Latest Posts
Home > Ask The Get Out of Debt Experts > Brookstone Law Wants to Charge Us to Participate in Suing Our Mortgage Lender

Brookstone Law Wants to Charge Us to Participate in Suing Our Mortgage Lender

“Dear Steve,

We were bulked mailed a group lawsuit offer against Wells Fargo about illegal loan origination documents and sales of loans to other entities without notification. Also illegal foreclosures on property. We responded to the bulk mail with a phone call and made an over phone appointment to discuss what Wells Fargo had done to us.

Brookstone Law said we had a case and that we needed to bring all our documents to their Newport Beach office for further review . We drove up there from [redacted] with the copies of the closing documents that Wells Fargo had given us.

A junior attorney spoke with us because they were so busy with all the people who had responded to their mailing. We showed him our documents and told him our story about all that Wells Fargo had done to us and he said we had a strong case and they want to do a complete audit of all our documents that Wells Fargo had sent us. This was going to cost $895.00 to determine whether we could join the group lawsuit against Wells Fargo not a class action suite. And then if our documents pasted the audit then we would have to come up with a $5,000.00 retainer to join the group law suite against Wells Fargo.

They told us we may get a free and clear loan, that our loan with Wells Fargo would be null and void and basically not exist any more. We would owe them nothing. Or there would be a large reduction in the principal of our loan which would far out way the mere $5,895.00 dollars we are giving them with no guaranties what so ever. They also told us that they have already wone at least 6 free and clear loan cases already (no proof).

And they it looks like the Feds will have to step in and make the Banks give many people free and clear loans, or a significant principal reduction because of all the illegal loan transfers to unknown investors (like ours) that Banks have done.

Brookstone is now calling me every day once or twice to give them my VISA info to start the document investigation as soon as possible. And if we don’t do this they say we will be left out of any settlement that the Feds negotiate with Wells Fargo for illegal loan transfers and illegal foreclosures, which Wells Fargo has done both on our property, and double dipped on Interest as well. I was only able to negotiate a 12 month modification because the Investor that owns our loan only allows a 12 month piggyback loan mod..

I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.

Thank You in advance if you look into all these claims. We are completely current on our loan but several other people we know are getting permanent loan modifications from Wells Fargo, but they say the Unknown entity that owns our loan does not allow a permanent modification.”

Don’t miss our free Get Out of Debt – “How To” Guide Series on a number of topics, for loads of practical advice, tips, and help to beat back debt. – Click Here

The Answer

I’m not a lawyer and I can’t give you legal advice. But what I can give you is the benefit of my experience and common sense. Nothing good ever comes from these pitches to pay in advance when pressured to cough up the bucks.

I seriously doubt the person you met with is a junior attorney. It smells like a commissioned sales person.

There is no guarantee you’ll get one benefit out of this. Unless you have almost $6,000 to throw away I’d suggest staying away from this at this time. Let some group of people with money to burn on a no guarantee crapshoot be the guinea pigs for something that is unproven and magical.

If you feel your loan is deficient in some way, find a local real estate attorney and go talk to them before you do anything else. A second opinion from an independent attorney will be invaluable before you part with your money.

As far as I am aware there has not been any bulk erasure of mortgages and the most recent case in Massachusetts that I’m familiar with did block the foreclosure due to a title defect but it did not erase the underlying mortgage.

Do you remember the name of the junior attorney?

Please post your responses and follow-up messages to me on this in the comments section below.

Big Hug!

Brookstone Law Wants to Charge Us to Participate in Suing Our Mortgage Lender
Get Out of Debt Guy – Twitter, G+, Facebook

Update: 2-25-2010

I want to make it clear that the reader did not identify who specifically it is they met with. It is also not clear if the person was an attorney or someone they felt was an attorney by dress, action or demeanor. I have asked the reader and Brookstone law to please identify the person and I have said I would gladly provide a statement that person was an attorney if I could verify it. I expressed a doubt the person was an attorney because it sounded as if the reader was getting pressured to signup. To me that sounds like a salesperson which is what I said.

I am not accusing and I did not say Brookstone is asking people who are not lawyers to pretend they are.

I have also given Brookstone an opportunity to respond to the reader question or provide a public statement. Which they have not elected to do as of now.

Brookstone Law Wants to Charge Us to Participate in Suing Our Mortgage Lender by

Share This and Spread the Word

About Steve Rhode

Steve Rhode
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
  • SilentMountain

    My experience with Brookstone Law was very similar to an experience I had with time-share sales. I responded to one of the Brookstone solicitations, and in the phone pre-interview I provided them with my balances, lender names, loan status (Current) and ability to pay (Able). After a long interview they determined that I may qualify for assistance, and to bring my loan documentation to their Newport Beach office, where I was to “meet with an attorney”. They very specifically characterized this as a “meeting with an attorney”. It was the only reason I consented to further engagement. I was ordered to report at their office at a specific time, with numerous detailed reminders about my responsibility to be on time, how busy and important they were, and so forth. When I arrived at their office, I was made to wait 15 minutes past my appointment time. After being escorted into a large room, I waited another several minutes before an individual that identified himself as a “Consultant” (whose name I don’t recall), and not an attorney (he made this very clear), made his introduction. He claimed that the attorney I was supposed to meet was “busy saving a family from foreclosure” (Brookstone is riddled with delusions of grandeur, as further evidenced by their infomercial looped on a monitor in the lobby). I repeated all of the information from my pre-interview, as he appeared to not have access to that information. At the conclusion of my statements, he claimed he was sorry, but there was nothing he could do given that I was not behind on payments and not in foreclosure. At no point did he ask to see my documentation. He tried to see if my loan was a HARP candidate (I already knew it was not, and told him as much). I left angry and frustrated, but a little wiser and more experienced. My overall time invested at this point was about 6 hours, between driving, phone calls, emails and getting documentation out of storage. I sent Brookstone’s coordinator and email instructing them to never contact me again.
    -
    Two months later, I receive a call from the same coordinator who wanted to know what the outcome of my meeting was. I was stunned that she had no record of my experience. I told her what had happened – she asked what I had expected. I explained I wanted to either reduce my principle or refinance my loans at a lower rate, but I was prevented from doing this due to negative equity. She explained that their firm had recently had success in principle reductions and negative equity refis, and she arranged to have a “Banking Consultant” contact me. At the arranged time, the “Banking Consultant” did not call. 31 minutes past the arranged time, a clerk named named Dwight Watanabe called me to reschedule because the “Banking Specialist” was “busy saving a family from foreclosure” (such magnificence!!). When I selected a new time, he instructed me to come to their office and bring my documentation. I regaled him with my story of my previous experience, and he stated they had no record of that encounter and began to cast doubt on my story. I insisted that despite his doubts, I refused to drive to their office again. He made numerous outrageous statements (“don’t direct your anger at the bank at me” and “how can I know if we can help you without the documents”) and acted in a very condescending, patronizing and arrogant manner. He told me that if I wasn’t “ready to be serious” that they had more deserving clients to attend to. I told him to go ahead and do that. I asked him why at 12:00 I was able to have a phone conversation, and at 12:31 I suddenly could not. He repeated his pre-programmed “Drive to Office/Bring Documents” routine. At that point I terminated the call.
    -
    Brookstone appears to be trying to execute “gotcha” maneuvers on documentation errors, deficiencies, robo-signing, etc. I would advise anyone considering meeting with them to be extremely cautious and take detailed notes of all encounters with them.

  • Biff Rockman

    I just met with Brookstone Law last week in an identical scenario that is described above.  Both of the “Attorneys” that I spoke and met with do not appear anywhere in the California Bar Assoc. search of attorneys.  Carl Saterfield and Gil Mariscal.  Mariscal had “just ran out of business cards” with his name and contact info on them.  I’ve since cancelled my check for $895.00

  • CA DRE – CrookStone Law

    Scam Alert everybody – these guys are pitching everyone that they can eliminate your mortgage or reduce it to 80% of value – what a crock. Read what the California Department of Real Estate has to say about their wonderful lawsuit or go to this link: http://www.dre.ca.gov/pdf_docs

    California Department of Real Estate
    ** CONSUMER ALERT **
    1
    FRAUD WARNING REGARDING LAWSUIT MARKETERS REQUESTING UPFRONT
    FEES FOR SO-CALLED “MASS JOINDER” OR CLASS LITIGATION PROMISING
    EXTRAORDINARY HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF
    By Wayne S. Bell
    Chief Counsel, California Department of Real Estate
    I. HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF THROUGH LITIGATION (and “Too Good to Be True”
    Claims Regarding Its Use to Avoid and/or Stop Foreclosure, Obtain Loan Principal
    Reduction, and to Let You Have Your Home “Free and Clear” of Any Mortgage).
    This alert is written to warn consumers about marketing companies, unlicensed entities,
    lawyers, and so-called attorney-backed, attorney-affiliated, and lawyer referral entities
    that offer and sell false hope and request the payment of upfront fees for so-called “mass
    joinder” or class litigation that will supposedly result in extraordinary home mortgage
    relief.

    The California Department of Real Estate (“DRE” or “Department”) previously issued a
    consumer alert and fraud warning on loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams in
    California. That alert was followed by warnings and alerts regarding forensic loan audit
    fraud, scams in connection with short sale transactions, false and misleading
    designations and claims of special expertise, certifications and credentials in connection
    with home loan relief services, and other real estate and home loan relief scams.
    The Department continues to administratively prosecute those who engage in such fraud
    and to work in collaboration with the California State Bar, the Federal Trade
    Commission, and federal, State and local criminal law enforcement authorities to bring
    such frauds to justice.
    On October 11, 2009, Senate Bill 94 was signed into law in California, and it became
    effective that day. It prohibited any person, including real estate licensees and attorneys,
    from charging, claiming, demanding, collecting or receiving an upfront fee from a
    homeowner borrower in connection with a promise to modify the borrower’s residential
    loan or some other form of mortgage loan forbearance.
    Senate Bill 94’s prohibitions seem to have significantly impacted the rampant fraud that
    was occurring and escalating with respect to the payment of upfront fees for loan
    modification work.
    Also, forensic loan auditors must now register with the California Department of Justice
    and cannot accept payments in advance for their services under California law once a
    Notice of Default has been recorded. There are certain exceptions for lawyers and real
    estate brokers. 2
    On January 31, 2011, an important and broad advance fee ban issued by the Federal
    Trade Commission became effective and outlaws providers of mortgage assistance relief
    services from requesting or collecting advance fees from a homeowner.
    Discussions about Senate Bill 94, the Federal advance fee ban, and the Consumer
    Alerts of the DRE, are available on the DRE’s website at http://www.dre.ca.gov.
    Lawyer Exemption from the Federal Advance Fee Ban –
    The advance fee ban issued by the Federal Trade Commission includes a narrow and
    conditional carve out for attorneys.
    If lawyers meet the following four conditions, they are generally exempt from the rule:
    1. They are engaged in the practice of law, and mortgage assistance relief is part of
    their practice.
    2. They are licensed in the State where the consumer or the dwelling is located.
    3. They are complying with State laws and regulations governing the “same type of
    conduct the [FTC] rule requires”.
    4. They place any advance fees they collect in a client trust account and comply with
    State laws and regulations covering such accounts. This requires that client funds
    be kept separate from the lawyers’ personal and/or business funds until such time
    as the funds have been earned.
    It is important to note that the exemption for lawyers discussed above does not allow
    lawyers to collect money upfront for loan modifications or loan forbearance services,
    which advance fees are banned by the more restrictive California Senate Bill 94.
    But those who continue to prey on and victimize vulnerable homeowners have not given
    up. They just change their tactics and modify their sales pitches to keep taking
    advantage of those who are desperate to save their homes. And some of the frauds
    seeking to rip off desperate homeowners are trying to use the lawyer exemption above to collect
    advance fees for mortgage assistance relief litigation.
    This alert and warning is issued to call to your attention the often overblown and
    exaggerated “sales pitch(es)” regarding the supposed value of questionable
    “Mass Joinder” or Class Action Litigation.
    Whether they call themselves Foreclosure Defense Experts, Mortgage Loan Litigators,
    Living Free and Clear experts, or some other official, important or impressive sounding
    title(s), individuals and companies are marketing their services in the State of California
    and on the Internet. They are making a wide variety of claims and sales pitches,
    and offering impressive sounding legal and litigation services, with quite
    extraordinary remedies promised, with the goal of taking and getting some of your
    money. 3
    While there are lawyers and law firms which are legitimate and qualified to handle
    complex class action or joinder litigation, you must be cautious and BEWARE. And
    certainly check out the lawyers on the State Bar website and via other means, as
    discussed below in Section III.
    II. QUESTIONABLE AND/OR FALSE CLAIMS OF THE SO-CALLED MORTGAGE LOAN
    DEFENSE OR “MASS JOINDER” AND CLASS LITIGATORS.
    A. What are the Claims/Sales Pitches?
    They are many and varied, and include:
    1. You can join in a mass joinder or class action lawsuit already filed against your
    lender and stay in your home. You can stop paying your lender.
    2. The mortgage loans can be stripped entirely from your home.
    3. Your payment obligation and foreclosure against your home can be stopped when
    the lawsuit is filed.
    4. The litigation will take the power away from your lender.
    5. A jury will side with you and against your lender.
    6. The lawsuit will give you the leverage you need to stay in your home.
    7. The lawsuit may give you the right to rescind your home loan, or to reduce your
    principal.
    8. The lawsuit will help you modify your home loan. It will give you a step up in the
    loan modification process.
    9. The litigation will be performed through “powerful” litigation attorney
    representation.
    10. Litigation attorneys are “turning the tables on lenders and getting cash settlements
    for homeowners”.
    In one Internet advertisement, the marketing materials say, “the damages sought in your
    behalf are nothing less than a full lien strip or in otherwords [sic] a free and clear house if
    the bank can’t produce the documents they own the note on your home. Or at the very
    least, damages could be awarded that would reduce the principal balance of the note on
    your home to 80% of market value, and give you a 2% interest rate for the life of the
    loan”.
    B. Discussion.
    Please don’t be fooled by slick come-ons by scammers who just want your money. Some
    of the claims above might be true in a particular case, based on the facts and evidence
    presented before a Court or a jury, or have a ring or hint of truth, but you must carefully
    examine and analyze each and every one of them to determine if filing a lawsuit against
    your lender or joining a class or mass joinder lawsuit will have any value for you and your
    situation. Be particularly skeptical of all such claims, since agreeing to participate in 4
    such litigation may require you to pay for legal or other services, often before any legal
    work is performed (e.g., a significant upfront retainer fee is required).
    The reality is that litigation is time-consuming (with formal discovery such as
    depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions,
    motions, and the like), expensive, and usually vigorously defended. There can be
    no guarantees or assurances with respect to the outcome of a lawsuit.
    Even if a lender or loan owner defendant were to lose at trial, it can appeal, and the
    entire process can take years. Also, there is no statistical or other competent data
    that supports the claims that a mass joinder and class action lawsuit, even if
    performed by a licensed, legitimate and trained lawyer(s), will provide the
    remedies that the marketers promise.
    There are two other important points to be made here:
    First, even assuming that the lawyers can identify fraud or other legal violations
    performed by your lender in the loan origination process, your loan may be owned by an
    investor – that is, someone other than your lender. The investor will most assuredly
    argue that your claims against your originating lender do not apply against the investor
    (the purchaser of your loan). And even if your lender still owns the loan, they are not
    legally required, absent a court judgment or order, to modify your loan or to halt the
    foreclosure process if you are behind in your payments. If they happen to lose the
    lawsuit, they can appeal, as noted above. Also, the violations discovered may be minor
    or inconsequential, which will not provide for any helpful remedies.
    Second, and very importantly, loan modifications and other types of foreclosure relief are
    simply not possible for every homeowner, and the “success rate” is currently very low in
    California. This is where the lawsuit marketing scammers come in and try to convince
    you that they offer you “a leg up”. They falsely claim or suggest that they can guarantee
    to stop a foreclosure in its tracks, leave you with a home “free and clear” of any
    mortgage loan(s), make lofty sounding but hollow promises, exaggerate or make bold
    statements regarding their litigation successes, charge you for a retainer, and leave you
    with less money.
    III. THE KEY HERE IS FOR YOU TO BE ON GUARD AND CHECK THE LAWYERS OUT
    (Know Who You Are or May Be Dealing With) – Do Your Own Homework (Avoid
    The Traps Set by the Litigation Marketing Frauds).
    Before entering into an attorney-client relationship, or paying for “legal” or litigation
    services, ascertain the name of the lawyer or lawyers who will be providing the services.
    Then check them out on the State Bar’s website, at http://www.calbar.ca.gov. Make certain
    that they are licensed by the State Bar of California. If they are licensed, see if they have
    been disciplined. 5
    Check them out through the Better Business Bureau to see if the Bureau has received
    any complaints about the lawyer, law firm or marketing firm offering the services (and
    remember that only lawyers can provide legal services). And please understand that this
    is just another resource for you to check, as the litigation services provider might be so
    new that the Better Business Bureau may have little or nothing on them (or something
    positive because of insufficient public input).
    Check them out through a Google or related search on the Internet. You may be
    amazed at what you can and will find out doing such a search. Often consumers
    who have been scammed will post their experiences, insights, and warnings long
    before any criminal, civil or administrative action has been brought against the
    scammers.
    Also, ask them lots of specific, detailed questions about their litigation experience, clients
    and successful results. For example, you should ask them how many mortgage-related
    joinder or class lawsuits they have filed and handled through settlement or trial. Ask
    them for pleadings they have filed and news stories about their so-called successes. Ask
    them for a list of current and past “satisfied” clients. If they provide you with a list, call
    those people and ask those former clients if they would use the lawyer or law firm again.
    Ask the lawyers if they are class action or joinder litigation specialists and ask them what
    specialist qualifications they have. Then ask what they will actually do for you (what
    specific services they will be providing and for what fees and costs). Get that in writing,
    and take the time to fully understand what the attorney-client contract says and what the
    end result will be before proceeding with the services. Remember to always ask for and
    demand copies of all documents that you sign.
    IV. CONCLUSION.
    Mortgage rescue frauds are extremely good at selling false hope to consumers in trouble
    with regard to home loans. The scammers continue to adapt and to modify their
    schemes as soon as their last ones became ineffective. Promises of successes through
    mass joinder or class litigation are now being marketed.
    Please be careful, do your own diligence to protect yourself, and be highly suspect if
    anyone asks you for money up front before doing any service on your behalf. Most
    importantly, DON’T LET FRAUDS TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY.

  • NoWhereToGo

    Scam Alert everybody – these guys are pitching everyone that they can eliminate your mortgage or reduce it to 80% of value – what a crock. Read what the California Department of Real Estate has to say about their wonderful lawsuit or go to this link: http://www.dre.ca.gov/pdf_docs

    California Department of Real Estate
    ** CONSUMER ALERT **
    1
    FRAUD WARNING REGARDING LAWSUIT MARKETERS REQUESTING UPFRONT
    FEES FOR SO-CALLED “MASS JOINDER” OR CLASS LITIGATION PROMISING
    EXTRAORDINARY HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF
    By Wayne S. Bell
    Chief Counsel, California Department of Real Estate
    I. HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF THROUGH LITIGATION (and “Too Good to Be True”
    Claims Regarding Its Use to Avoid and/or Stop Foreclosure, Obtain Loan Principal
    Reduction, and to Let You Have Your Home “Free and Clear” of Any Mortgage).
    This alert is written to warn consumers about marketing companies, unlicensed entities,
    lawyers, and so-called attorney-backed, attorney-affiliated, and lawyer referral entities
    that offer and sell false hope and request the payment of upfront fees for so-called “mass
    joinder” or class litigation that will supposedly result in extraordinary home mortgage
    relief.

    The California Department of Real Estate (“DRE” or “Department”) previously issued a
    consumer alert and fraud warning on loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams in
    California. That alert was followed by warnings and alerts regarding forensic loan audit
    fraud, scams in connection with short sale transactions, false and misleading
    designations and claims of special expertise, certifications and credentials in connection
    with home loan relief services, and other real estate and home loan relief scams.
    The Department continues to administratively prosecute those who engage in such fraud
    and to work in collaboration with the California State Bar, the Federal Trade
    Commission, and federal, State and local criminal law enforcement authorities to bring
    such frauds to justice.
    On October 11, 2009, Senate Bill 94 was signed into law in California, and it became
    effective that day. It prohibited any person, including real estate licensees and attorneys,
    from charging, claiming, demanding, collecting or receiving an upfront fee from a
    homeowner borrower in connection with a promise to modify the borrower’s residential
    loan or some other form of mortgage loan forbearance.
    Senate Bill 94’s prohibitions seem to have significantly impacted the rampant fraud that
    was occurring and escalating with respect to the payment of upfront fees for loan
    modification work.
    Also, forensic loan auditors must now register with the California Department of Justice
    and cannot accept payments in advance for their services under California law once a
    Notice of Default has been recorded. There are certain exceptions for lawyers and real
    estate brokers. 2
    On January 31, 2011, an important and broad advance fee ban issued by the Federal
    Trade Commission became effective and outlaws providers of mortgage assistance relief
    services from requesting or collecting advance fees from a homeowner.
    Discussions about Senate Bill 94, the Federal advance fee ban, and the Consumer
    Alerts of the DRE, are available on the DRE’s website at http://www.dre.ca.gov.
    Lawyer Exemption from the Federal Advance Fee Ban –
    The advance fee ban issued by the Federal Trade Commission includes a narrow and
    conditional carve out for attorneys.
    If lawyers meet the following four conditions, they are generally exempt from the rule:
    1. They are engaged in the practice of law, and mortgage assistance relief is part of
    their practice.
    2. They are licensed in the State where the consumer or the dwelling is located.
    3. They are complying with State laws and regulations governing the “same type of
    conduct the [FTC] rule requires”.
    4. They place any advance fees they collect in a client trust account and comply with
    State laws and regulations covering such accounts. This requires that client funds
    be kept separate from the lawyers’ personal and/or business funds until such time
    as the funds have been earned.
    It is important to note that the exemption for lawyers discussed above does not allow
    lawyers to collect money upfront for loan modifications or loan forbearance services,
    which advance fees are banned by the more restrictive California Senate Bill 94.
    But those who continue to prey on and victimize vulnerable homeowners have not given
    up. They just change their tactics and modify their sales pitches to keep taking
    advantage of those who are desperate to save their homes. And some of the frauds
    seeking to rip off desperate homeowners are trying to use the lawyer exemption above to collect
    advance fees for mortgage assistance relief litigation.
    This alert and warning is issued to call to your attention the often overblown and
    exaggerated “sales pitch(es)” regarding the supposed value of questionable
    “Mass Joinder” or Class Action Litigation.
    Whether they call themselves Foreclosure Defense Experts, Mortgage Loan Litigators,
    Living Free and Clear experts, or some other official, important or impressive sounding
    title(s), individuals and companies are marketing their services in the State of California
    and on the Internet. They are making a wide variety of claims and sales pitches,
    and offering impressive sounding legal and litigation services, with quite
    extraordinary remedies promised, with the goal of taking and getting some of your
    money. 3
    While there are lawyers and law firms which are legitimate and qualified to handle
    complex class action or joinder litigation, you must be cautious and BEWARE. And
    certainly check out the lawyers on the State Bar website and via other means, as
    discussed below in Section III.
    II. QUESTIONABLE AND/OR FALSE CLAIMS OF THE SO-CALLED MORTGAGE LOAN
    DEFENSE OR “MASS JOINDER” AND CLASS LITIGATORS.
    A. What are the Claims/Sales Pitches?
    They are many and varied, and include:
    1. You can join in a mass joinder or class action lawsuit already filed against your
    lender and stay in your home. You can stop paying your lender.
    2. The mortgage loans can be stripped entirely from your home.
    3. Your payment obligation and foreclosure against your home can be stopped when
    the lawsuit is filed.
    4. The litigation will take the power away from your lender.
    5. A jury will side with you and against your lender.
    6. The lawsuit will give you the leverage you need to stay in your home.
    7. The lawsuit may give you the right to rescind your home loan, or to reduce your
    principal.
    8. The lawsuit will help you modify your home loan. It will give you a step up in the
    loan modification process.
    9. The litigation will be performed through “powerful” litigation attorney
    representation.
    10. Litigation attorneys are “turning the tables on lenders and getting cash settlements
    for homeowners”.
    In one Internet advertisement, the marketing materials say, “the damages sought in your
    behalf are nothing less than a full lien strip or in otherwords [sic] a free and clear house if
    the bank can’t produce the documents they own the note on your home. Or at the very
    least, damages could be awarded that would reduce the principal balance of the note on
    your home to 80% of market value, and give you a 2% interest rate for the life of the
    loan”.
    B. Discussion.
    Please don’t be fooled by slick come-ons by scammers who just want your money. Some
    of the claims above might be true in a particular case, based on the facts and evidence
    presented before a Court or a jury, or have a ring or hint of truth, but you must carefully
    examine and analyze each and every one of them to determine if filing a lawsuit against
    your lender or joining a class or mass joinder lawsuit will have any value for you and your
    situation. Be particularly skeptical of all such claims, since agreeing to participate in 4
    such litigation may require you to pay for legal or other services, often before any legal
    work is performed (e.g., a significant upfront retainer fee is required).
    The reality is that litigation is time-consuming (with formal discovery such as
    depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions,
    motions, and the like), expensive, and usually vigorously defended. There can be
    no guarantees or assurances with respect to the outcome of a lawsuit.
    Even if a lender or loan owner defendant were to lose at trial, it can appeal, and the
    entire process can take years. Also, there is no statistical or other competent data
    that supports the claims that a mass joinder and class action lawsuit, even if
    performed by a licensed, legitimate and trained lawyer(s), will provide the
    remedies that the marketers promise.
    There are two other important points to be made here:
    First, even assuming that the lawyers can identify fraud or other legal violations
    performed by your lender in the loan origination process, your loan may be owned by an
    investor – that is, someone other than your lender. The investor will most assuredly
    argue that your claims against your originating lender do not apply against the investor
    (the purchaser of your loan). And even if your lender still owns the loan, they are not
    legally required, absent a court judgment or order, to modify your loan or to halt the
    foreclosure process if you are behind in your payments. If they happen to lose the
    lawsuit, they can appeal, as noted above. Also, the violations discovered may be minor
    or inconsequential, which will not provide for any helpful remedies.
    Second, and very importantly, loan modifications and other types of foreclosure relief are
    simply not possible for every homeowner, and the “success rate” is currently very low in
    California. This is where the lawsuit marketing scammers come in and try to convince
    you that they offer you “a leg up”. They falsely claim or suggest that they can guarantee
    to stop a foreclosure in its tracks, leave you with a home “free and clear” of any
    mortgage loan(s), make lofty sounding but hollow promises, exaggerate or make bold
    statements regarding their litigation successes, charge you for a retainer, and leave you
    with less money.
    III. THE KEY HERE IS FOR YOU TO BE ON GUARD AND CHECK THE LAWYERS OUT
    (Know Who You Are or May Be Dealing With) – Do Your Own Homework (Avoid
    The Traps Set by the Litigation Marketing Frauds).
    Before entering into an attorney-client relationship, or paying for “legal” or litigation
    services, ascertain the name of the lawyer or lawyers who will be providing the services.
    Then check them out on the State Bar’s website, at http://www.calbar.ca.gov. Make certain
    that they are licensed by the State Bar of California. If they are licensed, see if they have
    been disciplined. 5
    Check them out through the Better Business Bureau to see if the Bureau has received
    any complaints about the lawyer, law firm or marketing firm offering the services (and
    remember that only lawyers can provide legal services). And please understand that this
    is just another resource for you to check, as the litigation services provider might be so
    new that the Better Business Bureau may have little or nothing on them (or something
    positive because of insufficient public input).
    Check them out through a Google or related search on the Internet. You may be
    amazed at what you can and will find out doing such a search. Often consumers
    who have been scammed will post their experiences, insights, and warnings long
    before any criminal, civil or administrative action has been brought against the
    scammers.
    Also, ask them lots of specific, detailed questions about their litigation experience, clients
    and successful results. For example, you should ask them how many mortgage-related
    joinder or class lawsuits they have filed and handled through settlement or trial. Ask
    them for pleadings they have filed and news stories about their so-called successes. Ask
    them for a list of current and past “satisfied” clients. If they provide you with a list, call
    those people and ask those former clients if they would use the lawyer or law firm again.
    Ask the lawyers if they are class action or joinder litigation specialists and ask them what
    specialist qualifications they have. Then ask what they will actually do for you (what
    specific services they will be providing and for what fees and costs). Get that in writing,
    and take the time to fully understand what the attorney-client contract says and what the
    end result will be before proceeding with the services. Remember to always ask for and
    demand copies of all documents that you sign.
    IV. CONCLUSION.
    Mortgage rescue frauds are extremely good at selling false hope to consumers in trouble
    with regard to home loans. The scammers continue to adapt and to modify their
    schemes as soon as their last ones became ineffective. Promises of successes through
    mass joinder or class litigation are now being marketed.
    Please be careful, do your own diligence to protect yourself, and be highly suspect if
    anyone asks you for money up front before doing any service on your behalf. Most
    importantly, DON’T LET FRAUDS TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY.

  • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

    If anyone receives a mailer to join a mass joinder case or has paid money to join a mass joinder case, the California Bar Association would like to speak with you. Click here for more information.

  • Steve Rhode

    If anyone receives a mailer to join a mass joinder case or has paid money to join a mass joinder case, the California Bar Association would like to speak with you. Click here for more information.

  • Steve Rhode

    Hi John,

    I thought you should see a story I just published about the marketing on some of the mass joinder suits. It’s important because this kind of stuff may harm the collective effort moving forward if this type of markup and questionable “fee-splitting” is occurring.

    I invite you and your readers to go look at the markups and marketing and feel free to comment on the story. Here is the link to the story on mass joinder affiliate marketing.

    Just to be 100% clear John, I am not inferring anything negative about “your suit” and don’t want to get back into that discussion with you again. We’ve buried that hatchet and I’d like to move forward, encouraging your feedback and participation on other issues.

    Steve

  • Wright4ulg

    Hi Steve:
    Thank you for your very nice comments that I received by email today. I really appreciated what you had to say Steve, and I think this is the beginning of building a relationship of trust between you and I. I just really think that we could do better working together to help homeowners save their homes Vs. working against one another. People are really suffering out there, and they need our help, so I have worked very hard to create an environment where they can be defended from Bank of America, while trying to achieve their modification. My site has been able to help people achieve getting those modifications too, just by sending an email to the CEO of BofA with my name on it. These are things that work that you and I can get the message out on. I can even give you evidence that it works. I have even set up with BofA a very diplomatic back door communication. For example, one executive called me at 6:30 am and asked me for a favor. He feared for a person’s safety, and asked me to remove their picture from my blog, in which I did with no hesitation, because I do not want anyone to get hurt. Then when someone who’s husband was dying in the back room got her for sale date, I utilized that connection for a favor, and they stopped the sale on their home. Even though there is a lot of advantage to people joining my lawsuit, I have been responsible by telling them that should write the CEO first, just to see if we can get it for them that way.
    .
    You and I have read so many lies on the web about ULG and Brookstone, and by what you tell me, you too. Like the one where it said that guy broke into ULG and stole things, and that he was the brains behind the whole thing was an absolute lie. I happen to have been on the phone with that person the day it happened, because they were nice enough to call me and tell me that I was not represented anymore because ULG filed BK. This person was mad at me, but more so because he had not received a paycheck for months, and the bk was done on pay day, which was insult to injury. They locked some of his personal items in there, such as snoop dog promotional shirts. He went in and got them, and then the authorities reported that he stole things. I was on the phone when he said he was going to get his personal items. Then they say that he is in control of everything, but he was locked out that day by the current CEO, which was hardly in control of anything. All he does is create a software for law firms to process thousands of people. This is why you will see the same face at a different firm, but he does not run anything other than the software, for what I understand. At any rate, I have been able to use my low level celebrity to protect people from not only BofA, but also if Brookstone too, because if they should have a clients complaint from someone on my blog, I call them and they help them right away. This is because they know I am sort of a reporter, so they are fast to show me they are a good service. My piggybankblog evolvement actually makes people more safe than if they went somewhere else, because I would hold Brookstone accountable, and they know it. This is because when I call they listen and the complainant is called instantly. So in reality, I control them and they do not control me. I however have never been paid a dime for what I do. I have used my own money for piggybankblog.com (20k) and have just now started to take donations, because I do not have the money anymore to do it. I have received 4 donations (lol), which is hardly a living. However, it is okay because I know people are struggling, and my information is for free. I work really hard Steve, and it just hurts to see lies said that I am part of some conspiracy or that I get money I do not get. It is even harder to hear them talk about people that I know are good people at Brookstone. Some of those people hated working at ULG, because they were constantly having to clean up their mess, but none of it was a scam, which you and I can talk about more later, if you want. I mean , I have watched Brookstone give away things, because they have represented so many people for free, but none of that is every reported. If I call them and say “hey, this persons husband is dying in the backroom, but BofA is evicting them in a week, would you represent them for free? They say “absolutely John!” So they do good things Steve, and I mean a lot of good things. If you would get in good with them, you would also be able to help your audience with them in the same way I do. They never tell you me what to do, so I know they would not tell you either, but they just want to be able to trust the person is not going to tell lies about them. They will not tell you what to write because they never tell me what to write. In fact, their toes start to curl over some of the stuff I do or write (lol) However, you could do a good service by being a person that could be the voice of the Brookstone clients, such as I have, if you want. Just let me know, and I will see if I can use my low level celebrity power to set this up. Either way, What I am saying is that I am able to use my low celebrity status in a way that makes positive changes, such as I want them to change that calling for someone’s credit card all the time, if that is true. Like I said, I have heard more complaints that they do not call back for the credit card soon enough(lol), which I still have on file and could show you (lol) At any rate, I am able to escort that person complaint to Brookstone, and they answer it immediately.
    .
    As far as the rumor thing, I already know that you are very aware of how things get turned around there on the web because it happened to you too. This is why I am saying that if you do not trust them okay, but you can trust me because I am never going to put my name and picture out there, if they are going to scam a bunch of people. That is because people would blame me, if not want to kill me (lol) I really believe in Brookstone, as well as I have studied things about them way ahead of time, and I assure you this is real. I have just too many evidences to say different, such as I have spoken to Mitch Stein, who is a very high caliber attorney, who verified all this. I spoke to him just the other day on the phone, so I know it is on the up and up. No good named attorney would ruin their name.
    .
    I will be announcing in tomorrows blog that you and I have decided to put our differences aside, and see if we can work on something more positive, such as helping people keep their homes. I will also advise them that you said you would do an interview, but I wish you would reconsider and do a live chat interview. It would be totally controlled, while I would give you all the questions ahead of time, so that you are prepared. I would do the interview on 04/01/11, and I will promote over that time. I would ask interested bloggers to send their questions to me before the interview. This way I can have you be prepared for those too. It would be a totally controlled environment because it would need to be. Otherwise, chat rooms can get out of control I will also be very respectful, and not ask any questions that were not on the list. It is important that I conduct the interview with integrity and treat you with respect, otherwise nobody would let me interview them. If there is a question that you are uncomfortable with, you can just let me know that it is off limits. You can even stay after the interview and do a meet and greet with your fans. This actually might actually be more helpful for you to combat those articles, and get the truth out there. Then I would suggest doing a press release saying “Steve finally feels Vindicated,” or something like that.
    .
    Steve, I am really happy that we can be friend now and work together. I am sorry if you felt that I was hard on you, but in retrospect it was worth it because we might have ended up creating a more powerful alliance in the end.
    .
    Please feel free to email me privately anytime at [email protected]
    .
    Respectfully,
    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    I’d be happy to do it via email.

    I’m sorry if some of the other commenters rubbed you the wrong way but I certainly took my share of abuse as well. I can feel your pain.

    You made a couple of statements that I want to address. I don’t have any particular feelings about Brookstone and ULG. I reported on the issues readers wanted me to address and I moved on. There are so many issues for me to deal with in the larger debt relief space that just don’t have the time to linger.

    I also don’t think there is anything wrong that you paid nothing and others paid $5,895. My point was that I felt it was a material fact that the reader should be aware of simply in the interest of disclosure to the reader. If you wanted to tell the reader that you felt she should pay $5,895 that you had not paid it. Just disclose it.

    I’m not sure you saw the story today on the Form 1012-R mailer that included your Wright vs. Bank of America case. If you have not seen it, here is the link. Please feel free to comment. I’d love to get your take on the mailer.

    Steve

  • Wright4ulg

    Steve, I would be very respectful to you in this interview, I promise. You would be my guest and be able to tell your side of the story. You can even talk about your feelings about Brookstone and ULG if you want. You can speak about why you think that I paid nothing upfront at 30% is wrong. My audience and supporters already know all this, so it will not shock them, but you can talk about it if you want.
    .
    Really the only thing I do not like, is the things that you say that imply things that are not true. I also do not like it when your friends post complaints that are not really customers or are meant to just do damage. Other than that, you and I should be looking for common ground, so that we can negotiate a peaceful cease fire kind of relationship.
    .
    I promise that I will be very fair and respectful to you as my guest. I promise :)
    Respectfully,
    John Wright

  • Steve Rhode

    Yes, I was the founder of Myvesta US and the past Chairman of Myvesta UK. I now devote all my time instead to this site.

  • Steve Rhode

    The site does not earn $5 per click and the amount per click is dependent on the amount the advertiser has bid for the ad to appear. I have no control over that but I can assure you it is no $5 per click.

  • Michael

    Steve, if you are making $5 per click, I’ll click on a few every time I visit your site. Just let me know.

    Michael

  • Michael

    Steve, if you are making $5 per click, I’ll click on a few every time I visit your site. Just let me know.

    Michael

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      The site does not earn $5 per click and the amount per click is dependent on the amount the advertiser has bid for the ad to appear. I have no control over that but I can assure you it is no $5 per click.

  • Steve Rhode

    Can you please clarify what you mean when you say, “that doesn’t pay you to get referrals off of your pay per click ads?”

    Since I don’t offer any plan like you described, “pay per so I dont bash you” paying Debt Companies, right?” can you please explain what you mean?

    I did not run a debt settlement company.

  • Senka911

    :)
    Myvesta US Articles
    Steve Rhode is the founder of Myvesta US in the United States and the Chairman of Myvesta UK in the United Kingdom.
    myvesta.org/articles/authors/1…

  • Steve Rhode

    I did not run a debt settlement company.

    Your statement about the ads is not correct. See the site terms for a full explanation about how ads are displayed.

  • Senka911

    By Disgusted – Scam Checker Report
    I have taken a look at Steve’s site and researched some of his professional history. Steve is clearly a hypocrite and is generating revenue on his website from the same companies he bashes. He claims that he has “no control” over the ads his website displays, but in fact, he has 100% control. He owns the website. At any time, he can take the Google Adsense ads down and replace them with ads of his choice. The fact is, Steve is likely earning upward of $5 for every time someone clicks on one of his ads.

    Steve is like the substance abuse counselor who sells crack on the side and justifies it by saying, “I warned you. Didn’t you read my disclaimer?” Steve is no white knight and anybody seeking debt help should consult a professional, not this buffoon. His debt settlement company failed, so he is trying a different approach. Pathetic.

  • boston67

    By TheBellTolls -Scam Checker Report
    Disgusted you could not have summed it up better. Steve “The Debt Hoax” is profiting through proliforation of his “non-profit?” Really Steve Mr. Debt Guy? You think that any able-bodied consumer with half of a cortex wouldn’t see that you found a way to bash your “competition” that doesn’t pay you to get referrals off of your pay per click ads? We should all feel very confident that you don’t contact those helpless consumers that are genuinely in trouble only to flip them over to one of your “pay per so I dont bash you” paying Debt Companies, right? Game’s up Steve a tigger doesn’t change it’s stripes no different in your case “Debt Guy” formerly “Debt Settlement Guy that didnt work out.” Run!… do not walk away from anyone considering “The Debt Guy” as anyone other than a profiteer with a creative new approach to soft sell you!

  • Steve Rhode

    Just for your information Myvesta in the U.S. closed in 2006 and stopped providing consumer service a year or two before. According to the BBB it closed with an A+ rating.

  • Steve Rhode

    Links I’ve already either disproven or commented on.

    Three years ago I was living in England and not offering services in the U.S. It’s not me.

  • Wright4ulg
  • Wright4ulg

    Hey Steven:

    There is this guy that I think he meant to post in your room because he wrote this:

    Guest991 (guest): I am an attorney, but not licensed in CA. Here is my take. Bullshit. Initially, up until recently, the mortgage company didn’t have to notify anybody that their loan had been sold to another entity. Loan origination is a creature of State law for the most part. Mortgage law is very complicated and a jr. woodchuck attorney can not tell you whether or not there is a case without REALLY looking through the documents. Not a 10 minute review. Then he probably needs to check MERS and find out who the investor is
    .
    So I told him he was in the wrong room, becasue you were here:

    .
    John, I tried MyVesta. Stay away from them!!! They took $2900 from me.
    Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMJohn-Wright: who did?
    Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMJohn-Wright: the debt guy?
    Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMTheresa (guest): MyVesta
    Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMTheresa (guest): What every they’re calling themselves these days. Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMJohn-Wright: Oh my! Is that the Steve Rhodes guy?
    Feb 27 2011, 3:45 PMTheresa (guest): I believe that’s the guy I worked with, it’s been at least 3 years ago.

  • SeanDSLegalPlan

    ??????????

  • Steve Rhode

    Finally had a moment to respond to that debt management guys link you included. Readers can read this post for more information why it is just inaccurate.

  • Wright4ulg

    He is no trouble at all (wink) I am the one in trouble, because someone in this room is trying to hurt my lawsuit, while they try to get me to say things for their very low budget attorney (lol) (wink) I am in trouble though, because I am the potential victim, as well as Brookstone. I really wish your ips would stop visiting my chat room, because we already have what we need. You do not have to worry about another protest as long as there are not anymore of our witnesses, who report it to me again.
    .
    Did you notice that the original person never asked another question? (lol) They would have made an excellent witness (wink).
    .
    I will say it again, as long as Steven is not slandering my name, hurting lawsuit with lies directly or indirectly, there will be protest. All you have to do is look at the name of this room, while patching that together with a few ips and matching the statement in the chat room with this room and we have I am done.
    .
    Now, if you would please stop writing me, I might not write back. You keep asking questions, and I keep answering them, because I am trying show you respect (wink).
    .
    Have a nice day :)
    .
    Respectfully,
    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • SeanDSLegalPlan

    Your comment seems like a veiled threat. You were doing pretty good up until then. What kind of “trouble” will Steve be in?
    Why would you say that?

  • SeanDSLegalPlan

    Why are you winking? What trouble is Steve in?

  • Steve Rhode

    Is This a Threat?

    John,

    The written word can sometimes be misinterpreted so rather than make an assumption about anything you have said I wanted to make sure I understood the meaning and intention of your words.

    You Say
    “I of course must go on other sites to defend my lawsuit now, while it being from others who I feel are a threat to the integrity of my lawsuit.”

    Me
    What does that have to do with the reader’s question? All of the comments you have made have been on a story about a reader interaction with Brookstone law. They did not name any case, did not name a lawsuit by you, and did not name “your lawsuit.” The point of the article seems to be the reader’s question which you have never answered.

    The reader asked, “I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”

    You Threaten
    “However, please be advised that I have every intention of posting warnings about your past, if I hear you directly or indirectly attacking my lawsuit, myself or the firm representing me, while saying unfair things or using lies.”

    Me
    What warnings about my past? What is there to warn of? I take that as a threat. I have already answered all of your questions about issues you raised and the answers are innocent. I even talk about those issues on my own site and readers can get the truth here.

    It appears you are saying if I write any more stories about Brookstone you will make untrue posts to punish me. That, I take as a threat to harm me for my work.

    There may be more stories about Brookstone or Vito Torchia, Jr. In fact I had previously asked Vito Torchia Jr for a statement or feed back on the class action suit he and ULG have been named in which readers can view here. I may be publishing that story.

    There may be more reader questions that roll in about Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. and I take your statement as a warning if I publish them. I think what you are missing is that none of this is either about a lawsuit you are participating in or you. So why the warning?

    I have not printed unfair things or lies. The primary issue in my response still appears only to be my doubt the person the reader spoke to was a junior attorney. Yet neither you, Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. has identified who the person was and so my doubt still stands. It’s a doubt, not a lie. My doubt is the truth until the person involved can be identified. Reasonable doubt equals innocence.

    You Say
    “This is because I will feel obligated to make the public aware of just who is giving them advice concerning my lawsuit.”

    Me
    Awesome, but I did not do that. I have no knowledge the reader is asking about “your” lawsuit and the other people named in it might object to it being “your” lawsuit. As far as I can see Vito Torchia, Jr. and Brookstone Law have filed a suit against Bank of America which names a number of plaintiffs, of which you are one. For the record, I have not provided advice about any lawsuit.

    You Say
    “However, In my opinion, you are simply not qualified to give anyone advice regarding the firm that represents me, my lawsuit or your feelings about my relationship with the firm representing me.”

    Me
    If you actually read the reader’s question and my response I did not give advice about Brookstone Law, Vito Torchia, Jr., you, or your feelings. My answer was directly about what the reader asked. I did not say Brookstone Law is a scam, Vito Torchia, Jr. is a scam, John Wright is a scam, or the lawsuit filed by Brookstone Law against Bank of America is a scam. The reason I did not say that is because it was not what the reader asked.

    You Say
    “This is why I want make sure that my lawsuit is protected from whatever agenda you apparently have against Brookstone.”

    Me
    I have no agenda against Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. I have written one article which involved Brookstone Law, here. The article was promoted by a tip I received. All the facts I presented in that article are will sourced and linked to. You will note that I even gave Vito Torchia, Jr. an opportunity to respond to that article and I included his response. An opportunity you did not give me before publishing your attack against me on your site.

    This reader question happened to be about Brookstone Law simply because that’s what the reader asked about. Who knows, future readers may ask me something about Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. and if a reader asks me to answer it, I will.

    I do see one of the pending questions says the reader met with Aalok Sikand and yes, Aalok Sikand is a lawyer in California.

    You Say
    “I will not allow you to directly or indirectly imply that I work for ULG or Brookstone, because it is a lie.”

    Me
    I never said you did and if another commenter said you did you are free to respond to that person. The only thing I may have said that you might have misinterpreted as an employment statement was that since you did not have to pay the $5,895 to participate in the lawsuit as others have been pitched that one may observe that you are a promoter of the suit and have received a financial benefit for that. All I said was I thought that should be disclosed.

    You Say
    “Your blogs comments that implied that they are “your staff ” are simply revealing that you think I have something to do with ULG or Brookstone, while your comments are cleverly designed to give that impression, or lead the reader to your unsubstantiated opinion “

    Me
    Let me be clear, I have never said you work for ULG or Brookstone. I am happy to state you don’t work for United Law Group or Brookstone Law. I have not inferred, alluded or attempted to give the impression in any way that you did, do, or will. If someone else has said something that gave that impression, feel free to go and attack and threaten that person. However, that person was not me.

    You Say
    “I simply will not allow what happened with my lawsuit at ULG to happen again.”

    Me
    What happened to your lawsuit at ULG?

    You Say
    “I will not allow this to happen again, and I will fight back this time. This is because I have zero tolerance for bullshit right now, which is exactly what it is.”

    Me
    What happened the first time and are you inferring the reader’s question is bullshit? I know you said it is bullshit but what is “it?”

    You Say
    “My supporters will be monitoring your site from here on out Steve, in which I will only come on your site, if you are giving advice about myself, the firm representing me and my lawsuit.”

    Me
    Great. Maybe they can then help by answering a future reader question that might involve this subject. Comments are welcome, attacks, not so much. In fact any supporter of yours is welcome to come and answer this reader’s question above. The readers asks:

    “I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”

    You Say
    “As a result of your precipitous actions, I have posted your story first in my BofA News Today area, as well as I have revealed to my supporters my intentions in my daily blog on the date of 02/26/11.”

    Me
    Just to be clear here. What you published, copy here, was nothing more that an untrue and unfounded attack on me by another site against me which contains statements I have already shown you to be not true. And to be accurate, that is not “my story.” It is not a story about me that you wrote. And it is simply an attack against me which you copied off another site and published on your site. The story is not accurate and I’ve demonstrated to you prior to your posting where issues raised in the story and accompanying links were not accurate yet you elected to post them anyway. If you wanted someone to sue for libel you just laid out a perfect opportunity.

    And I’m not sure what my “precipitous actions” were. I write about the debt relief industry and answer reader questions. If you are using precipitous as in done suddenly or without careful consideration, I’m not sure how that applies. My answering the question submitted was neither done suddenly, dramatic or without careful consideration. In fact I suggested to the reader they get a second opinion in the interest of careful consideration.

    You Say
    “You will see there just why I am hyper sensitive right now, if you read how there are two companies potentially defrauding my supporters at this time.”

    Me
    I have no clue what companies you are talking about and don’t know the issue you mention. If you want to submit material for me to possibly publish I’m happy to review it as long as it is well sourced with the facts stated. Additionally if a reader asks me a question about your anonymous mystery companies, I’ll answer it as I do all reader questions submitted for me to answer.

  • Steve Rhode

    So are you going to give me the courtesy, since your site promotes itself as truthful and honest, to respond to the post you placed on your site that you copied from another site?

  • Wright4ulg

    You are a joke. We know you are (ip) (lol) If you are a really good friend to Steve, you will stop getting him in trouble, as I am sure he has not appreciated your help thus far (wink).
    .
    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Wright4ulg

    Steve:
    .
    I did not make any comment that you were bald, as that was a comment left by someone else, who as far as I know had nothing to do with me. The reason I posted the article, is because either you or one of your friends came to my live chat room trying to do harm to my lawsuit AGAIN. It is fair to mention that we have the ip address, which we studied way before we came to this site. We are also aware of “this person” on certain complaint boards. At any rate, they thought they were going to be able to make my supporters angry, by revealing to them that I did not have to pay what they all paid. This would explain why you were so interested in asking me the question in the first place, as you had intentions of using it as weapon. The only thing you did not realize, is that my supporters already knew (lol) In my situatin, the firm get 30% of whatever I win. Do you really think I would have revealed it to you, if I was not willing to reveal it to my public? (lol) So I am going to react every time I see this little monkey on a blog trying to use it.
    .
    You made this claim:
    .
    Steve wrote: ” You thanked me for my integrity for letting you comment here and leave your comments up but on your site there appears no place for me to set the record straight on the misinformation you published.
    .
    The post you borrowed from the debt management guys gets so many things wrong and contained many factual errors about the debt relief business they purported to write about.”
    Exactly! That is how I feel Steve! See how it feels? Regardless of your feelings, I am only a client at Brookstone, which I want you to stop making unsubstantiated claims, while you dispatch our monkey’s to my site. I know you are going to say it was not you, but even if, we know they work with you on issues like this one. However, I am going to fight back every time you do, so I am not sure your friends are helping you. This is why every time I see this kind of unethical tactics used to do harm to my lawsuit or the firm representing me, I will respond in protest, as a means to show the public just what kind of person is making these claims.
    For the record, it is your position that you proved your innocence, but not mine or my “staff,” as you say. However, I have no intentions of having any further dialog of protest with you, as long as I do not perceive that you are trying to hurt my lawsuit or the firm representing me, with whatever agenda you seem to have.
    In closing, if it makes you feel better, I did not send out a mass email to my list or have it posted on brother sites in protest. In other words, I went easy on you Steve, which was me showing you consideration for leaving my comments on your site. It should also be mentioned that there is a comment section on the page your article is posted on, if you would like to tell your side. Other than that, I think you already did in the article itself. So the public is seeing both sides of the issue.
    .
    Also for the record, I did not leave one comment on the article I posted, as it is not my style to pick on someone because they are bald. In fact, until you mentioned it, I had no idea you were bald.
    .
    I wish you well in all your positive endeavors, as I consider this issue resolved.
    .
    Respectfully,
    John Wright

  • Really?

