia or any other state that could easily be obtained through N.C.I.C., before they make the whole sale decision to sue anyone for slander or malicious statement

Your thoughts? Post a response to this review. Display my response: with my username anonymously Responses appear below reviews and one response per user is permitted.

   Free estimates on moving trucks      Find apartment share/roommates