Tweet
This company has a permanent injunction and permanent restraining order you may download from this post
-
-
The injunction was agreed to without a trial, without taking any evidence, and without any admission of liability or wrongdoing to settle the litigation. It is not evidence of any misconduct and shall not be treated as an admission of liability by any party for any purpose.
On the other hand, "AyatollahGondola" is Davi Rodrigues who sued Mr. Bixby and lost. Mr. Bixby sued Mr. Rodrigues and has a judgment against him in excess of $105,000, for breach of lease. Mr. Rodrigues’ motivation is obvious. -
Zack and Ayatollah,
Please read the forum rules. One specifically prohibits using the forum to engage in a private war with another registrant.
Ayatollah,
This download was originally posted in the Report fraud and corruption forum, but that is designated for public officials, politicians, and related. It was moved into general discussion for lack of a better forum. This thread and the attached file are going to be reviewed by other moderators and/or the administrators for its' value to Fight Back in Sac. Unless there is some substantial link to public government here, it may be removed.Comment
-
Mark Bixby/ MJB Construction is still a crook
No matter what Zack says, this guy is an itimidating, liar and a crook.
He will take advantage of you at ANY cost.
He prays on the elderly and the weak.
He has the court system down to a science.
The reason there was no trial is because he would have had to admit guilt. This was his way of avoiding that.
If you would like to KNOW if he is lying, just look at his lips. If they are moving, he is lying.
Stay clear of this dude!
( Unless of course you have a ton of money to lose and throw away)
True BlueComment
-
Zak
Sorry, nice try.
I don't know the case personaly but here's my take on it.
Bixby's attorney told him to take the stipulation, Why? Because if Bixby lost the case, which apprently there was a good chance he was going to loose otherwise he would have fought it, then Bixby would be liable for the defendants attorney fees, court costs, damages, etc, maybe even criminal procedings. This way his wrongdoing slips into oblivion.
I don't know Davi's situation but I do know Bixby. He is vindictive. If he thinks you crossed him or if he can get away with it, he will spend thousands to hound you. Thats just the way he is.
How do I know Bixby, you guessed it, I used to work for him. He's come after me too.
I have been in construction 30 years. I have been a superintendent since early 90s. In all my years, I have never worked for anyone like Bixby. Not one project I worked on was the client happy. My first project for him was heading for litigation before I even started with the company.
To everyone else reading this ... do yourself a favor, before contracting with Bixby, ask for a list of 10 happy clients you can contact as references. If he does come up with 10, check them very carefully.Last edited by big_cheez; 09-10-2007, 10:50 PM.Comment
-
I can show a link. Fightbackinsac's introduction:
This injunction is a small part of a larger case that was brought by a couple who obviously did not get help from city, county, and state authorities. They sued on their own, and upon winning, or settling if you prefer Zack, they thought about the rest of us rather than just themselves. Read the settlement and you'll see that it was brought in the interests and for the protection of the general public. Many of us have been there too. You can't get the authorities to act, so nothing gets done about it. These folks did it themselves. There's a lesson in there for all of us here. An example if you will...They did the work that a DA or an AG should have done.Fight Back in Sac was created as a meeting place for those who seek empowerment, information, and allies to aid in the battle against corruption, malfeasance, and fraud that occurs in our government.Comment
-
Ayatollah,
Your justifications for this posting are not quite in line with your initial presentation. If this uploaded file is only part of the case, and it was meant to educate the rest of the board as you say, then a proper introduction would have been appropriate first. Just posting the file first is a little confusing to say the least. The upload will be removed soon , however the thread can remain for a few days to allow you time to clarify it if you still want to.
Welcome TrueBlue and Big Cheese!,
I see you both have strong opinions. And they are your opinions. Please review the forum rules.Comment
-
Hey Big Cheese, if not one job you worked on was the client happy, maybe the problem was you.Last edited by Zack; 09-20-2007, 03:23 PM.Comment
-
To align the thread and my posts in a more appropriate fashion to the boards mission, I will post the evidence in the original case from both sides, and the story that might show a clear pathway towards an example the rest of us may follow when our government and the peripheral governing bodies connected to it do not protect and serve the public.
This is meant to be a direct testimonial to the malfeasance of the California state Contractors license board, the Attorney Generals office, and the local district attorney here in Sacramento. From start to finish, the highlights of the case...including the evidence alleged, the methods employed, and the results that followed.Comment
-
First off, it is still a permanent injunction. Secondly, just because it was agreed to without the taking of evidence does not mean there wasn't any. There was in fact, lots of evidence. Or should I say, there is lots of evidence? It's all still available, and the court retains jurisdiction.
And as far as it not being treated as an admission of liability, I noticed that Bixby neither admitted nor denied the allegations.
Regardless of my motivation, these things are fact:
The injunction is in effect
The injunction is permanent and forever
The injunction is a public documentComment
-
It also includes a permanent restraining order for the plaintiffs family; The wife, and kids?. This also, without the taking of any evidence, nor an admission of guilt? Now who would agree to such a thing under normal circumstances? Why would a plaintiff in a case even ask for such a far reaching protective order in the settlement?Comment
-
I hired MJB Bixby and it was a nightmare. Bixby can be beaten and has been a few times, but its best to avoid him. The guy is friendly and slick when writing the contract. But he is there to get your money, not do the job right. He thrives on bullying and pursuing others and actually seems to enjoy litigation.
The contractors board is run by contractors and mired in rules that give them every chance to protect their buddies' licenses. As a result, his record was spotless when we hired him and even after the complaints we and others filed. You can't trust their records.
If you want an indicator of whether this guy is trouble, search Sacramento courts online case listing at the link below. By my count, 16 civil cases since 2001. I think that's an obvious warning to anyone thinking of hiring him.
Comment
-
Welcome FB,
Actually, the count is around 25 for civil, around 30 more for small claims, and then there's unlawful detainer court that has 7 or so more. Each week, more of them are uploaded to this website below
Comment
-
MJB Bixby - Crook or Innocent? Search the court records to find out.
Here's the definitive way to find out whether you can trust MJB Bixby... go to Sac Superior online and search their case filings. You'll see that Bixby is extremely litigious.
Want to dig further, go down and check out the most recent cases. Its all there. The CSLB is filled with contractors and as such, it can't be trusted to police its own. Its set up to give the contractor every break you could imagine.
Do your own research. Go here and look at how many times he has sued others. Suing his clients is apparently a hobby for Mr. Bixby.
https://services.saccourt.com/indexsearchnew/Comment
-
Actually, you can find more of his activities on this website:
This site will help newcomers navigate around the public records arenaComment
Comment