    Class action against ULG, Vito & many more for Racketeering.
    http://www.lakeshorelaw.org/~/

    John, These people are your lawyers…. You are promoting them. Why?

  • Really?

    Bet you a loan mod he won’t… He has NO integrity.

  • Really?

    John says his whole point of getting on here was to expose your past! That he finally tricked you into it & now he will “expose you”. And I quote, ” You see Steven, I have decided to protest against your site, even before we had a dialog. This is why I baited you, and you fell for it hook, line and SINKER. (lol)”.

    What in the world would he possibly gain by such a thing? First of all, a child would see that there is no other site that exposes so many debt relief scams. By even coming on this site, he has exposed himself.

    Here’s a question John- After your 1st law firm was raided by the FBI & then filed bankruptcy after you had paid them, why would you go with a firm so obviously put together with the same players? There are plenty of attorneys with class suits against BoA on CONTINGENCY for their clients that have not been charged with RICO charges by the Feds. Why do you believe if more people join your mass suit that it would benefit you??? That makes NO sense.

    Why won’t you admit that your purpose to come on this site was gather more clients for the law firm you market for? Why would you say one word on a site followed by so many regulators?

    You would be wise to simply go away. The more you say, the more you expose yourself. Anyone reading any of this will see ULG’s background, K2, Kramer, Kutzner & Vito’s previous experience and all the consumer complaints on all the BBB sites regarding these companies past “work” in taking $ from distressed homeowners, Not answering their own clients customer service needs, federal law suits, disbarments, odd marketing arrangements and RUN from you and Brookstone.

    Steve has helped expose hundreds of scams in the debt relief world by simply reporting their activities here while offering free guidance to consumers who have no idea who to trust anymore. And now because you decided to come here to market your wares on his site & contributers have added a ton of background info to Brookstone’s players pasts, you are exposing HIM????

    Lastly, you answered one of my questions by saying you have no idea how long Brookstone has been in business & that you don’t care because theyre simply the best. Later, you claimed that you personally brought the players together that have formed Brookstone. This lawfirm is less than a year old John & you know exactly when it was formed & by who & for what purpose.

    Is anyone reading this still taking you serious John. If Brookstone’s sales affiliates contact you America, ask them how a law firm can pay a sales company? There are always loopholes around fee laws, aren;t there John?

    You’ve done enough damage, John. Go away. When Vito sees the mess you’ve created here, he’s gonna be pissed.

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    Is there any reason why you posted links on your site about issues I have already answered and proved to be false? I was surprised to see you reposted and article from debt management guys that is full of errors.

    I have extended every courtesy to you to comment and post here on my site yet your response is to post outright lies and misinformation about me on your site. In fact to even attack the fact I’m bald.

    You thanked me for my integrity for letting you comment here and leave your comments up but on your site there appears no place for me to set the record straight on the misinformation you published.

    The post you borrowed from the debt management guys gets so many things wrong and contained many factual errors about the debt relief business they purported to write about.

    If you are interested to read what it is the debt management guys are going off about, it was in response to a post I made about a press release they put out that had some unbelievably wrong statements in it. You can read the story here.

    If you are going to post links to information I have already told you is untrue at the very least, to demonstrate your integrity, please post the links I’ve already given you to rebut those untrue statements and links.

  • Steve Rhode

    I think have been extremely open and forth coming in my answers here. I don’t have a clue what there is to expose or warn people about.

  • Really?

    Did he ever answer about how this whole thing was to expose you Steve? I’d like The Truth!!

  • Steve Rhode

    I had asked the individual commenters whom I noticed were saying the same thing in their comments which made me wonder if they had been asked to come and comment. If you look through some of the comments they shared the same phrase, they said they “support Brookstone Law.”

  • Steve Rhode

    Happily, click here.

  • Steve Rhode

    What warnings about my past? You asked me questions about some issues and I openly answered them. The answers are innocent enough. So what in the world is there to warn anyone about?

  • Really?

    Class action against ULG, Vito & many more for Racketeering.
    http://www.lakeshorelaw.org/~/

    John, These people are your lawyers…. You are promoting them. Why?

  • Really?

    What do you know about THIS lawsuit John?
    Heres a good one-

    http://www.hotcomplaints.com/c

    KRAMER AND KASLOW is another Law Firm acting as a front for all these ex loan mod shops who no longer are in business. Kramer and Kaslow used to be a intake office for loan modification companies to submit their loan modifications to them and they just took the money. Now all of a sudden they doing this “MASS JOINDER” called the Roland vs. Bank of America but quite frankly I don’t believe they have any agreement with the main attorney on this case nor have I ever seen ONE retainer signed by the main attorney on all these cases they are taking money on. They also are advertising that Kramer and Kaslow is doing their own “Litigation”. Once again I haven’t seen even one case being filed under Kramer and Kaslow. What I do know is this operation is being run by Gary and Chris Fox. Gary is an EX LOAN MOD agent and Chris Fox.. Well I think his name speaks for himself. He used to OWN Green Credit and that got Raided with a Criminal Search Warrant. (See link below) Then he left to work at United Law Group another operation that was raided and shut down. Chris Fox is back to his old tricks and is going around town getting every broker shop to send their previous loan modifications to Kramer and Kaslow and spin it as Litigation now. Well hers the issue with the business. 1) YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FEE SPLIT WITH NON ATTORNEYS. 2) YOUR ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SOLICIT FOR LITIGATION “CAPPERS”. These are just some of the MANY rules Kramer and Kaslow are violating. I would stay clear from Kramer and Kaslow as they have no idea how to operate as a law office and are using this name to try and bait new victims. Here is my suggestion to any law firm you go to. BE PREPARED! Ask to speak with the attorney. If you don’t feel like he knows anything then don’t waste your time. If the attorney is not there dont waste your time. Ask to see the filing of the case. Ask if you join when your name will be added to the case and get that in writing. If they are representing other firms ask to see the agreements between that firm and the firm they so called are working with. And of course DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!
    (Here is just a tip of the ice berg about Chris and those running Kramer and Kaslow)
    http://www.loansafe.org/crimin
    http://www.loansafe.org/united
    http://www.loansafe.org/green-
    http://articles.ocregister.com
    Lawyer and Attorney United States comments

  • Really?

    What do you know about THIS lawsuit John?
    Heres a good one-

    http://www.hotcomplaints.com/complaint-loan_modification_3909.html

    KRAMER AND KASLOW is another Law Firm acting as a front for all these ex loan mod shops who no longer are in business. Kramer and Kaslow used to be a intake office for loan modification companies to submit their loan modifications to them and they just took the money. Now all of a sudden they doing this “MASS JOINDER” called the Roland vs. Bank of America but quite frankly I don’t believe they have any agreement with the main attorney on this case nor have I ever seen ONE retainer signed by the main attorney on all these cases they are taking money on. They also are advertising that Kramer and Kaslow is doing their own “Litigation”. Once again I haven’t seen even one case being filed under Kramer and Kaslow. What I do know is this operation is being run by Gary and Chris Fox. Gary is an EX LOAN MOD agent and Chris Fox.. Well I think his name speaks for himself. He used to OWN Green Credit and that got Raided with a Criminal Search Warrant. (See link below) Then he left to work at United Law Group another operation that was raided and shut down. Chris Fox is back to his old tricks and is going around town getting every broker shop to send their previous loan modifications to Kramer and Kaslow and spin it as Litigation now. Well hers the issue with the business. 1) YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FEE SPLIT WITH NON ATTORNEYS. 2) YOUR ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SOLICIT FOR LITIGATION “CAPPERS”. These are just some of the MANY rules Kramer and Kaslow are violating. I would stay clear from Kramer and Kaslow as they have no idea how to operate as a law office and are using this name to try and bait new victims. Here is my suggestion to any law firm you go to. BE PREPARED! Ask to speak with the attorney. If you don’t feel like he knows anything then don’t waste your time. If the attorney is not there dont waste your time. Ask to see the filing of the case. Ask if you join when your name will be added to the case and get that in writing. If they are representing other firms ask to see the agreements between that firm and the firm they so called are working with. And of course DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!
    (Here is just a tip of the ice berg about Chris and those running Kramer and Kaslow)
    http://www.loansafe.org/criminal-search-warrant-issued-for-green-credit-solutions-files
    http://www.loansafe.org/united-law-group
    http://www.loansafe.org/green-credit-solutions-california-dre-accusations-detailed
    http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-01-13/crime/24565468_1_law-firms-loan-modification-mortgage-aid
    Lawyer and Attorney United States comments

    • Really?

      Class action against ULG, Vito & many more for Racketeering.
      http://www.lakeshorelaw.org/~/media/Firm%20Galleries/Organizations/1/7/9/5/1795782/complaint%20current%20ULG.ashx

      John, These people are your lawyers…. You are promoting them. Why?

    • Senka911

      By Disgusted – Scam Checker Report
      I have taken a look at Steve’s site and researched some of his professional history. Steve is clearly a hypocrite and is generating revenue on his website from the same companies he bashes. He claims that he has “no control” over the ads his website displays, but in fact, he has 100% control. He owns the website. At any time, he can take the Google Adsense ads down and replace them with ads of his choice. The fact is, Steve is likely earning upward of $5 for every time someone clicks on one of his ads.

      Steve is like the substance abuse counselor who sells crack on the side and justifies it by saying, “I warned you. Didn’t you read my disclaimer?” Steve is no white knight and anybody seeking debt help should consult a professional, not this buffoon. His debt settlement company failed, so he is trying a different approach. Pathetic.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        I did not run a debt settlement company.

        Your statement about the ads is not correct. See the site terms for a full explanation about how ads are displayed.

  • Really?

    http://www.trustlink.org/Revie
    UNBELIEVABLE

    Kramer & Kaslow, USLMP Inc, loan modifcation, loan modification, K2 Law
    http://www.trustlink.org/Ask-T
    Company Rating F
    Our opinion of what this rating means:
    We strongly question the company’s reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law’s licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company’s industry is known for its fraudulent business practices.

    This business is not a BBB Accredited Business.

    Why Accreditation Revoked
    On June 16th 2010, this company’s accreditation in the BBB was revoked by the BBB’s Board of Directors due to failure to eliminate the underlying cause of complaints on file with the BBB and concerns relating to the company’s business relationship with some of the companies, with whom they conduct processing.

    Complaints filed: 19 within the last three years:
    Complainants allege unfulfilled contracts, and inability to obtain refunds when loan modification agreements failed to produce results. Customers claim excessive time periods passed with only minimal contact with lenders, causing further financial difficulties for homeowners. The company responds to complaints by claiming the complaint was filed in error. The company contends they are a processing company only, and that any fees paid in consideration of the contract was paid to another company. In some cases they company offers explanations for delays, or claims to have performed services as agreed. Refund requests are denied based on the company’s contention they accepted no money from the client.

    Effective October, 2009 in California, it is illegal to collect any fees, regardless of the form, for negotiating or attempting to negotiate a loan modification for a residential mortgage. All modification services must be fully completed before any money can be collected. It is also illegal to divide fees or services into components for the purpose of avoiding this law.

  • Really?

    Kramer & Kaslow are the lead attorneys on the case.
    http://www.piggybankblog.com/2

    What is their relationship to these companies?

    NRG National Relief Group
    Reliant Legal Network
    USLMP

    Interesting stuff. Do you think that by promoting these groups to “help strengthen your lawsuit” you may inadvertently be leading hurting Americans into sending their money to what appears to be another loan mod group that are scamming people?

    http://www.la.bbb.org/Business
    http://www.trustlink.org/Revie
    http://www.la.bbb.org/Business
    http://www.trustlink.org/Revie
    http://www.trustlink.org/Revie

    The endless complaints indicate they are another bad group of companies preying on people in need of help. You have no responsibility for steering consumers to these folks?
    Curious. You must have done your homework. You seem very thorough. Are you OK with all of this history? Add to it the the ULG bankruptcy and you are OK with advising people to pay these groups up front???

  • Rhondacon

    http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf
    please explain this.

  • Rhondacon

    why do you keep asking this question over and over?

  • Wright4ulg

    Steve:
    .
    Thank you for at least having the integrity to leave my comments posted.
    .
    I of course must go on other sites to defend my lawsuit now, while it being from others who I feel are a threat to the integrity of my lawsuit. However, please be advised that I have every intention of posting warnings about your past, if I hear you directly or indirectly attacking my lawsuit, myself or the firm representing me, while saying unfair things or using lies. This is because I will feel obligated to make the public aware of just who is giving them advice concerning my lawsuit. Though the other blogger on here said that you do not hide this past, I am confident that the person who originally posted the question did not know these things about you. They have a right to know, so that they can weigh out the value of your opinion. However, In my opinion, you are simply not qualified to give anyone advice regarding the firm that represents me, my lawsuit or your feelings about my relationship with the firm representing me. This is why I want make sure that my lawsuit is protected from whatever agenda you apparently have against Brookstone. I will not allow you to directly or indirectly imply that I work for ULG or Brookstone, because it is a lie. The fact is that their relationship with me is nothing other than a client attorney relationship. In other words, we do not hang out (wink). Your blogs comments that implied that they are “your staff ” are simply revealing that you think I have something to do with ULG or Brookstone, while your comments are cleverly designed to give that impression, or lead the reader to your unsubstantiated opinion The simple fact is that I am allowed to be represented, without my lawsuit and myself being attacked in this kind of unfair manner.
    .
    With that being said, I am not defending the law firm, as much I am defending my lawsuit and those of my supporters who joined my lawsuit. I simply will not allow what happened with my lawsuit at ULG to happen again. It was rumors like this, where people were viciously attacking something they knew nothing about, which were unsubstantiated by the facts, which undermined my lawsuit last time. I will not allow this to happen again, and I will fight back this time. This is because I have zero tolerance for bullshit right now, which is exactly what it is.
    .
    My supporters will be monitoring your site from here on out Steve, in which I will only come on your site, if you are giving advice about myself, the firm representing me and my lawsuit.
    .
    As a result of your precipitous actions, I have posted your story first in my BofA News Today area, as well as I have revealed to my supporters my intentions in my daily blog on the date of 02/26/11. You will see there just why I am hyper sensitive right now, if you read how there are two companies potentially defrauding my supporters at this time. This is the news you should be reporting, if you truly want to protect the public, as you imply you do.
    .
    John’s Daily Blog: http://www.piggybankblog.com/2
    .
    BofA News Today: http://www.piggybankblog.com/2
    Thank you for your time.
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK.

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    Okay, I’ve got to ask. When you say “until secessions are over,” what does that mean for you as you used it. I just want to understand the statement clearly. I’m not sure if you are using that in a political or governmental context. Can you fill me in please.

  • Wright4ulg

    I will look into it because maybe the thing that is wrong, is the title that says “supporters” should say something else. Though we do have political supporters, the supporters have asked that we do not post their names, until secessions are over. I agree with you that it should not be under the title supporters, but maybe “contacted by”. With that being said, were never supported by Obama, and neither do we support his decisions concerning the banks.

    I actually appreciate you finding this error, but it does not mean that my site is a scam. Once again, it is more like a customers service complaint, but not evidence of a scam.

    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    The President Comment

    I didn’t make that comment. The first paragraph must be directed at some other commenter, not me.

    Company

    I founded the nonprofit. A nonprofit is a public non-stock corporation. When my wife took over for me, as I explain here. I returned after my break so I could spend more time with out daughter before she graduated high school and headed off to college. That’s hardly sinister. My wife volunteered for the position because nobody else there wanted to deal with the pressure of running the company. She had been the finance manager of the company since the beginning and ran the accounting department. It was a logical person to take over for me. And I did earn a salary as every other employee of the company did. I however did not own any stock or have any equity in the company.

    Your Staff
    I’m not sure where the “your staff” thing is coming from. I’ve never made any such claim.

    The Law Firm Gets 30%
    If I read you correctly you are saying that Brookstone Law gets 30% of some benefit if you win. I understand that is an amount that you have determined is fair and I am not insinuating it is not.

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    I provoked you by calling you Johnny? Dude, the reason I pointed out the Steven thing is because it is not the spelling of my name. My issue was not with Steven, my issue is just it’s not my name.

    Your Answers

    1. My issue is not if you were a client at ULG. What I pointed out was that clients of ULG have filed a class action suit against them. My point was that ironically as a former client you would benefit as a member of that class. That’s it.

    2. The issue of payment is material simply because if you are promoting others to enter the suit or promoting it on your site one argument that could be made is that you received a benefit as a promoter and it is an important fact that should be disclosed.

    Vito

    I am sure Vito is an excellent attorney. I have never doubted his skills nor made any report, reference, or opinion about his skills as an attorney.

    I have reported on public actions that have involved him, such as the ULG bankruptcy and the class action suit against ULG by former clients which names him. All of the issues I have been reported on are the results of actions by others, not me.

    I have never insinuated he is a scam, I’ve never inferred he’s a scam, and I’m sure he is motivated to do a good job. I did not call the suit a fraud. You are making some big incorrect assumptions about what I have said.

    Comments of Others

    Obviously I am no more responsible for the comments posted by others than I am for yours. Please don’t put the words of others in my mouth.

    Closing

    You state you have a very popular blog. Congratulations. And since I have not visited it I’ll make an assumption that you feel you are helping the average person fight back against the banks for an injustice. Ironically, in the long run, you and I are both trying to help people.

    So a reader asked me a question. My readers typically come to me because they are having financial problems. My concern with the information the reader presented had nothing to do with Vito. My concern was the consumer was being pitched hard with promises you even said seemed unreal. I just can’t see where you, your site, or any other interest has been harmed by my advice to the reader to get a second opinion before laying out $5,895.

  • Really?

    OK- The Obama supporting you was an “error”. Oops. So I look at your sidebar that claims 6 Congressmen support you- 5 of them have not written back to you & the one that has, sent you a letter looking for a contribution; It doesn’t mention you or your “lawsuit” anywhere.

    Kinda makes you “THINK”

  • Wright4ulg

    Once again, I would click the email alert, and it would pop up a window to type in, so I thought it was yours. This response above was in its proper place though, as you can see that I was responding to his PR claim. The only thing he could come up with about my blog, was the president thing was in the wrong directory. This was not done on purpose, but one of the piggybankblog board members must have misunderstood it’s placement. This will be corrected. Nevertheless, I did not hear them speak about the other ones at all, that were clearly in the right directory (lol) Even if the we wanted to put the directory there, I am not sure they proved their point Steve. Simply because if that is all they could come up with, I think it proves they were really reaching (lol) The reality that we have previous candidates, who are even our board, would suggest that they have the political connections to make it happen. They were trying to prove me wrong, by discrediting the fact that I said there were 30,000 or that we have political support. The reality is that we do. I do not have to prove it to them. So it does not matter what this person says, but I am perplexed how the President title being in the wrong directly equals me in on some scam (lol) That’s is lame. Which by the way, one of this bloggers comments from earlier gave away who they are to you Steve (wink). I am sure they would have a great knowledge of the debit relief business too(lol)
    .
    Anyway, I pointed out that you were saying that it was about your company, but that you were only the CEO. Not these exact words, but in context that is what you were saying. I pointed out that the fact it said that it was non-profit, does not mean that you did not make money, which seemed as if you were trying to emphasize that it was non-profit, as a means to dispute the claims. I also pointed out that the fact that you were able to appoint your wife as the CEO, would suggest that it was a little irregular, which has many implications. The Folsom thing was a tongue in cheek response.
    .
    I was avoiding your question, because I told you that there was one point that I completely refused to answer yours, until you answered mine. There was a time that I was following the right thread, when I made that observation. Therefore, I was not even reading your comments, but simply responding to the other bloggers who were coming to my email . However, I did just answer it in a previous post. In fact, I gave you a detailed answer. I do not know why you want to know so badly. What does it prove either way? Are you still having delusions that I have a “staff” and stuff like that (lol) Yet were trying to act like you were not implying anything earlier, but you call them my staff (lol) Either way, I answered your dumb question, that does not matter. I will say it again, I am a client, and I owe you nothing. This is because I do not work for either agency, but I also do not work for you either (lol) Like I said, there is only one of here who has worked for a debt relief company that was called a scam, and that was you. There is also only one of us here that made money while doing it, which that was you too. So I do not know where you think you are going with this. Like I said before, I am not going to pull my pants down, simply because you claim I have poka dotted underwear on (lol) Regardless if I had to pay or not, they still get a percentage of what I am going to win. I know you are nosey, so I will just tell you that it is 30% (lol)
    .
    Okay, I have answered your question. I am super tired now, so I am not going to proof read. As well as this irrelevant blog has taken up too much of my time. I am bored now (yawn)

    I answered your question already about the charge, which I do not know why you are so concerned about it (lol) However, I did answer your question already.
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

  • Wright4ulg

    Hi-

    Actually, I think I just posted it on your site?

  • Wright4ulg

    No you were not a very nice person to me Steve. In fact, I was the one that continued to respect you, as you tried to provoke with statements of “Johnny.” Though the name did not hurt me, because it is my name, I noted your snarky attempt . So I decided to fight back.
    .
    Thank you for finally answering some of my questions. This was why I was avoiding your questions after awhile, because I had noticed that you were not answering mine. Now I will answer some of yours.
    .
    1. I was a client of both law firms. However, while at ULG, I came up with the idea to promote my lawsuit, so that I could make it as powerful as possible. This is because I have experience in promotion, marketing and social networking. I was promoting myself and my lawsuit, but ULG was simply a byproduct of this fact. This is because the more people that are in my lawsuit, the more powerful it is. Contrary to all these claims, I was not concerned with what ULG charged the other clients, because I am only a client myself. Just because I have blog, does not mean that I am responsible for answering everyone’s delusions about whatever agenda they have against ULG. I was only a client, but would protect the law firm, if there was a lie told that I felt was hurting my lawsuit. I was not protecting ULG, but protecting my lawsuit. It is important to mention that I did not know Vito, while I was at ULG. I would not know him until I was at Brookstone. In fact, I have only talked to Vito twice in my life, because he is my attorney now, but was not then. Anyway, I paid ULG 8,000.00. That is why I was a client Steve.
    .
    2. You asked: “Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case?” Though this is really none of your business, the answer is no. I simply do not work for Brookstone, so I am under no obligation to answer any of these questions, but I have answered them for you. Neither am I going to pull my pants down, if you say that I have poka dotted underwear on. Can I ask you how much you make a year, simply because someone alleges you were charged with fraud? So contrary to your, which are implied by your questions, I am not guilty simply for being a client of both firms. At any rate, no I did not have to pay. So what? What does that matter? I paid at ULG and was not crying about it? They did charge me because they felt bad for what happened to me, but also liked the evidence I had for the lawsuit. I have more evidence than the average person, which makes my chances of winning very good. This is why it is not uncommon that they did not charge me.
    .
    I do not care what anyone says here about Vito, because I simply go by my experience, as well as the fact that he is not only a very nice man, but he is a very good attorney. This is why I posted the article for you about MERS. Once again, the fact that it was a press release, was only a byproduct of the point I was trying to make, which was that he won. Everyone knows that it is a very important win a MERS case, regardless of the fact that it was a press release. Once again, if any of these claims were true about Vito, why is there no marks against him at the Bar Association? Because it is not true Steve, which you of people should understand that it is not fair that you are insinuating that someone is a scam, simply because they might have worked somewhere that everyone is calling fraudulent. Does that mean that any place you work at now should be considered fraudulent, simply because of the links that I posted about you? That would not be fair, would it Steve? Should I began to imply that any client that used you in the past is in on your fraudulent scheme? That would not be fair either, would it Steve? This is why you are going to denounce anyone here that says that on your blog, right Steve?
    .
    Also, contrary to what one of your blogger suggested, which was that I must be on the inside, simply because I knew the recorded script is simply false. Did I mention that I was a client? You see, they recorded me, and it was so clear, that I remember it all this time later. This is why I do not believe a lot of the complaints on ULG. The other reasons is that most of the complaints willingly admit that they were trying to use ULG to defraud the bank, which is not a credible testimony. What I am referring to is the ones that said “they told me not to pay, or I would not get a loan modification.” I paid my mortgage for many months after securing ULG. You tell me why I did not stop making my mortgage payment when I started up with them? This is because they never said that to me.
    .
    In closing, just because I have a very popular blog that I choose to use as a forum to promote my lawsuit, while the advertisement of the firm is simply a byproduct, it does make me part of some grand scheme, such as your blogger or you have implied. So let me be clear here, which is that I have every intention of defending the firm from any lie that I believe will damage my lawsuit, such as these kind of lies did with ULG. This is not preservation of the law firm, but of lawsuit, and my supporters who are a part of it.
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
    .

