posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 08:30 AM
Now you might think the headline is a bit harsh, but it seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what happened here.
The problem, for them that is, is they picked the wrong 'little old lady' to mess with. lol...
CHICAGO (CN) - Charles Schwab took an elderly woman's $650,000 but refused to invest it as she wanted, needlessly sent police to her house, and
lost $14,000 for her while refusing to give the money back, the woman claims in court.
Kathleen Szewczyk sued Charles Schwab & Co. and affiliates, and Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago Department of Social Services,
in Cook County Court.
Szewczyk has 35 years of experience in accounting, she says in the complaint. She is listed on LinkedIn, the networking website, as a
Chicago-area accounting professional.
They really could have thought things though a whole lot better than they did. I added the emphasis and you'll see next just why it matters. In fact,
her professional ability and education level has everything to do with this specific issue.
"Catholic Charities purportedly contacted plaintiff about her mental clarity and ability to manage her own financial affairs based on
allegations of elder abuse made by Schwab Bank and related to the accounts opened in June 2011," Szewczyk says in the complaint.
She says she told Catholic Charities "that she had nearly 35 years of accounting experience and was well suited to manager her own financial
affairs, and requested that they cease and desist from any further involvement."
Szewczyk says she called the police and told them the same thing.
Nonetheless, she says, "the Hoffman Estates police department and Catholic Charities, at the behest of Schwab Bank, continued questioning
friends and neighbors about plaintiff's mental and financial well-being."
The long and the short of it is, she invested $650,000 with them, they ignored her instructions, and when she got too pushy about HER money? They
literally called the guys with the white coats and butterfly nets (add Rosary Beads in this case) to come take her away.
As usual for the source, it's a lengthy story and well worth reading the whole thing.
She has gotten her money back., less some apparent losses ($14,000). She had to fight tooth and nail to get it, in two different pieces though. They
had the nerve, the article reads, to say the second portion of her money was being held in protection of "her best interests".
It would seem at least the guys she dealt with, knew no limits to scumbaggery. Imagine, if she'd ever faltered in her will to fight back? They'd
have gotten away with it too, by what this indicates.
$650,000 blurs a lot of lines for both ethics and law, it seems.