True life: I dated a (really bad) con artist. Really bad in the sense that he was quite pathetic. Oh, and to make things ever worse it took me nearly a year to admit it to myself that he was and still is a criminal and a jackass. I'm notoriously good at making excuses for others behavior and actions. I would probably make a really good presidential press secretary not because I am a good liar but because I am naive enough to give people the benefit of my doubt.
He took me for at least a grand, which for me, is a Fendi purse I can't have. He wrote me a bunch of bad checks, which royally screwed with my checking account. He did have amazingly entertaining friends who lived in fabulous lofts downtown and darling bungalows in Uptown. They all drove fast, expensive cars and they certainly dressed better than me. They were at least thirty years old. But the thing that bothered me most was they took at least two hours to groom themselves for a night out. They were probably doing lines of coke in the shower or selling it out their bathroom windows. I wouldn't put it past them.
It was a lifestyle that was initially very attractive but one that definitely takes its toll. The routine was always the same, consume copious amounts of alcohol and then gain entrance to clubs via secret back entrances. It was all very Hollywood to me and I think that's why I tolerated it for so long. Looking back, I feel incredibly stupid but also grateful that I learned that lesson so soon and in a relatively minor way. Some people are trash no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.
He still calls at least once a week, sometimes more. I never answer but his message is always the same "Lindsay, Jerome here. Call me back". Nothing threatening or menacing, otherwise I'd tell him off...but frankly I don't think it would stop him. I'm pretty sure no one else tolerated his antics for as long as I did and that's probably why he keeps calling. It was excuse after excuse and I kept eating it up. But things became more interesting a couple of weeks ago when I received a call at work (we used to work together until he was "let go") from the angry fiance of a girl that was apparently scammed by one of his magnificent offers.
I never confirmed this story with Jerome but according to the angry fiance, Jerome had approached this young woman at the department store where she is employed and asked for a list of names of females she knew. He offered her a check for $700.00 explaining that he represented a marketing company that needed more young women to make sales calls. Not to pass judgment on this girl, but that sounds really screwy and on top that he is soliciting her at a clothing store, it's just weird. This poor girl made the exchange, deposited the check, and spent the money like it was nothing. A few days pass and she realizes the check bounced and now she was down and out $700 plus fees.
Apparently, amidst this transaction Jerome had given her his old business card with the name of my company on it, claiming to still be employed here. Amazingly, his voice mail and e-mail were still activated, so while out scamming pretty suburban girls, he was representing our company. So, pretty much any glitter of faith I had in him was annihilated in a very atom-bomb kind of way. This provides me reason to request a background check, employment verification, and credit report on anyone I consider dating or even talking to. At least he wasn't a murderer.
4 comments:
Any chance you'll go to the police about it, seeing as he has taken you for a grand ...? You could at least swear out a complaint. And talking with a police detective is a highly educational and thought-provoking experience that everyone should have at least once by the age of 25.
"Anger is the backbone of healing."
"Chapter 1
I walk down the street. There's a deep hole in the sidewalk. I fall in. I am lost. I am helpless. It isn't my fault. It takes forever to find a way out.
Chapter 2
I walk down the same street. There's a deep hole in the sidewalk. I pretend I don't see it. I fall in again. I can't believe I'm in the same place, but it isn't my fault. It still takes a long time to get out.
Chapter 3
I walk down the same street. There's a deep hole in the sidewalk. I see it there. I still fall in. It's a habit. My eyes are open. I know where I am. It is my fault. I get out immediately.
Chapter 4
I walk down the same street. There's a deep hole in the sidewalk. I walk around it.
Chapter 5
I walk down a different street."
-- Portia Nelson
Here's a great intriguing book -- "Awakening the Heroes Within: Twelve Archetypes to Help Us Find Ourselves and Transform Our World" by Carol S. Pearson
By the way, do you know your enneagram type?
I'm not sure my case would be upheld by the law, seeing that I willingly deposited the checks he wrote and gave him cash before they ever cleared. He gave me some story about losing his wallet and I of course, believed him.
Oh and my enneagram type(s) jump between 3 (motivator) ,5 (thinker) , and 6 (skeptic). Depending on the day and depending on which of my personalities decide to make an appearance that is.
>>I'm not sure my case would be upheld by the law, seeing that I willingly deposited the checks he wrote and gave him cash before they ever cleared. He gave me some story about losing his wallet and I of course, believed him.<<
This is called "Fraud" and it happens all the time. Your complaint, to law-enforcement, might not be the one that sends this perp to the slammer, but your complaint is valid and your belief that, hey, the things I did were not against my will, there's no point in reporting it, is quite typical as an initial reaction by people who are hit with fraud.
The interaction with the police is fully justified and it would be highly informative. Consider also: There is ...
-- the following comment is not meant derisively, but constructively and with sympathy, and with a decision to Just Say It, since this is a forum in which you have chosen to discuss your life frankly, and so --
... there is a remarkable difference between how you responded to the interactions with the perp, and the proposed interaction with those who could help, a difference which it might benefit you to examine. Consider how:
(a) With the perp, you gave months' worth of benefit of the doubt (hereafter, BOTD). You decided to let it be a process, in which you would not Rush To Judgment about whether he should be disqualified from your trust; possible malefactor gets tons of BOTD -- whereas, and at the opposite end of the spectrum,
(b) When it comes to the idea of the simple experiment of engaging in one instance of talking with a sworn law-enforcement officer, whom you do not need to pay, who will deprive you of nothing, who can only help (even if only via what you will learn from the conversation), this idea gets no BOTD, and is indeed almost (not quite, but almost) entirely disqualified at the outset.
"[You're] not sure [your] case would be upheld by the law" -- (I am NOT mocking) -- okay, but, for a year you refrained from concluding that the perp "was and still is a criminal and a jackass"; yet now, in regard to the idea of seeking help and/or making a report that might at least in the future help others, oh, well, NOW, the "trial" of that idea is over almost before it starts, with the idea's being summarily convicted of being A Likely Waste of Time. Where's the BOTD, when it comes to helping yourself? You granted months of reserved judgment, to the perp. Can you grant three hours' worth (a phone call or two, a car trip, a conversation) of reserved judgment to an expedition that can absolutely not harm you, and may benefit you, and which assuredly will bring you new knowledge?
Again, these comments are written not derisively, but constructively and with sympathy, and with a decision to Just Say It, since this is a forum in which you have chosen to discuss your life frankly.
I've been contemplating the depth at which I should be discussing this particular issue, wondering if perhaps the light-hearted air in which I regarded and represented it might have been too much. I truly appreciate your advice, which is no less very good and curiously detailed and have drafted numerous responses to questions that I am glad someone asked.
However, there are a few details which I omitted that I think make the situation infinitely more complicated while still not any less wrong.
These details are, (1) Jerome happens to be the son of a wealthy, powerful, and very much connected politician and (2) his father is a long time family friend and ally who has a major interest in seeing his son follow suit. I'm not sure if even these facts are enough to make light of the situation as I have lived it and for all I know, their admittance only further incriminates me as a cowardly twenty-something girl who has barely set foot in the "real world".
Post a Comment