    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Wright4ulg

    Yes, you are correct Steve that I did post in the wrong spot. I just clicked on the link in the email, and it brought me to that window, which I just assumed was yours. To keep our dialog in context, I will post it here, and then answer some of your questions, since I noticed you finally answered some of mine. I will answer them after I post this:
    .
    From earlier:

    Steven:
    I really bother you don’t I Steven? I mean, I really crawl under your fingernails, but laughable? Well, I have a feeling that you are not going to be laughing very soon (wink). Either, way there you go again asking a question Steven, after you said you would not. Did you LIE to me Steven? Oh well, this is not your first time misrepresenting something to the American people, is it Steven (wink)? No Steven, you are right, as well as you have proven what you set out to do for you audience, which is you have shown your audience that you are clever. What they might not have known, is that you have had an audience before, while showing them how clever you were. This is why I have been trying so hard to get you to speak about your experience, but you have been holding back from your audience, haven’t you Steven? Which by the way, I know that you do not like being called “Steven,” but I am going to be calling you something you might not like more, which I am sure that the word “Steven” is not going to matter to you in a few minutes. However, I am here to show your audience that there is a difference between clever and intelligent. This is because criminals are clever, but usually get busted because they are not intelligent. However, to answer your very clever question, as we continue this dialog that you have been hoping to expose me with (lol), there are around 30,000 who visit in three months, but only 10,000 of them might be registered. I receive about 150 new ones a day, while I service thousands, but why? Are you jealous Steven? I mean, I have no problem posting my tracking, which shows the House of Reps, U.S. Senate, Secretary of State, governors and various representatives around the world that view my site, while they give two shits about your site Steven. Nevertheless, I am a very generous man, and that is why I am going to share my audience with you right now. You see, Americans are pissed off at not only the banks, but also at these fraudulent companies that you try to appear to be against. This is because you are hoping that if you yell “fraud” loud enough about some other vulnerable company, you might hope people will begin to identify you as a person who exposes fraud, instead of a person who commits it (smile).
    .
    You see, there is a reason that I am here Steven(wink). However, I need to clear up something I said, which is that I would not answer anymore of your questions. You see, that is not true because I have no problem answering your questions, while I have answered all of yours. This is why I refuse to answer any more of your questions, until you answer some of mine. Let the record show that you have not answered even one of my questions, but seem more interested in saving face, while trying to manipulate your audience into thinking that I am more than just a client for Brookstone (lol). This is even more silly, after you consider that we have had this dialog for two days, as you keep thinking that you are revealing me, all while I know everything about you. Doh! (lol) You see, even though I am only a client of the companies you have been potentially slandering, you actually owned one of those potentially fraudulent debt relief companies, didn’t you Steven? Doh! (lol)
    .
    Therefore, will you please answer for your audience, the piggybankblog council (who has been secretly watching this debate) and myself some of my questions that I have about you?
    1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?
    2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?
    3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?
    4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself?
    http://www.scamchecker.com/con
    http://www.debtmanagementguys….

    http://www.complaintsboard.com

    http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf

    .
    In conclusion, you tried to expose what you thought was a weakness of mine, while I was only being a client of Brookstone. However, in what you perceived to be my greatest weakness, I have found my greatest strength (wink). You see Steven, I have decided to protest against your site, even before we had a dialog. This is why I baited you, and you fell for it hook, line and SINKER. (lol) This is why I am about to give you what you have been seeking, which might have been trying to become a site that hosts thousands of people.
    .
    This is because I am about to now open this debate to thousands of people around the world on my blog, because I am not only here to expose Bank of Defrauding America, but expose all of you who potentially gained by defrauding the American people, while exploiting us during a time when we were vulnerable.
    .
    Now you know why I am here “Steven”, and now you see the difference between my site and yours. You see, I am a protest site, which is why I have found you Steven. This is because I intend to serve as the voice of all injured people by your company, as I exercise my right to protest. This protest starts now, and my audience of 30,000 people are eagerly waiting for your answer (smile)
    .
    In conclusion, as I said, everyone on my site already knows about ULG, because I have hid nothing from them. However, nobody on your site knew about you, did they Stevie boy? Well, I have shown you mine and now you are going to show me yours (lol). I have been like a cat, who has been playing with its food, before I eat it the rat (wink).
    What is the decision of the piggybankblog council?
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Steve Rhode

    Is there a particular reason you don’t appear to reply to my comments directly but reply all over the place when addressing me? If you click the ‘reply’ button under my comment to you then your answer will appear in the proper order and make it easier for readers to follow. That is unless you don’t want people to follow the thread. For example, I extend the courtesy of responding directly to you and you essentially respond to me by missing my comment and posting your response to me on a comment to nog OIL.

    What didn’t I own? If you are referring to the non-profit, non-profits are non-stock companies so there were no stock holders.

    I don’t think you bothered to read my links which described why i took a break. My wife was already a key employee and offered to take over during my sabbatical. There is no gotcha here. I needed a break, and came back. There is nothing sinister about that. See this page for details.

    I was never accused of taking anything or convicted of taking anything from anybody. And it appears you are insinuating I was in prison. You just can’t stick to the truth apparently.

    What does the fact that you were with two firms with a lawsuit have to do with the issue I raised. I said in one you are a party as a class member against ULG and in the other you are a plaintiff in one by Brookstone.

    I’ve politely answered your questions so how about answering my one question. Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case? You have avoided answering the direct question four times now.

  • Wright4ulg

    Maybe what your smelling is your upper lip (wink). This is because other than complaint rooms with hit and runs statements, such as even this one is, I do not see Steven pulling up headlines on me (lol).
    .
    Yah, but it is a real court case that they won, but you do not seem to care about that. The yahoo thing is not what I was refereeing to (lol) Here is a news flash for you, usually all news stories start out in a Press release (yawn). I mean, I have to admit that it was not reported as much as your friend “Steven’s” might have been, when he was accused or convicted or whatever of taking a profit from a nonprofit organization (lol) Which by the way, some criminals like to set up nonprofit companies, so nobody will think that they take a profit (lol) You see, they won a MERS case, which would make them a legitimate law firm. Steven won something else (lol)
    .
    The funny thing about Steven, and there is a lot of funny things, is that his last comment was that he did not own it, but was only the fricken CEO of the company (lol) Me too Steven! You see, I am the CEO of my companies too (lol) Shut up (lol) This is just evidence that the old saying is true that says ” You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” No wonder he got in trouble (lol) Oh man, and my comments were laughable? (lol) I just venture to think that Brian Moynihan’s wife would not be taking his place, if he was guilty of fraud (lol) How many stock holders did your friend Stevens company have? Two huh? (lol) Him and his wife (lol) What do I know (lol), but I just venture to guess that Brian Moynihan of BofA does not have power to appoint his wife as CEO, so he can take a vacation (lol) where was the vacation? Folsom? (lol) And Steven said my comments are laughable (lol)
    .
    Okay now, I want you guys to please just stop thinking for a minute (lol) You see, it would stand to reason why I would be at two firms with a lawsuit, while one claimed Bk. You see , I know that it is hard for you all to believe, but I told people I wanted them to join my lawsuit because I wanted to make my lawsuit more powerful, which it would not be, if I thought the firm was not powerful (lol) It does not mean that I was trying to make money for the firms (lol) This is hardly comparable to your friend Stevens story (lol)
    .
    I have to get out of here man (lol) Like I said, this is five minutes I will never get back (lol) Just tell your friend Steven that he might want to get out of the business of trying to expose what other people he thinks are a debit relief scams (lol)
    .
    Good luck . Let the best man win, but I think he already has (wink).
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

  • Steve Rhode

    Just in case it was not clear that my answers to his claims were in the links in my comment you replied to the answers to his questions are:

    1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?

    No. I ran a nonprofit credit counseling organization. I was never accused of being a fraudulent scam. In fact you can see testimonials about me here.

    2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?

    No. She took over while I took a break. I came back and resumed my role as president.

    3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?

    I am not attacking you.

    4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself?

    I didn’t ask you how you slept at night.

  • Steve Rhode

    You obviously missed my response to him. Go back and look again please.

    I didn’t say it was a class action suit.

    I also did not say lawyers should work for free.

  • wiseathena

    I would like to see you answer the questions that were asked of you by john. I also would like to know why it says that you charge for your help? it says $495.00 to join and $75.00 to 200.00 a month for your continued help? is that what you call free?
    also do you think a lawyer should work for free? i have always thought that people get paid for work done ! it’s not a “class action suit” as you say its a mass joinder. which benefits the plaintiffs and not the lawyers……

  • Steve Rhode

    I know, that was pretty funny stuff. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    When I answered the question I emailed the submitter and let her know it was posted. I wish she’d participate as well.

    As far as a free representation you might want to ask the commenter Michael if he is aware of any contingency cases. He said he is an attorney and has already had successful cases against some mortgage companies. Look for his comment below someplace.

  • Senka911

    Hi there :) I missed a great entertainment! However, I had more fun reading this:
    http://www.debtmanagementguys….
    You know what’s interesting – we never heard again from “your reader” who posted the question at the first place???
    Could you recommend some law firm that will represent us for free? After everything you have said about Brookstone, I am positive you must have some goodhearted lawyers for us :)
    Thanks in advance!

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    What is this claim that I tried to expose a weakness of yours? I linked to two suits that involve you and I asked you two questions about them? How in the world is that an exposed weakness?

    Hell, you didn’t even respond to my last comment to you here. You posted your response under the comment of someone else and totally avoided my previous questions for you.

    You will also notice that I’ve had a very civil conversation with you here. It is you that is calling names. I’ve made no accusations about you and yet you want to ditch the issues and engage in name calling and play games.

    If you had taken the time to read the links you posted or researched them a bit you would have seen my response to the untrue allegations on the scamchecker post. Just scroll down on that page.

    You can also see all my answers to these untrue claims here.

    Thank you for the Complaints link. I did not know about that. I have since responded to that one as well, here.

    You can see my answer for the California thing here.

    It appears your plan on responding is to type out long blocks of text without ever really addressing the specific questions I have asked you.

    I’m beginning to think that your approach to avoid answering questions is to attack instead.

    I’ll make it painfully easy for you to respond and only ask you one question this time.

    Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case?

    Update
    I wanted to make sure it was clear I was not avoiding the questions John asked. I’m happy to answer them.

    Just in case it was not clear that my answers to his claims were in the links in my comment you replied to the answers to his questions are:

    1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?

    No. I ran a nonprofit credit counseling organization. I was never accused of being a fraudulent scam. In fact you can see testimonials about me here.

    2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?

    No. She took over while I took a break. I came back and resumed my role as president.

    3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?

    I am not attacking you.

    4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself?

    I didn’t ask you how you slept at night.

  • nog OIL

    The 2nd you’ve pointed to this Blog PR in your posts regarding the “reputation” of Brookstone- http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/
    That’s not a news story- It is a PR Blog written to promote Brookstone- But you should know that.
    There’s a link on your Piggback site that claims Obama supports you- (Its called “Our Supporters & Lists President Obama) http://www.piggybankblog.com/c… It points to a speech he made when the gvt passed the latest banking laws. It has nothing to do with anything you are involved in.
    THE WHOLE THING SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLS.
    I feel bad for anyone that buys into your BS.

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    What is this claim that I tried to expose a weakness of yours? I linked to two suits that involve you and I asked you two questions about them? How in the world is that an exposed weakness?

    Hell, you didn’t even respond to my last comment to you here. You posted your response under the comment of someone else and totally avoided my previous questions for you.

    You will also notice that I’ve had a very civil conversation with you here. It is you that is calling names. I’ve made no accusations about you and yet you want to ditch the issues and engage in name calling and play games.

    If you had taken the time to read the links you posted or researched them a bit you would have seen my response to the untrue allegations on the scamchecker post. Just scroll down on that page.

    You can also see all my answers to these untrue claims here.

    Thank you for the Complaints link. I did not know about that. I have since responded to that one as well, here.

    You can see my answer for the California thing here.

    It appears your plan on responding is to type out long blocks of text without ever really addressing the specific questions I have asked you.

    I’m beginning to think that your approach to avoid answering questions is to attack instead.

    I’ll make it painfully easy for you to respond and only ask you one question this time.

    Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case?

  • Steve Rhode

    Gregory I’m confused. Can you help clarify this for me. If you are fighting back at no cost to you, are you in favor of the reader paying $5,895 to join the suit as she stated in her question?

  • This Fruitcake is a Joke

    Steve Rhode has outed his past all over this site.
    You are a very strange person. This whole time you were simply waiting to expose Steve for he things he has readily admitted all over this site? Huh. And here we all were thinking you were marketing for your lawfirm loan-mod BS class action scam!!!
    Well well well. You are the cat that ate the canary, aren’t you?
    Of course, all these years of you shilling for ULG and now the ULG re incarnate in Brookstone, claiming to hate BoA, was all a ploy to unearth the truth about Steve Rhode! I suppose your 30,000 followers & all of your friends in government will be excited to know you have finally done it!
    Congratulations Dumbass!

  • Wright4ulg

    Steven:
    I really bother you don’t I Steven? I mean, I really crawl under your fingernails, but laughable? Well, I have a feeling that you are not going to be laughing very soon (wink). Either, way there you go again asking a question Steven, after you said you would not. Did you LIE to me Steven? Oh well, this is not your first time misrepresenting something to the American people, is it Steven (wink)? No Steven, you are right, as well as you have proven what you set out to do for you audience, which is you have shown your audience that you are clever. What they might not have known, is that you have had an audience before, while showing them how clever you were. This is why I have been trying so hard to get you to speak about your experience, but you have been holding back from your audience, haven’t you Steven? Which by the way, I know that you do not like being called “Steven,” but I am going to be calling you something you might not like more, which I am sure that the word “Steven” is not going to matter to you in a few minutes. However, I am here to show your audience that there is a difference between clever and intelligent. This is because criminals are clever, but usually get busted because they are not intelligent. However, to answer your very clever question, as we continue this dialog that you have been hoping to expose me with (lol), there are around 30,000 who visit in three months, but only 10,000 of them might be registered. I receive about 150 new ones a day, while I service thousands, but why? Are you jealous Steven? I mean, I have no problem posting my tracking, which shows the House of Reps, U.S. Senate, Secretary of State, governors and various representatives around the world that view my site, while they give two shits about your site Steven. Nevertheless, I am a very generous man, and that is why I am going to share my audience with you right now. You see, Americans are pissed off at not only the banks, but also at these fraudulent companies that you try to appear to be against. This is because you are hoping that if you yell “fraud” loud enough about some other vulnerable company, you might hope people will begin to identify you as a person who exposes fraud, instead of a person who commits it (smile).
    .
    You see, there is a reason that I am here Steven(wink). However, I need to clear up something I said, which is that I would not answer anymore of your questions. You see, that is not true because I have no problem answering your questions, while I have answered all of yours. This is why I refuse to answer any more of your questions, until you answer some of mine. Let the record show that you have not answered even one of my questions, but seem more interested in saving face, while trying to manipulate your audience into thinking that I am more than just a client for Brookstone (lol). This is even more silly, after you consider that we have had this dialog for two days, as you keep thinking that you are revealing me, all while I know everything about you. Doh! (lol) You see, even though I am only a client of the companies you have been potentially slandering, you actually owned one of those potentially fraudulent debt relief companies, didn’t you Steven? Doh! (lol)
    .
    Therefore, will you please answer for your audience, the piggybankblog council (who has been secretly watching this debate) and myself some of my questions that I have about you?
    1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?
    2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?
    3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?
    4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself?
    http://www.scamchecker.com/con
    http://www.debtmanagementguys….

    http://www.complaintsboard.com

    http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf

    .
    In conclusion, you tried to expose what you thought was a weakness of mine, while I was only being a client of Brookstone. However, in what you perceived to be my greatest weakness, I have found my greatest strength (wink). You see Steven, I have decided to protest against your site, even before we had a dialog. This is why I baited you, and you fell for it hook, line and SINKER. (lol) This is why I am about to give you what you have been seeking, which might have been trying to become a site that hosts thousands of people.
    .
    This is because I am about to now open this debate to thousands of people around the world on my blog, because I am not only here to expose Bank of Defrauding America, but expose all of you who potentially gained by defrauding the American people, while exploiting us during a time when we were vulnerable.
    .
    Now you know why I am here “Steven”, and now you see the difference between my site and yours. You see, I am a protest site, which is why I have found you Steven. This is because I intend to serve as the voice of all injured people by your company, as I exercise my right to protest. This protest starts now, and my audience of 30,000 people are eagerly waiting for your answer (smile)
    .
    In conclusion, as I said, everyone on my site already knows about ULG, because I have hid nothing from them. However, nobody on your site knew about you, did they Stevie boy? Well, I have shown you mine and now you are going to show me yours (lol). I have been like a cat, who has been playing with its food, before I eat it the rat (wink).
    What is the decision of the piggybankblog council?
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Really?

    What you have written here is laughable.
    How would you know that all of ULG’s calls are recorded? Thank you for quoting their script “that these people were never told not to pay their mortgage, such as they were contending, but actually told “We cannot tell you to pay your mortgage.” ” While you put a period at the end that sentence, let me finish it for you- It goes, “That would be illegal; However, if you are current or continue to make mortgage payments, the banks will not approve a loan mod.”
    You say I’m not an attorney, so This unfortunate fact would give birth to purely silly claims that would suggest that it was irregular that a law firm would 1. Contract outside attorneys 2. Charge a retainer fee 3. Not guarantee that people would win a lawsuit, as evidence that there was something irregular going on, when in reality you just identified every single law firm in the world. Wrong again, Johnny. And I’d add again that if there was merit for a class action lawsuit, it would have been done on contingency, not with outrageous so called “retainer fees”.

    Brookstone is simply ULG’s brainchild to circumvent the loan mod laws from the FTC while leaving “responsibility” for doing nothing for ULG clients in a bankruptcy – You might get a modification, you might not; We might win the lawsuit, we might not. Give us your money, here is some Hope.

    Vito and the boys know very well what they’re doing Johnny. And continuing to take money from American consumers who are scared & broke is a very bad idea.

    Keep going. The hole you are in is getting deeper my friend. Soon you won’t be able to crawl your way out of it. They’re watching you boys. They have been watching you for a long time. Disbarment will be the least of your friend’s worries when this is over. That’s a promise. What’s not buried in Mom’s backyard will be taken. This white collar crime will not go unpunished. It’s later than you think, Johnny. All the people you’re claiming to help will not back you up. You may as well keep digging; I think you’re past the point of climbing out.

  • SeanDSLegalPlan

    You keep saying 30,000 people on your blog. 30,000 registered people?

  • Wright4ulg

    I hardly think that I am responsible for other peoples experience at ULG (lol) Even though you keep insisting or trying to manipulate your audience into thinking that I was more than just a client, the fact remains that you are apparently having delusions, simply because nothing you say is based in reality. You have even at one point claimed that I should care about my “staff” (lol) You are a silly little man who is having delusions, but even though I am entertained by the fact that “your cheese has done slid off its cracker (lol)” I simply just do not have time for your cognitive thinking issues anymore. The answer to your question is that I sleep just fine, because instead of waking up, while still dreaming like you, I keep my eyes on the stars, while I keep my feet firmly on the ground. Contrary to your delusion, Brookstone is not offering a modification service (lol), as your cognitive thinking problem has suggested, but has filed a lawsuit. This hardly falls into your delusion of it being a “debt relief scam,” as you contend. This is exactly why I cannot keep talking to you Steve, because I suffer no fool, while I have concluded that we are not in the same grade (lol).
    At any rate, I will be NICE enough to answer just one more question, as you have requested, even though you have not appreciated my time, but rather abused it, while trying to save face. However, I want you to know that I am not going to go through every single ULG complaint that is on that link you sent, because I am not here to represent someone else’s experience, but I am here to represent my own experience. In short, the reality remains that majority of those people on this complaint page lacked experience with law firms, such as yourself. This unfortunate fact would give birth to purely silly claims that would suggest that it was irregular that a law firm would 1. Contract outside attorneys 2. Charge a retainer fee 3. Not guarantee that people would win a lawsuit, as evidence that there was something irregular going on, when in reality you just identified every single law firm in the world.
    It is also important to mention that every single UlG client was recorded, including myself, which the recordings would end up displaying that these people were never told not to pay their mortgage, such as they were contending, but actually told “We cannot tell you to pay your mortgage.” These people were never told that they were guaranteed they would get a modification, but in fact were told “We cannot guarantee you will get a modification, but we do guarantee we will represent you in a modification.” You see, I have already told you that these complaints were mainly sparked because the banks were not acknowledging that people were represented, and were not returning ULG calls or answering letters. All this would end up making ULG have to tell their clients what they were being told from the banks, which is “we have not heard anything back from the bank yet. ” This at the time was an outrageous claim, but we have learned since then alot about the banks, which would only substantiate ULG’s claims. This is why people are suing the banks Steve, and why I chose to remain with ULG at the time. However, the main reason would be because there was simply no other firms willing to go up against the banks at the time, that I knew of, because they feared that the banks would do what they did to ULG’s reputation.
    With that being said, I chose to go with Brookstone because their attorneys had experience with fighting with the banks, whereas the others that were willing to all the sudden represent me, which was not available to during the ULG time, were simply interested in exploiting my celebrity from the blog, while having ZERO EXPERIENCE with fighting the banks. This is because contrary to your claims, the attorneys at Brookstone have an outstanding record with the Bar Association, which I am sure they would not have, if your sensational claims were true. This is because your claims are once again unsubstantiated by not me, but the facts. The fact remains that this is Brookstones reputation:
    1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/
    2. They are simply experts on the issue at hand, while leading with 25 years of experience. The fact remains that I have built a force that will prove that piggybankblog.com and myself are a power to be reckoned with. Even just four of the 25 attorneys look like this:
    Attorney: Used to be A BofA attorney
    Attorney: Has won 60/60 cases. Never lost
    Attorney: Served as lead counsel of the fraud unit in one of our states
    There is also William Levin, who was one of my favorite attorney’s on the team to work with, even though I enjoy working with them all. I am constantly impressed with how much knowledge Mr. Levin has, as well as his ability to make a person feel confidently represented. After reading William Levin’s extensive qualifications, I am sure you will see why!
    1.Was Bank of America’s attorney (and Wells Fargo and others) for unfair competition and related intellectual property law litigation and matters.
    2.Obtained what was the largest unfair competition jury verdict in the world until recently, $ 143 million
    3. The author of a 2 volume, leading treatise on an area of unfair competition law.
    4.Has represented high profile cases, while he also knows how to deal with PR
    There should really be no question to why I would choose Brookstone vs. a firm that has a reputation for not fighting the banks. This is because the reality is that the majority of law firms out there are only doing what ULG had already done so long ago, which is represent their clients in a loan modification. Unfortunately, they are finding out what ULG and me already know, which is that the banks are ignoring them in most cases. However, if they are not, it is because Brookstone has paved the way for them to have case history, such as in the recent MERS case BROOKSTONE WON. I am not looking for a modification anymore Steve, I am looking to sue the largest bank in the world, and I have assembled the most powerful dream team against Bank of America that you will ever see out there.
    With that being said, let the record show that I answered practically every single question that you had, while you did not answer even one of mine. Let the record show that I gave your blog time, while I have neglected hundreds of emails that I get from my blog, while doing so. Let the record show that your audience has learned more about ULG, Brookstone and the banking crisis from me, than they have ever learned from you the entire time you have been here. Let record show that your blog is not a place that answers question, but rather is a place that asks questions. Let the record show that you were actually more interested in proving whatever vendetta you have against Brookstone and United Law Group. I will ask you again, are you being sued by Brookstone (wink)? Let the record show that nearly every single one of your allegations have clearly been unsubstantiated by the facts. Let the record show that the only real fact that you submitted on your blog is that your name is “Steve” and not “Steven.”
    Though I found your personal vendetta, inaccuracies, sensational claims and clearly cognitive thinking issues frustrating, I do appreciate the opportunity you gave me to give your audience a real education, which was based on real experience, in which they deserve, instead of your unsubstantiated claims. You see Steve, these people are in real crisis, and they need real answers, instead of becoming victims of your lack of experience and your obvious personal vendetta that you have against Brookstone. The fact that you have a vendetta is not something you have claimed, but is readily apparent by the way you conduct your debates. This is because you seem to spend a huge amount of time on this issue, while not one time claiming that you have ever even applied for a modification, such as I have, let alone filed a lawsuit as a result. The fact that I have been a victim of the modification process, along with the fact that I have filed a lawsuit explains why I would devote so much time to this issue, but it has not answered the question to why you have, which is curious. Nevertheless, this is what makes your blog a blog that asks questions, while it makes my blog (piggybankblog.com) a blog that gives answers.
    In conclusion, it will have to be left up to your audience now to decide who the real expert is in this debate. Not only because you promised me that this would be the last question you would bother me with (I suffer no fool), but because I cannot any longer neglect the hundreds of comments and emails from my successful blog, while I devote time to your unsuccessful blog, just because you are constantly trying to save face from my responses. Though I am sure that you will be trying to regain your audiences confidence for days to come, while you try to give hit and run statements about me and lick your wounds, I assure you that I will probably not have time to even think of what you have said here, simply because none of what you have said challenged my truth, but would only reveal your lack of experience to your audience. In other words “Steve,” though I appreciate that I am becoming more powerful every time you talk, I simply have other things to do.
    In closing, I am satisfied that this debate has revealed why you are known for being “Steve” and not “Steven, but I am known for being:
    I am John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
    This will be my last response to your boring questions. Simply because it is five minutes I will never get back (wink).
    Respectfully,
    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Michael

    I am an attorney, but not licensed in CA. Here is my take. Bullshit. Initially, up until recently, the mortgage company didn’t have to notify anybody that their loan had been sold to another entity. Loan origination is a creature of State law for the most part.

    Mortgage law is very complicated and a jr. woodchuck attorney can not tell you whether or not there is a case without REALLY looking through the documents. Not a 10 minute review. Then he probably needs to check MERS and find out who the investor is or check the SEC website to see who the investor is.

    If he says you have a strong case, then why did he tell you he needed $895 to see if you could join the class action. If they already have a named plaintiff and you have a strong case, you are part of the class anyways. $5,000 to be a named Plaintiff in a class action is also BS. If you have a strong case and are part of the class, then why are they trying to finance the class through the named plaintiffs?

    You see lots of stuff in the news about people getting their house free & clear. There is a reason it is news, because it isn’t normal. There is no free lunch. My partner and I really kick ass and we can show the checks to prove it. We have yet to run across the “free house” that people have been talking about. We have one that might pan out that way, but the facts and circumstances are so overwhelmingly complicated that it is blowing everybody’s mind. It isn’t that simple.

    As far as principal reductions, forget it. Modifications are controlled by the investors, not the servicers. Why would a bond holder or a pass through certificate holder agree to reduce the amount they will get paid when Fannie/Fredie or an insurance company will bail them out with a credit default swap. That’s bullcrap and that’s also why HAMP is a failure and the illusive loan modification doesn’t exist. The only way it is possible is through litigation and individual litigation usually fairs a person better than being in a class.

    Why do you want the Federal Government to negotiate with WF when you can go ahead and hire a lawyer who can get you a better individual settlement than a class settlement. Almost 6k is a lot of money and I am skeptical of their claims.

    Bottom line, I sue the people who have the keys to the safe. When I see somebody who walks in with a legitimate cause of action against one of the big dogs, it is on a contingency basis only. I’m not going to hold up a 450k lawsuit because my client can’t give me $6k. Hell, I’ve filed multiple bankruptcy cases for free just to get the contingency cases that come out of them.

    The majority of individuals doing “foreclosure defense” have no idea what in the hell they are doing and are simply robbing people. They aren’t holding a gun to anybody’s head, but they are dangling your life in your face which, in my opinon, is worse.

    Our law licenses aren’t licenses to steal. I’m calling BS.

    My name is Michael Dye & MY FIRM ALREADY BEAT WELLS FARGO & CHASE & SAXON & EVERHOME & CITIMORTGAGE & ………………….. the list goes on……

  • Michael

    I am an attorney, but not licensed in CA. Here is my take. Bullshit. Initially, up until recently, the mortgage company didn’t have to notify anybody that their loan had been sold to another entity. Loan origination is a creature of State law for the most part.

    Mortgage law is very complicated and a jr. woodchuck attorney can not tell you whether or not there is a case without REALLY looking through the documents. Not a 10 minute review. Then he probably needs to check MERS and find out who the investor is or check the SEC website to see who the investor is.

    If he says you have a strong case, then why did he tell you he needed $895 to see if you could join the class action. If they already have a named plaintiff and you have a strong case, you are part of the class anyways. $5,000 to be a named Plaintiff in a class action is also BS. If you have a strong case and are part of the class, then why are they trying to finance the class through the named plaintiffs?

    You see lots of stuff in the news about people getting their house free & clear. There is a reason it is news, because it isn’t normal. There is no free lunch. My partner and I really kick ass and we can show the checks to prove it. We have yet to run across the “free house” that people have been talking about. We have one that might pan out that way, but the facts and circumstances are so overwhelmingly complicated that it is blowing everybody’s mind. It isn’t that simple.

    As far as principal reductions, forget it. Modifications are controlled by the investors, not the servicers. Why would a bond holder or a pass through certificate holder agree to reduce the amount they will get paid when Fannie/Fredie or an insurance company will bail them out with a credit default swap. That’s bullcrap and that’s also why HAMP is a failure and the illusive loan modification doesn’t exist. The only way it is possible is through litigation and individual litigation usually fairs a person better than being in a class.

    Why do you want the Federal Government to negotiate with WF when you can go ahead and hire a lawyer who can get you a better individual settlement than a class settlement. Almost 6k is a lot of money and I am skeptical of their claims.

    Bottom line, I sue the people who have the keys to the safe. When I see somebody who walks in with a legitimate cause of action against one of the big dogs, it is on a contingency basis only. I’m not going to hold up a 450k lawsuit because my client can’t give me $6k. Hell, I’ve filed multiple bankruptcy cases for free just to get the contingency cases that come out of them.

    The majority of individuals doing “foreclosure defense” have no idea what in the hell they are doing and are simply robbing people. They aren’t holding a gun to anybody’s head, but they are dangling your life in your face which, in my opinon, is worse.

    Our law licenses aren’t licenses to steal. I’m calling BS.

    My name is Michael Dye & MY FIRM ALREADY BEAT WELLS FARGO & CHASE & SAXON & EVERHOME & CITIMORTGAGE & ………………….. the list goes on……

  • Mwmccoy1

    I’m an Oklahoma attorney, and have also been a member in several class action law suits. In such civil cases, I have never been asked to give anyone any money, as the attorney gets paid his attorney’s fees by the losing party. Normally in a huge lawsuit, the attorneys get millions, and the individuals get very little.
    They are right to seek another firm’s opinion as to whether there could be civil litigation, and whether that firm would do such work on a contingency basis (getting paid upon completion of the case through a court order).

  • Mwmccoy1

    I’m an Oklahoma attorney, and have also been a member in several class action law suits. In such civil cases, I have never been asked to give anyone any money, as the attorney gets paid his attorney’s fees by the losing party. Normally in a huge lawsuit, the attorneys get millions, and the individuals get very little.
    They are right to seek another firm’s opinion as to whether there could be civil litigation, and whether that firm would do such work on a contingency basis (getting paid upon completion of the case through a court order).

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    Back the bus up here on the jr. attorney lied to them. You are putting words into my mouth. The reader never said the person represented themselves as a jr. attorney. They said they talked with someone they identified as a jr. attorney but could not name them. If you know who it was, name them and move on.

    You are the one that keeps making the scam assertions. I have never claimed that.

    The pitch sounded as if if came from a salesperson. That is the extent of my observation. And I did not say the Anonymous person was not an attorney. I said I doubted they were. u also said, name the person and I’d gladly print it.

    So if I follow your burden of proof blurb then the burden of proof rested on the reader to definitively prove the person was a jr. attorney since they are the one that said it?

    You ask why didn’t I ask Vito, and as you can see by my previous comment, I did. He had not responded.

    You even say you can’t identify who the person was, so what are you adding to resolve the mystery?

    The free and clear statement is exactly what the reader said, “I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”

    So if the person you say the reader reports gave her that impression does not exist than how is my initial impression that person was a salesperson not equally valid?

    I didn’t revel any secret with you and ULG, that’s on the web. It was 2cents that made a comment and pointed that out. Not me.

    My question in another comment was about you benefiting from the class action suit against ULG since you are part of that class. “So if you are a former client of ULG and part of the class would you also be participating in the current class action suit against United Law Group and the members that are now part of Brookstone. The forum post linked to the suit here. “

    I also asked you if you paid $5,895 to participate in the Brookstone suit. You did not answer that question.

    So in summary, you don’t get enough sleep, you can’t or won’t identify the person the reader spoke to, you can’t verify if my opinion it sounded like a salesperson was incorrect, you have not answered if you paid Brookstone $5,895 to participate in the suit, you said the pressure the reader was getting to give up their credit card to proceed “sound[ed] a little excessive to me”, you have not addressed the readers question other than to say “I am not interested finding the person who told her that she would get her home free and clear. Basically because that person does not exist.”

    And for the record, I did not say you worked for Brookstone, they were your staff as you claim.

    You asked if Brookstone was suing me. I am not aware of any such suit.

  • Really?

    Answer just ONE question- Since it appears you have spent the last year defending ALL of ULG and Brookstone former & current clients that are calling them a SCAM, and you are the ONE client who has such great experience with them, why wouldnt you choose a law firm that actually has a good reputation?

    Read the whole thing- there are SO many more! All he does is defend these creeps, while everyone else tells the truth- ONE more debt relief scam. How do you sleep? http://www.complaintsboard.com

  • Wright4ulg

    Hey you bet :) If you scroll down towards the bottom, I gave the whole story. You see, it is not a secret, as there are 30,000 people on my blog that already know, because they were my supporters during that time too. others care about my screen names, where as I do not care, because I am just a client of Brookstone, and it not like I am losing money from it lOl However, you can read a lot about me on my blog at piggybankblog.com, which kind of already answers your questions about ULG. As I am sure you can imagine, it is a lot to type over and over. However, did post it for someone down below I think :)

  • Wright4ulg

    .
    . You are a very sensative man Steve (lol). I honestly did not mean to hurt feelings by calling you “Steven,” and it did not hurt my feelings that you called me “Johnny, ” even though I can tell it was meant to be somewhat of a snarky remark. The fact is that people call me John, Johnny, Jack and Jon Jon.
    .

    Secondly, insinuating that person at Brookstone lied to them………is implying that she was being scammed. This is what I mean about cognitive thinking. The only one that was putting words in someone’s mouth, was you, which I clearly said “I never said that” In which I have had to say “I never said that” three times, because you were practically quoting me. I even asked you where did I say that in the last email, in regards to you actually putting words into my mouth. You declined to answer Steve, and instead tried to turn it around on me, while you tried to accuse me of what I just accused you of.
    .
    Steve, it is also customary for the person who made the claim to have the burden of proof, such as you were the one that said they were probably not a Jr. Attorney. She was the one that told you that they were. I am not going to go do your homework for you Steve. After all, you are the one claiming that you talk to Vito, which by the way I already know about, so how about you asking? Not only are you the one who suggested they were probably lied to, but it is your blog, and she is asking you the question. However, ONCE AGAIN, I never said that I knew their name, and you are once again drawing conclusions, based on your feelings that you think I said I knew their name. This makes it very frustrating to have a conversation with you, esp. when you are apparently trying to compete with me. I just start to get bored with the “I know I am , but what are you?” Okay, I know you are going to probably come back and say “I never said that, ” while not understand that it is not literal .
    .
    No, I am not interested finding the person who told her that she would get her home free and clear. Basically because that person does not exist. Once again, that is not what she said. If you read it, she said they told her that she “may.” In fact, she might. So what? Also, they are not “my staff.” This is the third time you have put words in my mouth. In fact, I think clearly spelled out that I do not work for Brookstone. Maybe this is just what you think, so it slipped out. However, from what I read here, you think a lot, but it also is not true.
    .
    I also hate to disappoint you, but you did not reveal my secret about UlG. This is because I had my blog when I was with ULG, and therefore, 30,000 of my supporters already know. I don’t mean to take a bone from your mouth, but there is a reason I do not change my screen name, which is because I do not care. You care, but I do not.
    .
    As far as the clear and free thing, I will tell you this, which is if you had that cognitive thinking thing, you would realize that i just gave you an article last time that talk about a ruling on MERS. I they cannot use MERS Steve, and they do not have the notes, what do you think that means? I cannot keep helping all the people on your blog though Steve. You see, I have my own blog. If you cannot answer the question, you should not insinuate that you have the answer. So far I had all the answers, but you do not seem to appreciate that I have answered every question you asked. Now can I ask you a question Steve? Is Brookstone suing you?

    .
    I am tired Steve. I am probably making so many type errors. I am sorry, but I have not slept in three days because of work, so I have to go to bed. I will try to come on and answer your questions when I can, but I am sure that you understand that I have the people in my blog to take care of. Other than that, you can find most of your answers on my blog.
    .
    I have to go to sleep now. Regardless of our differences, I wish well in all your endeavors.
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
    .
    John Wright
    piggybankblog.com

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    The commenter below, 2cents, linked to a forum that said you were a plaintiff in a case and previously represented by United Law Group. Is that true?

    So if you are a former client of ULG and part of the class would you also be participating in the current class action suit against United Law Group and the members that are now part of Brookstone. The forum post linked to the suit here.

    Actually it appears you are the lead plaintiff in the BofA case filed by George Baugh and Brookstone against Bank of America. – Source

    Did you have to pay $5,895 to participate in this case?

  • Steve Rhode

    Johnny,

    First off, my name is not Steven.

    I never said Brookstone was a scam so please don’t put those words in my mouth. In fact you are the one that keeps using the word scam in association with Brookstone, not me. I never disputed the fact they are a law firm. In fact I wrote about them as a law firm in my previous article on Brookstone.

    And if you know the person I said I didn’t think was a jr. attorney is actually a Junior Attorney then who is it. I’m happy to correct the record. Telling me repeatedly the person is an attorney but not telling me who it is leaves me unable to verify that information. It also leaves you unable to confirm the person giving this reader the pitch as the reader describes was a jr. attorney.

    My answer was based on my experience in the debt relief field. I have been emailing back and forth with Vito Torchia, Jr and I’ll share with you what I said to him.

    I did not say the person they met with was not an attorney because I don’t know who the person is. Do you?

    What I said was “I seriously doubt the person you met with is a junior attorney. It smells like a commissioned sales person.” In my opinion the pitch they got sounded like a sales pitch as they stated.

    The reader said “A junior attorney spoke with us because they were so busy with all the people who had responded to their mailing.” So who was the junior attorney then? Tell me who the junior attorney was the couple might have met with and I’ll post the name and confirm the person is an attorney.

    Don’t you want to know which of your staff told the reader “They told us we may get a free and clear loan, that our loan with Wells Fargo would be null and void and basically not exist any more. We would owe them nothing. Or there would be a large reduction in the principal of our loan which would far out way the mere $5,895.00 dollars we are giving them with no guaranties what so ever. They also told us that they have already wone at least 6 free and clear loan cases already (no proof).”

    And why is someone allegedly calling the reader “Brookstone is now calling me every day once or twice to give them my VISA info to start the document investigation as soon as possible.” Doesn’t that seem high pressure to you? Something that a commissioned sales person might do?

    So Johnny I’ve given you an opportunity to state your opinion and point of view.

    Johnny, so rather than take swipes at me how about answering the readers question then?

    What do you say to their primary question:

    “I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”

  • Wright4ulg

    I would be happy to answer your questions, but as long as you forgive me if there is type errors. As I was telling Steve, I have not slept for 3 days, and have answered about 150 email a day. I am tired , but I do not want to keep you waiting.
    .
    I would trust them because the CEO has nothing on this record at the BARR. In fact, as far as I know, none of them do. The guy that was running the that firm resigned, and I have never seen or heard of him since. There is nobody at Brookstone, that i know of, that ran the other firm. It is not a class action, but is a mass litigation, which there is clearly a difference. You see, the bank would have to settle with each person individually, whereas a class action they have one lump sum and get a 1.25 at the end of it (lol) Though I like Steven, I do not know that I feel obligated to send him my personal loan documents, relevant to my lawsuit, which I am sure you can understand would not be acceptable during litigation. However, even if it was, I am not sure what that would prove? Also, I was never foreclosed on, but threatened. The bank tried to shake me down for money, even though they I was told that I met all the qualifications of HAMP, and was approved. All this is posted on my site under “my bac docs.” I also recorded Bank of America telling me that it was not my fault, but theirs…ect. You can actually hear my recordings at my site.
    .
    You asked how old he law firm is, and I honestly do not know. I never asked. See, even though I am higher profile client than they usually have, and I know more than most, I still do not work for them, so I do not know things like what people are paid ext. In fact, I did not even know what they charged people, until one of the bloggers told me the other day. I am just a client, but I do sort of market my lawsuit, because I want people to join. It would stand to reason why, since I know that it would make my lawsuit more powerful. I do not get a finder’s fee, as well as nobody has offered me any money. I just want a powerful lawsuit, which I think you would too.
    .
    Also, there are not “all the same players, ” such as you are suggesting. It is important to mention that the other firm you that the other firm contracted out to many firms around the nation, which did not mean that they “worked for.” This is a gross miss representation of facts by many out there. For example, I have yet to see any of the attorney’s at Brookstone charged with anything, which they most certainly would be, if they are guilty of this mass scam that many are speaking of. However, there was one really bad CEO there, that even the people at who worked there felt hostage from. They were never so happy when he resigned, but even considering his bad language, there was no scam . I mean, I know why people think there was, because I used to think there was, until I did a little research and found out that it was the actual banks causing the problem, which will not be too hard to believe, now that we see how they lose paperwork, do not return calls and delay. You see, the firm was doing a legitimate service, which was attorneys representing people in modifications with the Banks Legal Department. This would usually make sense, but something went terribly wrong, and the banks went super nova! What people did not realize then was that the banks were ignoring law firms and everyone, which is common knowledge now. So when the client would call in to the firm and want to know an update, the firm would have to say “we have not heard anything yet.” This response made them feel as if the firm was scamming them, but they were only telling them what they were being told. Does anyone now not believe that? This is because this is exactly what the banks are doing to us now. The firm was perplexed by this behavior, but never the less could only go with it. Then the banks started lying to people, such as me, which now is a little bit of history on me that you requested. I was one of the people that was pissed off at the firm, because I thought I was getting the runaround. So I called the bank, and asked them if they had any history of me being represented by the firm. They spent something like 30 min. transferring me, in which one of them finally said they spoke to the legal department. They told me that I was not represented by any firm, but that I had been scammed. This is what they were telling everyone, which is where the disinformation began. Like everyone else, I was furious! I had paid 8 grand, and now I was not represented? So I went after this firm, much the way I am going after BofA. However, you can imagine my embarrassment when I received a letter the next day (I think it has been a while) and it was a letter from the bank that told me that it was in receipt of the firm, and that I was now represented. What did that mean, they lied to me! So I called the firm and apologized to them, because I had just been on line bashing them, while telling everyone that they ripped me off, because the bank verified that I was not represented. I am a man of integrity, and I could not reconcile with the fact that I did this to innocent parties, in which I can reconcile with the fact that I am doing it with guilty parties, such I feel BofA is. So I called the firm, and asked them if I could do a testimonial for them, so that I could help them expose that it was the banks who were doing this, and not the firm. Therefore, they paid to fly my family down there to where they were at, and we did the testimonial. They did not pay me, offer me any money or anything in the future. However, did file a suite in my behalf, since they were also interested in exposing who the real villains were, as I am sure that they were seeking vindication. However, they would end up being raided by the FBI the day they were going to file my case, which the FBI had taken everything from them, but they had my case backed up on disk. So they filed my suit a few days later. We were winning, but the firm, without notice, filed BK. I wrote about this on my blog. Apparently, the one they were all passing rumors that was in control had showed up for work, but there were locks on the door. It was also pay day, and he had been working for months for free, so this is what he told me. So much for being in control (lol) You see, he was nice enough to call me that day, and let me at least know that I was not represented. He did not have to do that, but I am happy that he did. I was freaked out! He had not job, and I had not attorney, during a time where I was winning. I would later find out that the CEO at that time could not talk to anyone, after the Trustee showed up. However, up until that point, I thought this person might have done it on purpose. At any rate, I was now in the kitchen of affliction, while I was licking the pots of sorrow, and I began representing myself with BofA. Then I received a letter, as many people did who were with the previous firm, and apparently there were arrangements made to where there was another firm that had agreed to assume the previous firms clients, or the most of them who were in active lawsuits or whatever. There are actually others on my blog who also received this letter. It was this savior firm called Breakstone. So I was happy, mad, happy, mad again and now I was happy again. However, during that time that I was not represented, I had a very successful protest blog. Senators were contacting me ect. ect. All the sudden, I notice a lot of law firms and attorneys contacted me. They all wanted to represent me, because I guess many of them were probably interested in the high profile of piggybankblog, and all attorneys like to make a name for themselves. So I held off joining with Brookstone, but began interviewing with these other firms. I was also even contacted by the old firms attorney, who said that he would represent me, but I decided to pass. That is when I came up with an idea. What if I were to just unite all the firms that were contacting me, and began to put together the most powerful legal team ever seen by BofA. All the firms were game. Now, I am not going to say that I did this all by myself, but there were people at the firms that did it for me, because they liked the idea. I wanted firms that had attorneys that used to work for the banks, which is what we have. However, you are incorrect that we are going to lose, simply because we brought on board a very reputable attorney. In fact, he has never lost. All this is on my blog though, and you can read the details there at http://www.piggybankblog.com
    .
    Now, if I ever had any knowledge that Brookstone was all these things people were saying, as well as if I ever thought it was true, I would have to be pretty stupid to market myself out here, with my picture, so that everyone knew who to kill when it went wrong (lol). The simple fact is I know that it is not as scam, and I have spoken to many of the attorneys, since they actually came from my blog. I have spoke to all them, just a lot of them. I believe in my lawsuit, and I believe in my team. However, if someone is uncomfortable, they by all means should not join.
    .
    I also wanted to answer Stevens question regarding if someone told the other bloggers to come here. The answer is yes, because that is how I ended up here. Someone named “chuck” told me to come here, so I did. That is how I found you, but I remembered this page, because I had been here a long time ago.
    .
    Once again, I am sorry for not proof reading this. I am also sorry for any errors, as i am so tired that I am seeing double vision. At any rate, I hope that I was able to answer some of your questions. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have, and as long as it is not sensitive to my current lawsuit, I will be happy to answer your questions. However, much of your questions can be answered by simply visiting my blog at piggybankblog.com
    It was very nice to meet you.
    My name is John Wright I AM FIGHTING THE LARGEST BANK IN THE WORLD!

  • 2cents

    John,

    Can you address the way the dots seem to be connected as being discussed over on ml-implode forum: http://forum.ml-implode.com/vi

    Interested individuals can read this thread on a different forum which in my opinion paints John as a pom pom shill for a failed firm with C&D’s and offices raided by authorities: http://www.complaintsboard.com

    I found additional references in my research, all of which lead to the formation of my opinion that your posts here are disingenuous and duplications of the posts you made in support of the above referenced failed firm ULG. Your disqus user name in your follow up post that I am replying to still has ULG in it.

    What I have taken away from what I have read on this topic this morning is that you were the front for ULG with your suit adding some legitimacy to claims made by those promoting ULG for profit and may be now duplicating that effort with your current suit.

  • Wright4ulg

    Hi,
    I am sorry that I was unable to answer your questions right away Steven, but I am sure that you understand that being in a lawsuit with Bank of America, running one of the most popular protest sites on the internet and dealing with 25 law firms can take up a lot of my time. This is not even considering that I have about 80-150 emails a day to answer, which I tend to fall behind on, simply because I am also running my two companies. I think it is also fair to mention that your blog is only one out of about 15 that I am having these kind of debates on right now, which can become a lot like painting the Golden Gate Bridge, simply because I have to start over, after I finish (lol) I should probably just cut and paste this statement, but I always try to give it a personal touch.
    .
    First, I guess I should have probably warned you that I have a very large fan base, which means that I have many supporters that follow my debates around the internet. They are all very intelligent, insightful and I assure you they suffer no fool, as they say. Some are doctors, lawyers and even economists, which means that you are going to have to be pretty fast on your feet, as they make sure that I am too. That is if I am going to challenge them. In fact, I am familiar with who these people are that you are debating with here, which is a pretty impressive gathering, if you consider that I could see there was one in here that actually ran for office in the state of Washington ( Hi Lemke). This means they are experts in the craft of debate, in which some people might think that you have brought a knife to a gun fight (lol). So you might want to think out what you are saying carefully in the future. Just a fast observation, before I answer your questions.
    .
    You asked: ” What part of my answer was incorrect?”: Well, I felt there were several parts that you were not correct on, such as you still have not stated what “experience” you are drawing from to conclude that the person at Brookstone was not a Jr. attorney? For the record, I asked my contact about that, and they said you are wrong. They assured me they indeed were. Though I appreciate that you made clear from the beginning in your statement, which said that you were not an attorney, I was not really sure why you needed to state this? This is because you really did not follow up with anything that was a legal statement or opinion, but rather you were giving your opinion on customer service issues, such as them calling this person over and over for their visa card. Which for the record, I agree with you, if this is true, because that does sound a little excessive to me. However, it also sounds like the person with the question sounds interested in the service, even by their tenor here at your blog. So maybe this is why they keep calling them, because they have not one time said that they told them not to call them anymore. What often happens Steven, is that people will ask all sorts of legal questions on the phone, while using the opportunity as a free legal consultation that goes on and on, instead of actually joining the lawsuit. Though I have had many attorneys, I have never been part a mass litigation, so I would not know if it is proper for them to return their phone calls, while asking them if they would like to pay over the phone. Unlike a lot of people on the blog, I tend to not comment on things that I do not know, but isolate on things that I do know. You see, I am just a client, and I can neither confirm or deny how a person is paid there, but I think the burden of proof is on your end, since you are the one actually making the claim. It is also important to mention that I have heard the opposite complaint too, which is “John, can you help me because it has been three days, and I have not heard back from Brookstone.” This unfortunately might suggest that this persons experience is isolated. I do not know Steven, but I do know that it does not substantiate them as a scam, such as you are suggesting here.
    .
    You asked: “What good comes from “pitches to pay in advance when pressured to cough up the bucks?” I do not think you are understanding what I am saying Steven. I own companies for 25 years now, and I have had many attorney’s in that 25 years, which I have never had one not tell me they did not require me to “Cough” up money (retainer), which they all gave me a “pitch” to “cough” up the “bucks.” Some were more aggressive than others, while some would just state how much it is. Nevertheless, I still do not know that this qualifies your statement that implies that they are scam. At the very least, it might be a customer’s service complaint you have, but your statement that implies that you have some kind of inside information, which would confirm they are a scam, is simply unsubstantiated by the facts.
    .
    Though I do agree with you that there were modification companies that were doing this kind of thing in the past, I must remind you that this is not a modification company, as well as it is not a modification kind of situation. An actual lawsuit was filed Steven, in which I happen to know that first hand because it is my lawsuit that was filed (Wright Vs. Bank of America Lawsuit.) You are correct that there are potentially fraudulent companies out there, which will tell people that they can be part of lawsuit, if they pay them, but later find out that they were not affiliated with a lawsuit at all. In fact, I have aggressively came out against these companies (K2 Law and Mass Litigation Alliance), because they sent out thousands of solicitations that said they represented the Wright Vs. Bank of America lawsuit, but they did not. This is why I have exposed them on my site, and now on yours too. However, I believe that your paranoia is misdirected, because in this case I am John Wright. Therefore, I am here to tell you that the Wright Vs. Bank of America Lawsuit really does exist through Brookstone. You have to remember Steven, that you do not know very much about Brookstone, as myself and my supporters do. For example, did you read this article the other day: http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/
    .
    This article would clearly substantiate that they are indeed a real law firm. Which for the record, was a major win, if you know much about the mortgage issues. To dispute this fact, would simply show a lack of experience on your part, which I am sure you have no intention of doing so, since your site implies you do have experience.
    .
    You asked: ” Is there a guarantee participants get one benefit out of this?” I do not know that there is any attorney that would “guarantee” that the person is going to get one benefit, other than the paperwork will be filed ect. I can tell you that it has been related to me that BofA cannot foreclose during the time of litigation, which could be a benefit.
    .
    Steven, I am in your house here, and I am trying so hard to not offend you, so please do not think Steven have you ever had an attorney, lawsuit or any legal matters? When has an attorney “guaranteed” you a benefit during a lawsuit? Since I am thinking that there is a cognitive thinking issue going on here, I want to be clear that I am speaking of the operative word “guarantee.” Nevertheless, If you know of one, I would like their name and phone number, because I myself would like that deal (wink). You are not going to have one for me though, simply because this does not exist in reality.
    .
    You asked: ” Is there any harm in someone getting a second opinion before paying $5,000 to participate?” Did someone say there was? I do not think that the I take issue with this person getting a second opinion, but I do think that I take issue with the one who is giving it, simply because it is not a legal opinion, but someone who is making false claims, such as that you accused the person of not really being a Jr. attorney. I am telling you facts Steven, while you are arguing emotional, unsubstantiated claims. It is equivalent to if I told you that the fact is that you are breathing air, and you answer back with “No I am not, because I cannot see it.” This does make your claims facts, but rumors Steven. That is why the supporters are probably coming out so strongly against you, because they are not used to debating with someone who keeps claiming that a law firm is a scam, because it charges you an upfront fee, or gives you a sales speech. That is an opinion, while it is not a fact Steven.
    .
    You asked: “Has there been a case closed that resulted in the bulk erasure of mortgages?” I do not know if Brookstone has. Since you are the one making the claim, I would think the burden of proof would be for you to have that information, before you make assumptions. Doyou know the answer to that question Steven? Nevertheless, even if they have not, it does not make them scam Steven, unless they say they do and you had information that they do not. Then it would be a scam.
    .
    You asked: “So if you know the person the reader spoke with was an attorney then who was it?” Steven, that is exactly what I am saying here, and I am wondering if there might be a cognitive thinking issue going on, because I never said that I knew the person the caller spoke with. What I did say is that it was not right for you to make a the statement that they were probably not a Jr. Attorney, when YOU did not even know there name. The reason I say that you might have a cognitive thinking issue (no disrespect meant), is because I clearly said to you that I thought that you should find out who they were, before you made statements. In fact, I even said that I was curious now. If your mind were putting thing together correctly, you would have realized that I never said that I knew who they were? The reason that I have said that you have an obligation to have your facts straight, is because there are people that are going to think you have a cognitive thinking issue on the whole Brookstone thing all together, if you display evidence here that misquotes people. This will hurt your credibility. Now, I have been up for three days working, so it is possible that I might be missing something, but I do not think I ever said that. This is because I do not.
    .
    You said: ” You said you heard the $895 is refundable if the person does not have a case, but what about the $5,000?” Well, the $895 is for the experts to go through all those big fat loan documents, which they have to prepare, if it is going to go to court. This is a very consist ant charge, in regards to the many attorneys I have worked with on my company. However, the $5,000 is if the person has to go to court, which the outcome is up to the court. Do you know of any attorney that charges you a retainer, fee to go to court and then tells you that they will give you the money back, if you do not win? Of course you do not Steven, because it simply does not exist. In fact, I would suggest that the one that was making this kind of guarantee, might be the fraudulent one, because it is absolutely irregular Steven.
    .
    Steven, it is so important to me not to disrespect you in your own house (blog), but I am questioning your qualifications to say that your advice is based on experience. This is because I think it is readily apparent to the average reader that you have not substantiated anything about Brookstone, but have actually substantiated that you are lack the experience to really give any advice at all about a law firm, if you are asking such silly questions, such as does law firm give you your money back, if you do not win the case.
    .
    Steven, thank you so much for allowing me to answer, as well as leaving my comments on your blog, while I am sure they are not probably making you look qualified to many of the readers here. Though I may not completely agree that you have much experience, I do believe that you are a good man for not blocking my comments. I also apologize for any type errors, as I have been up for three days. Please feel free to visit my blog at piggybankblog.com, as I promise to show you the same consideration that you showed me here. You are a very nice host – Thank you
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

  • Really?

    Andy- Well said!
    ALL class action lawsuits are on contingency (except this one!) Anyone who pays this firm will simply lose their money- Look at the players involved in this firm- Same guys who have been ripping off consumers through their scams for years.
    This is a scam. If any law firm thought these millions of consumers had a snowballs chance in hell, there would have been a CONTINGENCY based class action suit a long time ago!
    The marketing is brilliant!
    Hey, John Wright- How about some background on you? How did you find Brookstone? How old a law firm is Brookstone? Can you send Steve a copy of your mortgage deeds? Your late pay notices & foreclosure notices? Why would you trust Brookstone Law after you find out who runs it & allllll the other debt schemes they’ve had a part in?
    http://getoutofdebt.org/24788/
    Let the buyer beware???????????????

  • Andy Faria

    Did you ever think that all those people telling you “you don’t have a chance in hell” actually meant that you don’t have a chance in hell. What was their motivation for NOT taking you on as a client?

    How does this law firm now telling you that you do have a chance, change anything? Be careful is all I’m saying.

  • Steve Rhode

    How is the question submitted by the reader not correct?

  • Steve Rhode

    See my response to your other comment.

  • Steve Rhode

    And you are missing my point. This article is about the issues the reader raised.

    So you are willing to offer a blanket statement that paying $5895 up front is a good idea then?

    Do you think any law firm should be engaged in “Brookstone is now calling me every day once or twice to give them my VISA info to start the document investigation as soon as possible.”

    Is there a problem with a consumer getting a second opinion before laying out $5,895?

    Are you aware of any case that has resulted in the bulk erasure of mortgages?

  • Gregorylemke

    Dear Friends

    This story is not correct at all please go to piggybankblog.com and learn more about the action we are taking.

    I am fighting back at no cost to me !

    Gregory Dean Lemke

  • Gregorylemke

    Dear Friends

    This story is not correct at all please go to piggybankblog.com and learn more about the action we are taking.

    I am fighting back at no cost to me !

    Gregory Dean Lemke

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      How is the question submitted by the reader not correct?

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      Gregory I’m confused. Can you help clarify this for me. If you are fighting back at no cost to you, are you in favor of the reader paying $5,895 to join the suit as she stated in her question?

  • Senka911

    OK, let me try again -
    Not to believe that just because someone is asking for a retainer money that we are automatically guinea pigs; believe that in order to win those bigger than us, someone must take first steps, otherwise we will forever be guinea piggs for “too big to fail” from any walks of life….Good enough?
    And you didn’t answer my question :)

  • Steve Rhode

    So what is your response to the questions the reader raised?

  • Senka911

    Let me think…..May be because Brookstone Law is the main topic?! Again, I would like to reinforce my statement – I am ready to support any law firm that is willing to go after banks!
    Are you?

  • Colleen

    Hi my name is Colleen, I have been fighting for my modification for a year and some change now with bofa, also have contacted a few attny’s in my area who will not even touch it. I am thankful that Brookstone Law is playing the important role in helping homeowners such as myself and many many others in going up against this evil giant that most others are simply afraid of, or paid by. They are by no means taking advantage of any of us, and if they wouldn’t give you the name of the 25 other firms it is because they are in place to sift through all of us being that each and every one of our cases are uniquely different. Some may have a case and some may not. If they started giving out names of all 25 firms you’d simply skip the screening process and go right to one of the 25 if not all 25. I know I would. Definitely NOT a scam…

  • Colleen

    Hi my name is Colleen, I have been fighting for my modification for a year and some change now with bofa, also have contacted a few attny’s in my area who will not even touch it. I am thankful that Brookstone Law is playing the important role in helping homeowners such as myself and many many others in going up against this evil giant that most others are simply afraid of, or paid by. They are by no means taking advantage of any of us, and if they wouldn’t give you the name of the 25 other firms it is because they are in place to sift through all of us being that each and every one of our cases are uniquely different. Some may have a case and some may not. If they started giving out names of all 25 firms you’d simply skip the screening process and go right to one of the 25 if not all 25. I know I would. Definitely NOT a scam…

  • Steve Rhode

    Why is everyone posting comments with the same statement they “support Brookstone Law?”

    Were you asked to come here and comment?

  • Steve Rhode

    Why is everyone posting comments with the same statement they “support Brookstone Law?”

    Were you asked to come here and comment?

  • Steve Rhode

    Why is everyone posting comments with the same statement they “support Brookstone Law?”

    Were you asked to come here and comment?

  • Rlg_miller

    I too have been fighting BOFA for over two years and i also would do it again. I am happy for the lawyers who are ready to stand up for us.I support Brookstone Law. If the banks would have done the modifications as requested homeowners would not be in the mess they are in.
    I am rhonda miller and I am fighting back.

  • Senka911

    Unfortunatelly, you are missing my point Steve – I gave my answer/opinion in the posting above. By the way, banks used all of us (meaning homeowners, investors, etc.) as their guinea pigs :)

  • wiseathena

    I would like to comment on your comment,I too am one of the people that went looking for a lawyer who could help me keep my home. So many just want to take your money and not help you. they all feel that the banks would not lose because theis so much corruption in them
    I am tried of being told “you don’t have a chance in hell” I just wnat to keep my home and i’m willing to pay a lawyer to help me to do that. all the rest is just not important. and I think that you would want to be paid for your time too. therefore i support brookstone law and don’t believe that they did a mass mailing to attract customers……

  • wiseathena

    I would like to comment on your comment,I too am one of the people that went looking for a lawyer who could help me keep my home. So many just want to take your money and not help you. they all feel that the banks would not lose because theis so much corruption in them
    I am tried of being told “you don’t have a chance in hell” I just wnat to keep my home and i’m willing to pay a lawyer to help me to do that. all the rest is just not important. and I think that you would want to be paid for your time too. therefore i support brookstone law and don’t believe that they did a mass mailing to attract customers……

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      Why is everyone posting comments with the same statement they “support Brookstone Law?”

      Were you asked to come here and comment?

      • Rhondacon

        why do you keep asking this question over and over?

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        I had asked the individual commenters whom I noticed were saying the same thing in their comments which made me wonder if they had been asked to come and comment. If you look through some of the comments they shared the same phrase, they said they “support Brookstone Law.”

    • http://northeast-properties.com Andy Faria

      Did you ever think that all those people telling you “you don’t have a chance in hell” actually meant that you don’t have a chance in hell. What was their motivation for NOT taking you on as a client?

      How does this law firm now telling you that you do have a chance, change anything? Be careful is all I’m saying.

      • Really?

        Andy- Well said!
        ALL class action lawsuits are on contingency (except this one!) Anyone who pays this firm will simply lose their money- Look at the players involved in this firm- Same guys who have been ripping off consumers through their scams for years.
        This is a scam. If any law firm thought these millions of consumers had a snowballs chance in hell, there would have been a CONTINGENCY based class action suit a long time ago!
        The marketing is brilliant!
        Hey, John Wright- How about some background on you? How did you find Brookstone? How old a law firm is Brookstone? Can you send Steve a copy of your mortgage deeds? Your late pay notices & foreclosure notices? Why would you trust Brookstone Law after you find out who runs it & allllll the other debt schemes they’ve had a part in?
        http://getoutofdebt.org/24788/brookstone-law-and-damian-kutzner-an-interesting-combination
        Let the buyer beware???????????????

      • Anonymous

        I would be happy to answer your questions, but as long as you forgive me if there is type errors. As I was telling Steve, I have not slept for 3 days, and have answered about 150 email a day. I am tired , but I do not want to keep you waiting.
        .
        I would trust them because the CEO has nothing on this record at the BARR. In fact, as far as I know, none of them do. The guy that was running the that firm resigned, and I have never seen or heard of him since. There is nobody at Brookstone, that i know of, that ran the other firm. It is not a class action, but is a mass litigation, which there is clearly a difference. You see, the bank would have to settle with each person individually, whereas a class action they have one lump sum and get a 1.25 at the end of it (lol) Though I like Steven, I do not know that I feel obligated to send him my personal loan documents, relevant to my lawsuit, which I am sure you can understand would not be acceptable during litigation. However, even if it was, I am not sure what that would prove? Also, I was never foreclosed on, but threatened. The bank tried to shake me down for money, even though they I was told that I met all the qualifications of HAMP, and was approved. All this is posted on my site under “my bac docs.” I also recorded Bank of America telling me that it was not my fault, but theirs…ect. You can actually hear my recordings at my site.
        .
        You asked how old he law firm is, and I honestly do not know. I never asked. See, even though I am higher profile client than they usually have, and I know more than most, I still do not work for them, so I do not know things like what people are paid ext. In fact, I did not even know what they charged people, until one of the bloggers told me the other day. I am just a client, but I do sort of market my lawsuit, because I want people to join. It would stand to reason why, since I know that it would make my lawsuit more powerful. I do not get a finder’s fee, as well as nobody has offered me any money. I just want a powerful lawsuit, which I think you would too.
        .
        Also, there are not “all the same players, ” such as you are suggesting. It is important to mention that the other firm you that the other firm contracted out to many firms around the nation, which did not mean that they “worked for.” This is a gross miss representation of facts by many out there. For example, I have yet to see any of the attorney’s at Brookstone charged with anything, which they most certainly would be, if they are guilty of this mass scam that many are speaking of. However, there was one really bad CEO there, that even the people at who worked there felt hostage from. They were never so happy when he resigned, but even considering his bad language, there was no scam . I mean, I know why people think there was, because I used to think there was, until I did a little research and found out that it was the actual banks causing the problem, which will not be too hard to believe, now that we see how they lose paperwork, do not return calls and delay. You see, the firm was doing a legitimate service, which was attorneys representing people in modifications with the Banks Legal Department. This would usually make sense, but something went terribly wrong, and the banks went super nova! What people did not realize then was that the banks were ignoring law firms and everyone, which is common knowledge now. So when the client would call in to the firm and want to know an update, the firm would have to say “we have not heard anything yet.” This response made them feel as if the firm was scamming them, but they were only telling them what they were being told. Does anyone now not believe that? This is because this is exactly what the banks are doing to us now. The firm was perplexed by this behavior, but never the less could only go with it. Then the banks started lying to people, such as me, which now is a little bit of history on me that you requested. I was one of the people that was pissed off at the firm, because I thought I was getting the runaround. So I called the bank, and asked them if they had any history of me being represented by the firm. They spent something like 30 min. transferring me, in which one of them finally said they spoke to the legal department. They told me that I was not represented by any firm, but that I had been scammed. This is what they were telling everyone, which is where the disinformation began. Like everyone else, I was furious! I had paid 8 grand, and now I was not represented? So I went after this firm, much the way I am going after BofA. However, you can imagine my embarrassment when I received a letter the next day (I think it has been a while) and it was a letter from the bank that told me that it was in receipt of the firm, and that I was now represented. What did that mean, they lied to me! So I called the firm and apologized to them, because I had just been on line bashing them, while telling everyone that they ripped me off, because the bank verified that I was not represented. I am a man of integrity, and I could not reconcile with the fact that I did this to innocent parties, in which I can reconcile with the fact that I am doing it with guilty parties, such I feel BofA is. So I called the firm, and asked them if I could do a testimonial for them, so that I could help them expose that it was the banks who were doing this, and not the firm. Therefore, they paid to fly my family down there to where they were at, and we did the testimonial. They did not pay me, offer me any money or anything in the future. However, did file a suite in my behalf, since they were also interested in exposing who the real villains were, as I am sure that they were seeking vindication. However, they would end up being raided by the FBI the day they were going to file my case, which the FBI had taken everything from them, but they had my case backed up on disk. So they filed my suit a few days later. We were winning, but the firm, without notice, filed BK. I wrote about this on my blog. Apparently, the one they were all passing rumors that was in control had showed up for work, but there were locks on the door. It was also pay day, and he had been working for months for free, so this is what he told me. So much for being in control (lol) You see, he was nice enough to call me that day, and let me at least know that I was not represented. He did not have to do that, but I am happy that he did. I was freaked out! He had not job, and I had not attorney, during a time where I was winning. I would later find out that the CEO at that time could not talk to anyone, after the Trustee showed up. However, up until that point, I thought this person might have done it on purpose. At any rate, I was now in the kitchen of affliction, while I was licking the pots of sorrow, and I began representing myself with BofA. Then I received a letter, as many people did who were with the previous firm, and apparently there were arrangements made to where there was another firm that had agreed to assume the previous firms clients, or the most of them who were in active lawsuits or whatever. There are actually others on my blog who also received this letter. It was this savior firm called Breakstone. So I was happy, mad, happy, mad again and now I was happy again. However, during that time that I was not represented, I had a very successful protest blog. Senators were contacting me ect. ect. All the sudden, I notice a lot of law firms and attorneys contacted me. They all wanted to represent me, because I guess many of them were probably interested in the high profile of piggybankblog, and all attorneys like to make a name for themselves. So I held off joining with Brookstone, but began interviewing with these other firms. I was also even contacted by the old firms attorney, who said that he would represent me, but I decided to pass. That is when I came up with an idea. What if I were to just unite all the firms that were contacting me, and began to put together the most powerful legal team ever seen by BofA. All the firms were game. Now, I am not going to say that I did this all by myself, but there were people at the firms that did it for me, because they liked the idea. I wanted firms that had attorneys that used to work for the banks, which is what we have. However, you are incorrect that we are going to lose, simply because we brought on board a very reputable attorney. In fact, he has never lost. All this is on my blog though, and you can read the details there at http://www.piggybankblog.com
        .
        Now, if I ever had any knowledge that Brookstone was all these things people were saying, as well as if I ever thought it was true, I would have to be pretty stupid to market myself out here, with my picture, so that everyone knew who to kill when it went wrong (lol). The simple fact is I know that it is not as scam, and I have spoken to many of the attorneys, since they actually came from my blog. I have spoke to all them, just a lot of them. I believe in my lawsuit, and I believe in my team. However, if someone is uncomfortable, they by all means should not join.
        .
        I also wanted to answer Stevens question regarding if someone told the other bloggers to come here. The answer is yes, because that is how I ended up here. Someone named “chuck” told me to come here, so I did. That is how I found you, but I remembered this page, because I had been here a long time ago.
        .
        Once again, I am sorry for not proof reading this. I am also sorry for any errors, as i am so tired that I am seeing double vision. At any rate, I hope that I was able to answer some of your questions. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have, and as long as it is not sensitive to my current lawsuit, I will be happy to answer your questions. However, much of your questions can be answered by simply visiting my blog at piggybankblog.com
        It was very nice to meet you.
        My name is John Wright I AM FIGHTING THE LARGEST BANK IN THE WORLD!

      • Really?

        Answer just ONE question- Since it appears you have spent the last year defending ALL of ULG and Brookstone former & current clients that are calling them a SCAM, and you are the ONE client who has such great experience with them, why wouldnt you choose a law firm that actually has a good reputation?

        Read the whole thing- there are SO many more! All he does is defend these creeps, while everyone else tells the truth- ONE more debt relief scam. How do you sleep? http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/united-law-group-aka-brookstone-law-firm-c326067/page/2.html

      • Anonymous

        I hardly think that I am responsible for other peoples experience at ULG (lol) Even though you keep insisting or trying to manipulate your audience into thinking that I was more than just a client, the fact remains that you are apparently having delusions, simply because nothing you say is based in reality. You have even at one point claimed that I should care about my “staff” (lol) You are a silly little man who is having delusions, but even though I am entertained by the fact that “your cheese has done slid off its cracker (lol)” I simply just do not have time for your cognitive thinking issues anymore. The answer to your question is that I sleep just fine, because instead of waking up, while still dreaming like you, I keep my eyes on the stars, while I keep my feet firmly on the ground. Contrary to your delusion, Brookstone is not offering a modification service (lol), as your cognitive thinking problem has suggested, but has filed a lawsuit. This hardly falls into your delusion of it being a “debt relief scam,” as you contend. This is exactly why I cannot keep talking to you Steve, because I suffer no fool, while I have concluded that we are not in the same grade (lol).
        At any rate, I will be NICE enough to answer just one more question, as you have requested, even though you have not appreciated my time, but rather abused it, while trying to save face. However, I want you to know that I am not going to go through every single ULG complaint that is on that link you sent, because I am not here to represent someone else’s experience, but I am here to represent my own experience. In short, the reality remains that majority of those people on this complaint page lacked experience with law firms, such as yourself. This unfortunate fact would give birth to purely silly claims that would suggest that it was irregular that a law firm would 1. Contract outside attorneys 2. Charge a retainer fee 3. Not guarantee that people would win a lawsuit, as evidence that there was something irregular going on, when in reality you just identified every single law firm in the world.
        It is also important to mention that every single UlG client was recorded, including myself, which the recordings would end up displaying that these people were never told not to pay their mortgage, such as they were contending, but actually told “We cannot tell you to pay your mortgage.” These people were never told that they were guaranteed they would get a modification, but in fact were told “We cannot guarantee you will get a modification, but we do guarantee we will represent you in a modification.” You see, I have already told you that these complaints were mainly sparked because the banks were not acknowledging that people were represented, and were not returning ULG calls or answering letters. All this would end up making ULG have to tell their clients what they were being told from the banks, which is “we have not heard anything back from the bank yet. ” This at the time was an outrageous claim, but we have learned since then alot about the banks, which would only substantiate ULG’s claims. This is why people are suing the banks Steve, and why I chose to remain with ULG at the time. However, the main reason would be because there was simply no other firms willing to go up against the banks at the time, that I knew of, because they feared that the banks would do what they did to ULG’s reputation.
        With that being said, I chose to go with Brookstone because their attorneys had experience with fighting with the banks, whereas the others that were willing to all the sudden represent me, which was not available to during the ULG time, were simply interested in exploiting my celebrity from the blog, while having ZERO EXPERIENCE with fighting the banks. This is because contrary to your claims, the attorneys at Brookstone have an outstanding record with the Bar Association, which I am sure they would not have, if your sensational claims were true. This is because your claims are once again unsubstantiated by not me, but the facts. The fact remains that this is Brookstones reputation:
        1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110224/bs_prweb/prweb8152985_6
        2. They are simply experts on the issue at hand, while leading with 25 years of experience. The fact remains that I have built a force that will prove that piggybankblog.com and myself are a power to be reckoned with. Even just four of the 25 attorneys look like this:
        Attorney: Used to be A BofA attorney
        Attorney: Has won 60/60 cases. Never lost
        Attorney: Served as lead counsel of the fraud unit in one of our states
        There is also William Levin, who was one of my favorite attorney’s on the team to work with, even though I enjoy working with them all. I am constantly impressed with how much knowledge Mr. Levin has, as well as his ability to make a person feel confidently represented. After reading William Levin’s extensive qualifications, I am sure you will see why!
        1. Was Bank of America’s attorney (and Wells Fargo and others) for unfair competition and related intellectual property law litigation and matters.
        2. Obtained what was the largest unfair competition jury verdict in the world until recently, $ 143 million
        3. The author of a 2 volume, leading treatise on an area of unfair competition law.
        4. Has represented high profile cases, while he also knows how to deal with PR
        There should really be no question to why I would choose Brookstone vs. a firm that has a reputation for not fighting the banks. This is because the reality is that the majority of law firms out there are only doing what ULG had already done so long ago, which is represent their clients in a loan modification. Unfortunately, they are finding out what ULG and me already know, which is that the banks are ignoring them in most cases. However, if they are not, it is because Brookstone has paved the way for them to have case history, such as in the recent MERS case BROOKSTONE WON. I am not looking for a modification anymore Steve, I am looking to sue the largest bank in the world, and I have assembled the most powerful dream team against Bank of America that you will ever see out there.
        With that being said, let the record show that I answered practically every single question that you had, while you did not answer even one of mine. Let the record show that I gave your blog time, while I have neglected hundreds of emails that I get from my blog, while doing so. Let the record show that your audience has learned more about ULG, Brookstone and the banking crisis from me, than they have ever learned from you the entire time you have been here. Let record show that your blog is not a place that answers question, but rather is a place that asks questions. Let the record show that you were actually more interested in proving whatever vendetta you have against Brookstone and United Law Group. I will ask you again, are you being sued by Brookstone (wink)? Let the record show that nearly every single one of your allegations have clearly been unsubstantiated by the facts. Let the record show that the only real fact that you submitted on your blog is that your name is “Steve” and not “Steven.”
        Though I found your personal vendetta, inaccuracies, sensational claims and clearly cognitive thinking issues frustrating, I do appreciate the opportunity you gave me to give your audience a real education, which was based on real experience, in which they deserve, instead of your unsubstantiated claims. You see Steve, these people are in real crisis, and they need real answers, instead of becoming victims of your lack of experience and your obvious personal vendetta that you have against Brookstone. The fact that you have a vendetta is not something you have claimed, but is readily apparent by the way you conduct your debates. This is because you seem to spend a huge amount of time on this issue, while not one time claiming that you have ever even applied for a modification, such as I have, let alone filed a lawsuit as a result. The fact that I have been a victim of the modification process, along with the fact that I have filed a lawsuit explains why I would devote so much time to this issue, but it has not answered the question to why you have, which is curious. Nevertheless, this is what makes your blog a blog that asks questions, while it makes my blog (piggybankblog.com) a blog that gives answers.
        In conclusion, it will have to be left up to your audience now to decide who the real expert is in this debate. Not only because you promised me that this would be the last question you would bother me with (I suffer no fool), but because I cannot any longer neglect the hundreds of comments and emails from my successful blog, while I devote time to your unsuccessful blog, just because you are constantly trying to save face from my responses. Though I am sure that you will be trying to regain your audiences confidence for days to come, while you try to give hit and run statements about me and lick your wounds, I assure you that I will probably not have time to even think of what you have said here, simply because none of what you have said challenged my truth, but would only reveal your lack of experience to your audience. In other words “Steve,” though I appreciate that I am becoming more powerful every time you talk, I simply have other things to do.
        In closing, I am satisfied that this debate has revealed why you are known for being “Steve” and not “Steven, but I am known for being:
        I am John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
        This will be my last response to your boring questions. Simply because it is five minutes I will never get back (wink).
        Respectfully,
        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • Really?

        What you have written here is laughable.
        How would you know that all of ULG’s calls are recorded? Thank you for quoting their script “that these people were never told not to pay their mortgage, such as they were contending, but actually told “We cannot tell you to pay your mortgage.” ” While you put a period at the end that sentence, let me finish it for you- It goes, “That would be illegal; However, if you are current or continue to make mortgage payments, the banks will not approve a loan mod.”
        You say I’m not an attorney, so This unfortunate fact would give birth to purely silly claims that would suggest that it was irregular that a law firm would 1. Contract outside attorneys 2. Charge a retainer fee 3. Not guarantee that people would win a lawsuit, as evidence that there was something irregular going on, when in reality you just identified every single law firm in the world. Wrong again, Johnny. And I’d add again that if there was merit for a class action lawsuit, it would have been done on contingency, not with outrageous so called “retainer fees”.

        Brookstone is simply ULG’s brainchild to circumvent the loan mod laws from the FTC while leaving “responsibility” for doing nothing for ULG clients in a bankruptcy – You might get a modification, you might not; We might win the lawsuit, we might not. Give us your money, here is some Hope.

        Vito and the boys know very well what they’re doing Johnny. And continuing to take money from American consumers who are scared & broke is a very bad idea.

        Keep going. The hole you are in is getting deeper my friend. Soon you won’t be able to crawl your way out of it. They’re watching you boys. They have been watching you for a long time. Disbarment will be the least of your friend’s worries when this is over. That’s a promise. What’s not buried in Mom’s backyard will be taken. This white collar crime will not go unpunished. It’s later than you think, Johnny. All the people you’re claiming to help will not back you up. You may as well keep digging; I think you’re past the point of climbing out.

      • Anonymous

        Steven:
        I really bother you don’t I Steven? I mean, I really crawl under your fingernails, but laughable? Well, I have a feeling that you are not going to be laughing very soon (wink). Either, way there you go again asking a question Steven, after you said you would not. Did you LIE to me Steven? Oh well, this is not your first time misrepresenting something to the American people, is it Steven (wink)? No Steven, you are right, as well as you have proven what you set out to do for you audience, which is you have shown your audience that you are clever. What they might not have known, is that you have had an audience before, while showing them how clever you were. This is why I have been trying so hard to get you to speak about your experience, but you have been holding back from your audience, haven’t you Steven? Which by the way, I know that you do not like being called “Steven,” but I am going to be calling you something you might not like more, which I am sure that the word “Steven” is not going to matter to you in a few minutes. However, I am here to show your audience that there is a difference between clever and intelligent. This is because criminals are clever, but usually get busted because they are not intelligent. However, to answer your very clever question, as we continue this dialog that you have been hoping to expose me with (lol), there are around 30,000 who visit in three months, but only 10,000 of them might be registered. I receive about 150 new ones a day, while I service thousands, but why? Are you jealous Steven? I mean, I have no problem posting my tracking, which shows the House of Reps, U.S. Senate, Secretary of State, governors and various representatives around the world that view my site, while they give two shits about your site Steven. Nevertheless, I am a very generous man, and that is why I am going to share my audience with you right now. You see, Americans are pissed off at not only the banks, but also at these fraudulent companies that you try to appear to be against. This is because you are hoping that if you yell “fraud” loud enough about some other vulnerable company, you might hope people will begin to identify you as a person who exposes fraud, instead of a person who commits it (smile).
        .
        You see, there is a reason that I am here Steven(wink). However, I need to clear up something I said, which is that I would not answer anymore of your questions. You see, that is not true because I have no problem answering your questions, while I have answered all of yours. This is why I refuse to answer any more of your questions, until you answer some of mine. Let the record show that you have not answered even one of my questions, but seem more interested in saving face, while trying to manipulate your audience into thinking that I am more than just a client for Brookstone (lol). This is even more silly, after you consider that we have had this dialog for two days, as you keep thinking that you are revealing me, all while I know everything about you. Doh! (lol) You see, even though I am only a client of the companies you have been potentially slandering, you actually owned one of those potentially fraudulent debt relief companies, didn’t you Steven? Doh! (lol)
        .
        Therefore, will you please answer for your audience, the piggybankblog council (who has been secretly watching this debate) and myself some of my questions that I have about you?
        1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?
        2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?
        3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?
        4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself?
        http://www.scamchecker.com/content/steve-rhode-getoutofdebtorg-myvestaorg-beware-steve-rhode-and-getoutofdebtorgthis-company-fr
        http://www.debtmanagementguys.com/blog/144/rebuttal-to-steve-rhode-the-get-out-of-debt-guy-dork/

        http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/steven-rhodes-c398983.html

        http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2002/myvesta.pdf

        .
        In conclusion, you tried to expose what you thought was a weakness of mine, while I was only being a client of Brookstone. However, in what you perceived to be my greatest weakness, I have found my greatest strength (wink). You see Steven, I have decided to protest against your site, even before we had a dialog. This is why I baited you, and you fell for it hook, line and SINKER. (lol) This is why I am about to give you what you have been seeking, which might have been trying to become a site that hosts thousands of people.
        .
        This is because I am about to now open this debate to thousands of people around the world on my blog, because I am not only here to expose Bank of Defrauding America, but expose all of you who potentially gained by defrauding the American people, while exploiting us during a time when we were vulnerable.
        .
        Now you know why I am here “Steven”, and now you see the difference between my site and yours. You see, I am a protest site, which is why I have found you Steven. This is because I intend to serve as the voice of all injured people by your company, as I exercise my right to protest. This protest starts now, and my audience of 30,000 people are eagerly waiting for your answer (smile)
        .
        In conclusion, as I said, everyone on my site already knows about ULG, because I have hid nothing from them. However, nobody on your site knew about you, did they Stevie boy? Well, I have shown you mine and now you are going to show me yours (lol). I have been like a cat, who has been playing with its food, before I eat it the rat (wink).
        What is the decision of the piggybankblog council?
        .
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGblNYTwaFk&feature=player_embedded
        .
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • This Fruitcake is a Joke

        Steve Rhode has outed his past all over this site.
        You are a very strange person. This whole time you were simply waiting to expose Steve for he things he has readily admitted all over this site? Huh. And here we all were thinking you were marketing for your lawfirm loan-mod BS class action scam!!!
        Well well well. You are the cat that ate the canary, aren’t you?
        Of course, all these years of you shilling for ULG and now the ULG re incarnate in Brookstone, claiming to hate BoA, was all a ploy to unearth the truth about Steve Rhode! I suppose your 30,000 followers & all of your friends in government will be excited to know you have finally done it!
        Congratulations Dumbass!

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        What is this claim that I tried to expose a weakness of yours? I linked to two suits that involve you and I asked you two questions about them? How in the world is that an exposed weakness?

        Hell, you didn’t even respond to my last comment to you here. You posted your response under the comment of someone else and totally avoided my previous questions for you.

        You will also notice that I’ve had a very civil conversation with you here. It is you that is calling names. I’ve made no accusations about you and yet you want to ditch the issues and engage in name calling and play games.

        If you had taken the time to read the links you posted or researched them a bit you would have seen my response to the untrue allegations on the scamchecker post. Just scroll down on that page.

        You can also see all my answers to these untrue claims here.

        Thank you for the Complaints link. I did not know about that. I have since responded to that one as well, here.

        You can see my answer for the California thing here.

        It appears your plan on responding is to type out long blocks of text without ever really addressing the specific questions I have asked you.

        I’m beginning to think that your approach to avoid answering questions is to attack instead.

        I’ll make it painfully easy for you to respond and only ask you one question this time.

        Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case?

      • nog OIL

        The 2nd you’ve pointed to this Blog PR in your posts regarding the “reputation” of Brookstone- http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110224/bs_prweb/prweb8152985_6
        That’s not a news story- It is a PR Blog written to promote Brookstone- But you should know that.
        There’s a link on your Piggback site that claims Obama supports you- (Its called “Our Supporters & Lists President Obama) http://www.piggybankblog.com/category/our-supporters/bofa-president-obama/ It points to a speech he made when the gvt passed the latest banking laws. It has nothing to do with anything you are involved in.
        THE WHOLE THING SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLS.
        I feel bad for anyone that buys into your BS.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe what your smelling is your upper lip (wink). This is because other than complaint rooms with hit and runs statements, such as even this one is, I do not see Steven pulling up headlines on me (lol).
        .
        Yah, but it is a real court case that they won, but you do not seem to care about that. The yahoo thing is not what I was refereeing to (lol) Here is a news flash for you, usually all news stories start out in a Press release (yawn). I mean, I have to admit that it was not reported as much as your friend “Steven’s” might have been, when he was accused or convicted or whatever of taking a profit from a nonprofit organization (lol) Which by the way, some criminals like to set up nonprofit companies, so nobody will think that they take a profit (lol) You see, they won a MERS case, which would make them a legitimate law firm. Steven won something else (lol)
        .
        The funny thing about Steven, and there is a lot of funny things, is that his last comment was that he did not own it, but was only the fricken CEO of the company (lol) Me too Steven! You see, I am the CEO of my companies too (lol) Shut up (lol) This is just evidence that the old saying is true that says ” You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” No wonder he got in trouble (lol) Oh man, and my comments were laughable? (lol) I just venture to think that Brian Moynihan’s wife would not be taking his place, if he was guilty of fraud (lol) How many stock holders did your friend Stevens company have? Two huh? (lol) Him and his wife (lol) What do I know (lol), but I just venture to guess that Brian Moynihan of BofA does not have power to appoint his wife as CEO, so he can take a vacation (lol) where was the vacation? Folsom? (lol) And Steven said my comments are laughable (lol)
        .
        Okay now, I want you guys to please just stop thinking for a minute (lol) You see, it would stand to reason why I would be at two firms with a lawsuit, while one claimed Bk. You see , I know that it is hard for you all to believe, but I told people I wanted them to join my lawsuit because I wanted to make my lawsuit more powerful, which it would not be, if I thought the firm was not powerful (lol) It does not mean that I was trying to make money for the firms (lol) This is hardly comparable to your friend Stevens story (lol)
        .
        I have to get out of here man (lol) Like I said, this is five minutes I will never get back (lol) Just tell your friend Steven that he might want to get out of the business of trying to expose what other people he thinks are a debit relief scams (lol)
        .
        Good luck . Let the best man win, but I think he already has (wink).
        .
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Is there a particular reason you don’t appear to reply to my comments directly but reply all over the place when addressing me? If you click the ‘reply’ button under my comment to you then your answer will appear in the proper order and make it easier for readers to follow. That is unless you don’t want people to follow the thread. For example, I extend the courtesy of responding directly to you and you essentially respond to me by missing my comment and posting your response to me on a comment to nog OIL.

        What didn’t I own? If you are referring to the non-profit, non-profits are non-stock companies so there were no stock holders.

        I don’t think you bothered to read my links which described why i took a break. My wife was already a key employee and offered to take over during my sabbatical. There is no gotcha here. I needed a break, and came back. There is nothing sinister about that. See this page for details.

        I was never accused of taking anything or convicted of taking anything from anybody. And it appears you are insinuating I was in prison. You just can’t stick to the truth apparently.

        What does the fact that you were with two firms with a lawsuit have to do with the issue I raised. I said in one you are a party as a class member against ULG and in the other you are a plaintiff in one by Brookstone.

        I’ve politely answered your questions so how about answering my one question. Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case? You have avoided answering the direct question four times now.

      • Anonymous

        Once again, I would click the email alert, and it would pop up a window to type in, so I thought it was yours. This response above was in its proper place though, as you can see that I was responding to his PR claim. The only thing he could come up with about my blog, was the president thing was in the wrong directory. This was not done on purpose, but one of the piggybankblog board members must have misunderstood it’s placement. This will be corrected. Nevertheless, I did not hear them speak about the other ones at all, that were clearly in the right directory (lol) Even if the we wanted to put the directory there, I am not sure they proved their point Steve. Simply because if that is all they could come up with, I think it proves they were really reaching (lol) The reality that we have previous candidates, who are even our board, would suggest that they have the political connections to make it happen. They were trying to prove me wrong, by discrediting the fact that I said there were 30,000 or that we have political support. The reality is that we do. I do not have to prove it to them. So it does not matter what this person says, but I am perplexed how the President title being in the wrong directly equals me in on some scam (lol) That’s is lame. Which by the way, one of this bloggers comments from earlier gave away who they are to you Steve (wink). I am sure they would have a great knowledge of the debit relief business too(lol)
        .
        Anyway, I pointed out that you were saying that it was about your company, but that you were only the CEO. Not these exact words, but in context that is what you were saying. I pointed out that the fact it said that it was non-profit, does not mean that you did not make money, which seemed as if you were trying to emphasize that it was non-profit, as a means to dispute the claims. I also pointed out that the fact that you were able to appoint your wife as the CEO, would suggest that it was a little irregular, which has many implications. The Folsom thing was a tongue in cheek response.
        .
        I was avoiding your question, because I told you that there was one point that I completely refused to answer yours, until you answered mine. There was a time that I was following the right thread, when I made that observation. Therefore, I was not even reading your comments, but simply responding to the other bloggers who were coming to my email . However, I did just answer it in a previous post. In fact, I gave you a detailed answer. I do not know why you want to know so badly. What does it prove either way? Are you still having delusions that I have a “staff” and stuff like that (lol) Yet were trying to act like you were not implying anything earlier, but you call them my staff (lol) Either way, I answered your dumb question, that does not matter. I will say it again, I am a client, and I owe you nothing. This is because I do not work for either agency, but I also do not work for you either (lol) Like I said, there is only one of here who has worked for a debt relief company that was called a scam, and that was you. There is also only one of us here that made money while doing it, which that was you too. So I do not know where you think you are going with this. Like I said before, I am not going to pull my pants down, simply because you claim I have poka dotted underwear on (lol) Regardless if I had to pay or not, they still get a percentage of what I am going to win. I know you are nosey, so I will just tell you that it is 30% (lol)
        .
        Okay, I have answered your question. I am super tired now, so I am not going to proof read. As well as this irrelevant blog has taken up too much of my time. I am bored now (yawn)

        I answered your question already about the charge, which I do not know why you are so concerned about it (lol) However, I did answer your question already.
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        The President Comment

        I didn’t make that comment. The first paragraph must be directed at some other commenter, not me.

        Company

        I founded the nonprofit. A nonprofit is a public non-stock corporation. When my wife took over for me, as I explain here. I returned after my break so I could spend more time with out daughter before she graduated high school and headed off to college. That’s hardly sinister. My wife volunteered for the position because nobody else there wanted to deal with the pressure of running the company. She had been the finance manager of the company since the beginning and ran the accounting department. It was a logical person to take over for me. And I did earn a salary as every other employee of the company did. I however did not own any stock or have any equity in the company.

        Your Staff
        I’m not sure where the “your staff” thing is coming from. I’ve never made any such claim.

        The Law Firm Gets 30%
        If I read you correctly you are saying that Brookstone Law gets 30% of some benefit if you win. I understand that is an amount that you have determined is fair and I am not insinuating it is not.

      • Really?

        OK- The Obama supporting you was an “error”. Oops. So I look at your sidebar that claims 6 Congressmen support you- 5 of them have not written back to you & the one that has, sent you a letter looking for a contribution; It doesn’t mention you or your “lawsuit” anywhere.

        Kinda makes you “THINK”

      • Anonymous

        I will look into it because maybe the thing that is wrong, is the title that says “supporters” should say something else. Though we do have political supporters, the supporters have asked that we do not post their names, until secessions are over. I agree with you that it should not be under the title supporters, but maybe “contacted by”. With that being said, were never supported by Obama, and neither do we support his decisions concerning the banks.

        I actually appreciate you finding this error, but it does not mean that my site is a scam. Once again, it is more like a customers service complaint, but not evidence of a scam.

        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        Okay, I’ve got to ask. When you say “until secessions are over,” what does that mean for you as you used it. I just want to understand the statement clearly. I’m not sure if you are using that in a political or governmental context. Can you fill me in please.

      • Really?

        Kramer & Kaslow are the lead attorneys on the case.
        http://www.piggybankblog.com/2009/09/09/list-of-unauthorized-distributors/

        What is their relationship to these companies?

        NRG National Relief Group
        Reliant Legal Network
        USLMP

        Interesting stuff. Do you think that by promoting these groups to “help strengthen your lawsuit” you may inadvertently be leading hurting Americans into sending their money to what appears to be another loan mod group that are scamming people?

        http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/National-Relief-Group-Inc-100086522
        http://www.trustlink.org/Reviews/National-Relief-Group-Inc-206063223
        http://www.la.bbb.org/Business-Report/Reliant-Legal-Network-100097553
        http://www.trustlink.org/Reviews/Kramer-and-Kaslow-206082715
        http://www.trustlink.org/Reviews/USLMP-Inc-206063582

        The endless complaints indicate they are another bad group of companies preying on people in need of help. You have no responsibility for steering consumers to these folks?
        Curious. You must have done your homework. You seem very thorough. Are you OK with all of this history? Add to it the the ULG bankruptcy and you are OK with advising people to pay these groups up front???

      • Really?

        http://www.trustlink.org/Reviews/USLMP-Inc-206063582
        UNBELIEVABLE

        Kramer & Kaslow, USLMP Inc, loan modifcation, loan modification, K2 Law
        http://www.trustlink.org/Ask-The-Community/Question/Business/USLMP-Ripoff-5405
        Company Rating F
        Our opinion of what this rating means:
        We strongly question the company’s reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law’s licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company’s industry is known for its fraudulent business practices.

        This business is not a BBB Accredited Business.

        Why Accreditation Revoked
        On June 16th 2010, this company’s accreditation in the BBB was revoked by the BBB’s Board of Directors due to failure to eliminate the underlying cause of complaints on file with the BBB and concerns relating to the company’s business relationship with some of the companies, with whom they conduct processing.

        Complaints filed: 19 within the last three years:
        Complainants allege unfulfilled contracts, and inability to obtain refunds when loan modification agreements failed to produce results. Customers claim excessive time periods passed with only minimal contact with lenders, causing further financial difficulties for homeowners. The company responds to complaints by claiming the complaint was filed in error. The company contends they are a processing company only, and that any fees paid in consideration of the contract was paid to another company. In some cases they company offers explanations for delays, or claims to have performed services as agreed. Refund requests are denied based on the company’s contention they accepted no money from the client.

        Effective October, 2009 in California, it is illegal to collect any fees, regardless of the form, for negotiating or attempting to negotiate a loan modification for a residential mortgage. All modification services must be fully completed before any money can be collected. It is also illegal to divide fees or services into components for the purpose of avoiding this law.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,What is this claim that I tried to expose a weakness of yours? I linked to two suits that involve you and I asked you two questions about them? How in the world is that an exposed weakness? Hell, you didn’t even respond to my last comment to you here. You posted your response under the comment of someone else and totally avoided my previous questions for you.You will also notice that I’ve had a very civil conversation with you here. It is you that is calling names. I’ve made no accusations about you and yet you want to ditch the issues and engage in name calling and play games.If you had taken the time to read the links you posted or researched them a bit you would have seen my response to the untrue allegations on the scamchecker post. Just scroll down on that page.You can also see all my answers to these untrue claims here.Thank you for the Complaints link. I did not know about that. I have since responded to that one as well, here.You can see my answer for the California thing here.It appears your plan on responding is to type out long blocks of text without ever really addressing the specific questions I have asked you.I’m beginning to think that your approach to avoid answering questions is to attack instead.I’ll make it painfully easy for you to respond and only ask you one question this time.Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case?UpdateI wanted to make sure it was clear I was not avoiding the questions John asked. I’m happy to answer them.Just in case it was not clear that my answers to his claims were in the links in my comment you replied to the answers to his questions are:1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?No. I ran a nonprofit credit counseling organization. I was never accused of being a fraudulent scam. In fact you can see testimonials about me here.2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?No. She took over while I took a break. I came back and resumed my role as president.3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?I am not attacking you.4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself? I didn’t ask you how you slept at night.

      • wiseathena

        I would like to see you answer the questions that were asked of you by john. I also would like to know why it says that you charge for your help? it says $495.00 to join and $75.00 to 200.00 a month for your continued help? is that what you call free?
        also do you think a lawyer should work for free? i have always thought that people get paid for work done ! it’s not a “class action suit” as you say its a mass joinder. which benefits the plaintiffs and not the lawyers……

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        You obviously missed my response to him. Go back and look again please.

        I didn’t say it was a class action suit.

        I also did not say lawyers should work for free.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Just in case it was not clear that my answers to his claims were in the links in my comment you replied to the answers to his questions are:

        1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?

        No. I ran a nonprofit credit counseling organization. I was never accused of being a fraudulent scam. In fact you can see testimonials about me here.

        2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?

        No. She took over while I took a break. I came back and resumed my role as president.

        3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?

        I am not attacking you.

        4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself?

        I didn’t ask you how you slept at night.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, you are correct Steve that I did post in the wrong spot. I just clicked on the link in the email, and it brought me to that window, which I just assumed was yours. To keep our dialog in context, I will post it here, and then answer some of your questions, since I noticed you finally answered some of mine. I will answer them after I post this:
        .
        From earlier:

        Steven:
        I really bother you don’t I Steven? I mean, I really crawl under your fingernails, but laughable? Well, I have a feeling that you are not going to be laughing very soon (wink). Either, way there you go again asking a question Steven, after you said you would not. Did you LIE to me Steven? Oh well, this is not your first time misrepresenting something to the American people, is it Steven (wink)? No Steven, you are right, as well as you have proven what you set out to do for you audience, which is you have shown your audience that you are clever. What they might not have known, is that you have had an audience before, while showing them how clever you were. This is why I have been trying so hard to get you to speak about your experience, but you have been holding back from your audience, haven’t you Steven? Which by the way, I know that you do not like being called “Steven,” but I am going to be calling you something you might not like more, which I am sure that the word “Steven” is not going to matter to you in a few minutes. However, I am here to show your audience that there is a difference between clever and intelligent. This is because criminals are clever, but usually get busted because they are not intelligent. However, to answer your very clever question, as we continue this dialog that you have been hoping to expose me with (lol), there are around 30,000 who visit in three months, but only 10,000 of them might be registered. I receive about 150 new ones a day, while I service thousands, but why? Are you jealous Steven? I mean, I have no problem posting my tracking, which shows the House of Reps, U.S. Senate, Secretary of State, governors and various representatives around the world that view my site, while they give two shits about your site Steven. Nevertheless, I am a very generous man, and that is why I am going to share my audience with you right now. You see, Americans are pissed off at not only the banks, but also at these fraudulent companies that you try to appear to be against. This is because you are hoping that if you yell “fraud” loud enough about some other vulnerable company, you might hope people will begin to identify you as a person who exposes fraud, instead of a person who commits it (smile).
        .
        You see, there is a reason that I am here Steven(wink). However, I need to clear up something I said, which is that I would not answer anymore of your questions. You see, that is not true because I have no problem answering your questions, while I have answered all of yours. This is why I refuse to answer any more of your questions, until you answer some of mine. Let the record show that you have not answered even one of my questions, but seem more interested in saving face, while trying to manipulate your audience into thinking that I am more than just a client for Brookstone (lol). This is even more silly, after you consider that we have had this dialog for two days, as you keep thinking that you are revealing me, all while I know everything about you. Doh! (lol) You see, even though I am only a client of the companies you have been potentially slandering, you actually owned one of those potentially fraudulent debt relief companies, didn’t you Steven? Doh! (lol)
        .
        Therefore, will you please answer for your audience, the piggybankblog council (who has been secretly watching this debate) and myself some of my questions that I have about you?
        1. Did you ever run a “debt relief company” that was accused of being one these fraudulent scams?
        2. Did you make your wife the CEO of this company, as a way to escape responsibility?
        3. How can you have the audacity to attack me, who is only a client of the firms that you appear to have a vendetta against, such as Brookstone, when you potentially have been charged with running one of those “Debt Relief Scam” Companies?
        4. Since you seem to be a man that thinks that he is exposing me with ULG links, while asking me how I sleep at night, while only being a client, I have a few links for you now. I must insist that you answer my questions. Will you please address the links individually for your audience, the piggybankblog council and myself?
        http://www.scamchecker.com/content/steve-rhode-getoutofdebtorg-myvestaorg-beware-steve-rhode-and-getoutofdebtorgthis-company-fr
        http://www.debtmanagementguys.com/blog/144/rebuttal-to-steve-rhode-the-get-out-of-debt-guy-dork/

        http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/steven-rhodes-c398983.html

        http://www.corp.ca.gov/ENF/pdf/2002/myvesta.pdf

        .
        In conclusion, you tried to expose what you thought was a weakness of mine, while I was only being a client of Brookstone. However, in what you perceived to be my greatest weakness, I have found my greatest strength (wink). You see Steven, I have decided to protest against your site, even before we had a dialog. This is why I baited you, and you fell for it hook, line and SINKER. (lol) This is why I am about to give you what you have been seeking, which might have been trying to become a site that hosts thousands of people.
        .
        This is because I am about to now open this debate to thousands of people around the world on my blog, because I am not only here to expose Bank of Defrauding America, but expose all of you who potentially gained by defrauding the American people, while exploiting us during a time when we were vulnerable.
        .
        Now you know why I am here “Steven”, and now you see the difference between my site and yours. You see, I am a protest site, which is why I have found you Steven. This is because I intend to serve as the voice of all injured people by your company, as I exercise my right to protest. This protest starts now, and my audience of 30,000 people are eagerly waiting for your answer (smile)
        .
        In conclusion, as I said, everyone on my site already knows about ULG, because I have hid nothing from them. However, nobody on your site knew about you, did they Stevie boy? Well, I have shown you mine and now you are going to show me yours (lol). I have been like a cat, who has been playing with its food, before I eat it the rat (wink).
        What is the decision of the piggybankblog council?
        .
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGblNYTwaFk&feature=player_embedded
        .
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • Anonymous

        No you were not a very nice person to me Steve. In fact, I was the one that continued to respect you, as you tried to provoke with statements of “Johnny.” Though the name did not hurt me, because it is my name, I noted your snarky attempt . So I decided to fight back.
        .
        Thank you for finally answering some of my questions. This was why I was avoiding your questions after awhile, because I had noticed that you were not answering mine. Now I will answer some of yours.
        .
        1. I was a client of both law firms. However, while at ULG, I came up with the idea to promote my lawsuit, so that I could make it as powerful as possible. This is because I have experience in promotion, marketing and social networking. I was promoting myself and my lawsuit, but ULG was simply a byproduct of this fact. This is because the more people that are in my lawsuit, the more powerful it is. Contrary to all these claims, I was not concerned with what ULG charged the other clients, because I am only a client myself. Just because I have blog, does not mean that I am responsible for answering everyone’s delusions about whatever agenda they have against ULG. I was only a client, but would protect the law firm, if there was a lie told that I felt was hurting my lawsuit. I was not protecting ULG, but protecting my lawsuit. It is important to mention that I did not know Vito, while I was at ULG. I would not know him until I was at Brookstone. In fact, I have only talked to Vito twice in my life, because he is my attorney now, but was not then. Anyway, I paid ULG 8,000.00. That is why I was a client Steve.
        .
        2. You asked: “Did you pay Brookstone Law $5,895 to represent you in the case?” Though this is really none of your business, the answer is no. I simply do not work for Brookstone, so I am under no obligation to answer any of these questions, but I have answered them for you. Neither am I going to pull my pants down, if you say that I have poka dotted underwear on. Can I ask you how much you make a year, simply because someone alleges you were charged with fraud? So contrary to your, which are implied by your questions, I am not guilty simply for being a client of both firms. At any rate, no I did not have to pay. So what? What does that matter? I paid at ULG and was not crying about it? They did charge me because they felt bad for what happened to me, but also liked the evidence I had for the lawsuit. I have more evidence than the average person, which makes my chances of winning very good. This is why it is not uncommon that they did not charge me.
        .
        I do not care what anyone says here about Vito, because I simply go by my experience, as well as the fact that he is not only a very nice man, but he is a very good attorney. This is why I posted the article for you about MERS. Once again, the fact that it was a press release, was only a byproduct of the point I was trying to make, which was that he won. Everyone knows that it is a very important win a MERS case, regardless of the fact that it was a press release. Once again, if any of these claims were true about Vito, why is there no marks against him at the Bar Association? Because it is not true Steve, which you of people should understand that it is not fair that you are insinuating that someone is a scam, simply because they might have worked somewhere that everyone is calling fraudulent. Does that mean that any place you work at now should be considered fraudulent, simply because of the links that I posted about you? That would not be fair, would it Steve? Should I began to imply that any client that used you in the past is in on your fraudulent scheme? That would not be fair either, would it Steve? This is why you are going to denounce anyone here that says that on your blog, right Steve?
        .
        Also, contrary to what one of your blogger suggested, which was that I must be on the inside, simply because I knew the recorded script is simply false. Did I mention that I was a client? You see, they recorded me, and it was so clear, that I remember it all this time later. This is why I do not believe a lot of the complaints on ULG. The other reasons is that most of the complaints willingly admit that they were trying to use ULG to defraud the bank, which is not a credible testimony. What I am referring to is the ones that said “they told me not to pay, or I would not get a loan modification.” I paid my mortgage for many months after securing ULG. You tell me why I did not stop making my mortgage payment when I started up with them? This is because they never said that to me.
        .
        In closing, just because I have a very popular blog that I choose to use as a forum to promote my lawsuit, while the advertisement of the firm is simply a byproduct, it does make me part of some grand scheme, such as your blogger or you have implied. So let me be clear here, which is that I have every intention of defending the firm from any lie that I believe will damage my lawsuit, such as these kind of lies did with ULG. This is not preservation of the law firm, but of lawsuit, and my supporters who are a part of it.
        .
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
        .

        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        I provoked you by calling you Johnny? Dude, the reason I pointed out the Steven thing is because it is not the spelling of my name. My issue was not with Steven, my issue is just it’s not my name.

        Your Answers

        1. My issue is not if you were a client at ULG. What I pointed out was that clients of ULG have filed a class action suit against them. My point was that ironically as a former client you would benefit as a member of that class. That’s it.

        2. The issue of payment is material simply because if you are promoting others to enter the suit or promoting it on your site one argument that could be made is that you received a benefit as a promoter and it is an important fact that should be disclosed.

        Vito

        I am sure Vito is an excellent attorney. I have never doubted his skills nor made any report, reference, or opinion about his skills as an attorney.

        I have reported on public actions that have involved him, such as the ULG bankruptcy and the class action suit against ULG by former clients which names him. All of the issues I have been reported on are the results of actions by others, not me.

        I have never insinuated he is a scam, I’ve never inferred he’s a scam, and I’m sure he is motivated to do a good job. I did not call the suit a fraud. You are making some big incorrect assumptions about what I have said.

        Comments of Others

        Obviously I am no more responsible for the comments posted by others than I am for yours. Please don’t put the words of others in my mouth.

        Closing

        You state you have a very popular blog. Congratulations. And since I have not visited it I’ll make an assumption that you feel you are helping the average person fight back against the banks for an injustice. Ironically, in the long run, you and I are both trying to help people.

        So a reader asked me a question. My readers typically come to me because they are having financial problems. My concern with the information the reader presented had nothing to do with Vito. My concern was the consumer was being pitched hard with promises you even said seemed unreal. I just can’t see where you, your site, or any other interest has been harmed by my advice to the reader to get a second opinion before laying out $5,895.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Finally had a moment to respond to that debt management guys link you included. Readers can read this post for more information why it is just inaccurate.

      • Anonymous

        Hey Steven:

        There is this guy that I think he meant to post in your room because he wrote this:

        Guest991 (guest): I am an attorney, but not licensed in CA. Here is my take. Bullshit. Initially, up until recently, the mortgage company didn’t have to notify anybody that their loan had been sold to another entity. Loan origination is a creature of State law for the most part. Mortgage law is very complicated and a jr. woodchuck attorney can not tell you whether or not there is a case without REALLY looking through the documents. Not a 10 minute review. Then he probably needs to check MERS and find out who the investor is
        .
        So I told him he was in the wrong room, becasue you were here:

        .
        John, I tried MyVesta. Stay away from them!!! They took $2900 from me.
        Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMJohn-Wright: who did?
        Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMJohn-Wright: the debt guy?
        Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMTheresa (guest): MyVesta
        Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMTheresa (guest): What every they’re calling themselves these days. Feb 27 2011, 3:44 PMJohn-Wright: Oh my! Is that the Steve Rhodes guy?
        Feb 27 2011, 3:45 PMTheresa (guest): I believe that’s the guy I worked with, it’s been at least 3 years ago.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Just for your information Myvesta in the U.S. closed in 2006 and stopped providing consumer service a year or two before. According to the BBB it closed with an A+ rating.

      • boston67

        By TheBellTolls -Scam Checker Report
        Disgusted you could not have summed it up better. Steve “The Debt Hoax” is profiting through proliforation of his “non-profit?” Really Steve Mr. Debt Guy? You think that any able-bodied consumer with half of a cortex wouldn’t see that you found a way to bash your “competition” that doesn’t pay you to get referrals off of your pay per click ads? We should all feel very confident that you don’t contact those helpless consumers that are genuinely in trouble only to flip them over to one of your “pay per so I dont bash you” paying Debt Companies, right? Game’s up Steve a tigger doesn’t change it’s stripes no different in your case “Debt Guy” formerly “Debt Settlement Guy that didnt work out.” Run!… do not walk away from anyone considering “The Debt Guy” as anyone other than a profiteer with a creative new approach to soft sell you!

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Can you please clarify what you mean when you say, “that doesn’t pay you to get referrals off of your pay per click ads?”

        Since I don’t offer any plan like you described, “pay per so I dont bash you” paying Debt Companies, right?” can you please explain what you mean?

        I did not run a debt settlement company.

      • Anonymous
      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Links I’ve already either disproven or commented on.

        Three years ago I was living in England and not offering services in the U.S. It’s not me.

      • Senka911

        :)
        Myvesta US Articles
        Steve Rhode is the founder of Myvesta US in the United States and the Chairman of Myvesta UK in the United Kingdom.
        myvesta.org/articles/authors/1/Steve-Rhode

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Yes, I was the founder of Myvesta US and the past Chairman of Myvesta UK. I now devote all my time instead to this site.

  • Steve Rhode

    THat’s wonderful but do you have any feedback regarding the questions I raised in my answer to the reader?

  • Senka911

    I have been fighting Bank of America for two years on my own. The whole process took an enormous effort, but I would do the same thing again. I’m writing to support Brookstone Law, only because when I started my fight, there were only a handful of law firms ready to fight the giant as big as Bank of America. You know why? The too big to fail banks’ executives hire people like Steven Eckhaus, who is a top Wall Street compensation lawyer, and puts up a vigorous defense of current practices and insisted to The Wall Street Journal that “to blame Wall Street for the financial meltdown is absurd.” So, do you think we can fight those sharks for free???
    Now, finally, there are lawyers who are ready to stand up against banks and their legal army. That army is prepared to defend every allegedly fraudulent and illegal action of their clients. There are people who have money to retain law firms which are ready and equipped to fight the biggest banks in the world. However, don’t forget, when they win (and they will – every day new laws suits are being filed, for example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/
    then the rest of us will have much better chance proving to judges all around the country that are pleadings were correct.

  • Anonymous

    I have been fighting Bank of America for two years on my own. The whole process took an enormous effort, but I would do the same thing again. I’m writing to support Brookstone Law, only because when I started my fight, there were only a handful of law firms ready to fight the giant as big as Bank of America. You know why? The too big to fail banks’ executives hire people like Steven Eckhaus, who is a top Wall Street compensation lawyer, and puts up a vigorous defense of current practices and insisted to The Wall Street Journal that “to blame Wall Street for the financial meltdown is absurd.” So, do you think we can fight those sharks for free???
    Now, finally, there are lawyers who are ready to stand up against banks and their legal army. That army is prepared to defend every allegedly fraudulent and illegal action of their clients. There are people who have money to retain law firms which are ready and equipped to fight the biggest banks in the world. However, don’t forget, when they win (and they will – every day new laws suits are being filed, for example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/bank-of-america-sued-by-mortgage-backed-securities-investors-over-buybacks.html),
    then the rest of us will have much better chance proving to judges all around the country that are pleadings were correct.

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      THat’s wonderful but do you have any feedback regarding the questions I raised in my answer to the reader?

      • Anonymous

        Unfortunatelly, you are missing my point Steve – I gave my answer/opinion in the posting above. By the way, banks used all of us (meaning homeowners, investors, etc.) as their guinea pigs :)

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        And you are missing my point. This article is about the issues the reader raised.

        So you are willing to offer a blanket statement that paying $5895 up front is a good idea then?

        Do you think any law firm should be engaged in “Brookstone is now calling me every day once or twice to give them my VISA info to start the document investigation as soon as possible.”

        Is there a problem with a consumer getting a second opinion before laying out $5,895?

        Are you aware of any case that has resulted in the bulk erasure of mortgages?

      • Senka911

        Hi there :) I missed a great entertainment! However, I had more fun reading this:
        http://www.debtmanagementguys.com/blog/144/rebuttal-to-steve-rhode-the-get-out-of-debt-guy-dork/
        You know what’s interesting – we never heard again from “your reader” who posted the question at the first place???
        Could you recommend some law firm that will represent us for free? After everything you have said about Brookstone, I am positive you must have some goodhearted lawyers for us :)
        Thanks in advance!

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        I know, that was pretty funny stuff. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

        When I answered the question I emailed the submitter and let her know it was posted. I wish she’d participate as well.

        As far as a free representation you might want to ask the commenter Michael if he is aware of any contingency cases. He said he is an attorney and has already had successful cases against some mortgage companies. Look for his comment below someplace.

      • Rhondacon
      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Happily, click here.

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      Why is everyone posting comments with the same statement they “support Brookstone Law?”

      Were you asked to come here and comment?

      • Anonymous

        Let me think…..May be because Brookstone Law is the main topic?! Again, I would like to reinforce my statement – I am ready to support any law firm that is willing to go after banks!
        Are you?

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        So what is your response to the questions the reader raised?

      • Anonymous

        OK, let me try again -
        Not to believe that just because someone is asking for a retainer money that we are automatically guinea pigs; believe that in order to win those bigger than us, someone must take first steps, otherwise we will forever be guinea piggs for “too big to fail” from any walks of life….Good enough?
        And you didn’t answer my question :)

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        See my response to your other comment.

  • Steve Rhode

    John,

    What part of my answer was incorrect?

    What good comes from “pitches to pay in advance when pressured to cough up the bucks?”

    Is there a guarantee participants get one benefit out of this?

    Is there any harm in someone getting a second opinion before paying $5,000 to participate?

    Has there been a case closed that resulted in the bulk erasure of mortgages?

    So if you know the person the reader spoke with was an attorney then who was it?

    You said you heard the $895 is refundable if the person does not have a case, but what about the $5,000?

    Do you have an opinion about the reader’s allegation that “Brookstone is now calling me every day once or twice to give them my VISA info to start the document investigation as soon as possible.”

  • Piggybankblog

    Hi Wrightamber56 and Steve:
    .
    Always good to see someone with the same last name:)
    .
    My name is John Wright, and I come to you from piggybankblog.com, as well as I represent the Wright Vs. Bank of America lawsuit. If you do not mind, I would like to help you with the question to why the person probably did not tell you who all the twenty five were. Though I understand how this could cause you to be suspicious, I am sure that my answer will alleviate some of your concerns, after you consider the reasonableness of my answer. it is my understanding that this is because the firms have agreed to have Brookstone be the first initial starting point, simply because the other firms are not equipped to deal with thousands of potential clients, while being all at once. This is a very real reality, once you consider that I be advertising my lawsuit on my blog, which has 30,000 supporters. You see, Brookstone has a special computer program, which is equipped to deal with thousands of people, and is why they were chosen to be your first initial contact. If they were to reveal to everyone who the twenty five were, before they were even told they have a case, people would sidestep the agreed process and end up going directly to one of the twenty five. As mentioned before, the twenty five would be overwhelmed, simply because they are not equipped to process thousands of people, such as Brookstone is. The truth is, there is simply no way that any one attorney can meet with thousands of people, and be expected to fight the largest bank in the world. However, it is my understanding that this will be all announced to the public, once the initial flood of potential clients has been processed.
    .
    Now, I have read the persons questions above. I have also read Steven’s answers too. No disrespect meant Steve, but I think it is safe to say that you just do not know the answer, but instead offer a theory, which is based on nothing other than emotion. Though I think that you had good intentions, while only wanting to help, I am not sure why you would suggest that the person they have spoken to was probably not a Jr. attorney, before you even know who that person is? Considering that I hold you in high respect, I was surprised at this answer. However, to be fair, even I have made this kind of mistake on my blog before, and I am certainly not accusing you of doing it on purpose. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that it would be smart for them to get this person’s name, simply because they have already been accused of something, before we even know who they are. It would not be fair to Brookstone or the public, if you did not answer this question, since you have made a very serious allegation. At any rate, I think I answered to why the attorneys would not be able to meet with thousands of people, and why this person was probably their first point of contact. There has to be some kind of screening process, because the attorneys time is valuable.
    .
    Also, there is nothing strange at all about a firm charging a retainer. Actually, I would venture to think it would be strange the other way around. Otherwise, that would suggest that all attorneys are a scam, simply because they all charge retainers. It is also important to mention that I heard that the $859.00is refundable, if it is determined that the person does not have a case. The person with the question could verify if this is true or not, but I am happy they said that they were told “may” get it free and clear. As you know, there is no attorney that can guarantee the outcome of a Judge’s decision, which I think I would be more suspicious if they did, but not the other way around.
    .
    With all the above being said, and even though I do not work for Brookstone or get a finder’s fee, I must admit that I do see an advantage to having as many people in my lawsuit as possible. This is why I would be happy to answer any questions you or your readers might have concerning Brookstone. I may not always have the answer’s, since I am only a client, but I do have more insight than the average person, simply because I am at the top of the lawsuit. I have also had to make sure they were okay before I allowed them to potentially represent any of my 30,000 supporters at piggybankblog.com. This puts me in a position to protect you, if you should have any issues with Brookstone, after you are a client. Simply put, I will knock their heads together (tongue in cheek).
    .
    Thank you Steve for giving us this wonderful forum to ask the questions, debate this issue and represent all sides. Please let me know if I can help you promote your forum in anyway. My supporters and I are always looking for quality forums to network with, which you have certainly did a very nice job here.
    .
    In closing, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Please also feel free to come be a part of my blog, where I update John’s daily blog on a daily basis. You see, I built it for all of you :)
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING THE LARGEST BANK IN THE WORLD!

    Respectfully,
    John Wright

  • http://www.piggybankblog.com Piggybankblog

    Hi Wrightamber56 and Steve:
    .
    Always good to see someone with the same last name:)
    .
    My name is John Wright, and I come to you from piggybankblog.com, as well as I represent the Wright Vs. Bank of America lawsuit. If you do not mind, I would like to help you with the question to why the person probably did not tell you who all the twenty five were. Though I understand how this could cause you to be suspicious, I am sure that my answer will alleviate some of your concerns, after you consider the reasonableness of my answer. it is my understanding that this is because the firms have agreed to have Brookstone be the first initial starting point, simply because the other firms are not equipped to deal with thousands of potential clients, while being all at once. This is a very real reality, once you consider that I be advertising my lawsuit on my blog, which has 30,000 supporters. You see, Brookstone has a special computer program, which is equipped to deal with thousands of people, and is why they were chosen to be your first initial contact. If they were to reveal to everyone who the twenty five were, before they were even told they have a case, people would sidestep the agreed process and end up going directly to one of the twenty five. As mentioned before, the twenty five would be overwhelmed, simply because they are not equipped to process thousands of people, such as Brookstone is. The truth is, there is simply no way that any one attorney can meet with thousands of people, and be expected to fight the largest bank in the world. However, it is my understanding that this will be all announced to the public, once the initial flood of potential clients has been processed.
    .
    Now, I have read the persons questions above. I have also read Steven’s answers too. No disrespect meant Steve, but I think it is safe to say that you just do not know the answer, but instead offer a theory, which is based on nothing other than emotion. Though I think that you had good intentions, while only wanting to help, I am not sure why you would suggest that the person they have spoken to was probably not a Jr. attorney, before you even know who that person is? Considering that I hold you in high respect, I was surprised at this answer. However, to be fair, even I have made this kind of mistake on my blog before, and I am certainly not accusing you of doing it on purpose. Nevertheless, I do agree with you that it would be smart for them to get this person’s name, simply because they have already been accused of something, before we even know who they are. It would not be fair to Brookstone or the public, if you did not answer this question, since you have made a very serious allegation. At any rate, I think I answered to why the attorneys would not be able to meet with thousands of people, and why this person was probably their first point of contact. There has to be some kind of screening process, because the attorneys time is valuable.
    .
    Also, there is nothing strange at all about a firm charging a retainer. Actually, I would venture to think it would be strange the other way around. Otherwise, that would suggest that all attorneys are a scam, simply because they all charge retainers. It is also important to mention that I heard that the $859.00is refundable, if it is determined that the person does not have a case. The person with the question could verify if this is true or not, but I am happy they said that they were told “may” get it free and clear. As you know, there is no attorney that can guarantee the outcome of a Judge’s decision, which I think I would be more suspicious if they did, but not the other way around.
    .
    With all the above being said, and even though I do not work for Brookstone or get a finder’s fee, I must admit that I do see an advantage to having as many people in my lawsuit as possible. This is why I would be happy to answer any questions you or your readers might have concerning Brookstone. I may not always have the answer’s, since I am only a client, but I do have more insight than the average person, simply because I am at the top of the lawsuit. I have also had to make sure they were okay before I allowed them to potentially represent any of my 30,000 supporters at piggybankblog.com. This puts me in a position to protect you, if you should have any issues with Brookstone, after you are a client. Simply put, I will knock their heads together (tongue in cheek).
    .
    Thank you Steve for giving us this wonderful forum to ask the questions, debate this issue and represent all sides. Please let me know if I can help you promote your forum in anyway. My supporters and I are always looking for quality forums to network with, which you have certainly did a very nice job here.
    .
    In closing, if you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. Please also feel free to come be a part of my blog, where I update John’s daily blog on a daily basis. You see, I built it for all of you :)
    .
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoOJMr7OJ0s&feature=player_embedded
    .
    My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING THE LARGEST BANK IN THE WORLD!

    Respectfully,
    John Wright

    • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

      John,

      What part of my answer was incorrect?

      What good comes from “pitches to pay in advance when pressured to cough up the bucks?”

      Is there a guarantee participants get one benefit out of this?

      Is there any harm in someone getting a second opinion before paying $5,000 to participate?

      Has there been a case closed that resulted in the bulk erasure of mortgages?

      So if you know the person the reader spoke with was an attorney then who was it?

      You said you heard the $895 is refundable if the person does not have a case, but what about the $5,000?

      Do you have an opinion about the reader’s allegation that “Brookstone is now calling me every day once or twice to give them my VISA info to start the document investigation as soon as possible.”

      • Anonymous

        Hi,
        I am sorry that I was unable to answer your questions right away Steven, but I am sure that you understand that being in a lawsuit with Bank of America, running one of the most popular protest sites on the internet and dealing with 25 law firms can take up a lot of my time. This is not even considering that I have about 80-150 emails a day to answer, which I tend to fall behind on, simply because I am also running my two companies. I think it is also fair to mention that your blog is only one out of about 15 that I am having these kind of debates on right now, which can become a lot like painting the Golden Gate Bridge, simply because I have to start over, after I finish (lol) I should probably just cut and paste this statement, but I always try to give it a personal touch.
        .
        First, I guess I should have probably warned you that I have a very large fan base, which means that I have many supporters that follow my debates around the internet. They are all very intelligent, insightful and I assure you they suffer no fool, as they say. Some are doctors, lawyers and even economists, which means that you are going to have to be pretty fast on your feet, as they make sure that I am too. That is if I am going to challenge them. In fact, I am familiar with who these people are that you are debating with here, which is a pretty impressive gathering, if you consider that I could see there was one in here that actually ran for office in the state of Washington ( Hi Lemke). This means they are experts in the craft of debate, in which some people might think that you have brought a knife to a gun fight (lol). So you might want to think out what you are saying carefully in the future. Just a fast observation, before I answer your questions.
        .
        You asked: ” What part of my answer was incorrect?”: Well, I felt there were several parts that you were not correct on, such as you still have not stated what “experience” you are drawing from to conclude that the person at Brookstone was not a Jr. attorney? For the record, I asked my contact about that, and they said you are wrong. They assured me they indeed were. Though I appreciate that you made clear from the beginning in your statement, which said that you were not an attorney, I was not really sure why you needed to state this? This is because you really did not follow up with anything that was a legal statement or opinion, but rather you were giving your opinion on customer service issues, such as them calling this person over and over for their visa card. Which for the record, I agree with you, if this is true, because that does sound a little excessive to me. However, it also sounds like the person with the question sounds interested in the service, even by their tenor here at your blog. So maybe this is why they keep calling them, because they have not one time said that they told them not to call them anymore. What often happens Steven, is that people will ask all sorts of legal questions on the phone, while using the opportunity as a free legal consultation that goes on and on, instead of actually joining the lawsuit. Though I have had many attorneys, I have never been part a mass litigation, so I would not know if it is proper for them to return their phone calls, while asking them if they would like to pay over the phone. Unlike a lot of people on the blog, I tend to not comment on things that I do not know, but isolate on things that I do know. You see, I am just a client, and I can neither confirm or deny how a person is paid there, but I think the burden of proof is on your end, since you are the one actually making the claim. It is also important to mention that I have heard the opposite complaint too, which is “John, can you help me because it has been three days, and I have not heard back from Brookstone.” This unfortunately might suggest that this persons experience is isolated. I do not know Steven, but I do know that it does not substantiate them as a scam, such as you are suggesting here.
        .
        You asked: “What good comes from “pitches to pay in advance when pressured to cough up the bucks?” I do not think you are understanding what I am saying Steven. I own companies for 25 years now, and I have had many attorney’s in that 25 years, which I have never had one not tell me they did not require me to “Cough” up money (retainer), which they all gave me a “pitch” to “cough” up the “bucks.” Some were more aggressive than others, while some would just state how much it is. Nevertheless, I still do not know that this qualifies your statement that implies that they are scam. At the very least, it might be a customer’s service complaint you have, but your statement that implies that you have some kind of inside information, which would confirm they are a scam, is simply unsubstantiated by the facts.
        .
        Though I do agree with you that there were modification companies that were doing this kind of thing in the past, I must remind you that this is not a modification company, as well as it is not a modification kind of situation. An actual lawsuit was filed Steven, in which I happen to know that first hand because it is my lawsuit that was filed (Wright Vs. Bank of America Lawsuit.) You are correct that there are potentially fraudulent companies out there, which will tell people that they can be part of lawsuit, if they pay them, but later find out that they were not affiliated with a lawsuit at all. In fact, I have aggressively came out against these companies (K2 Law and Mass Litigation Alliance), because they sent out thousands of solicitations that said they represented the Wright Vs. Bank of America lawsuit, but they did not. This is why I have exposed them on my site, and now on yours too. However, I believe that your paranoia is misdirected, because in this case I am John Wright. Therefore, I am here to tell you that the Wright Vs. Bank of America Lawsuit really does exist through Brookstone. You have to remember Steven, that you do not know very much about Brookstone, as myself and my supporters do. For example, did you read this article the other day: http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110224/bs_prweb/prweb8152985_6
        .
        This article would clearly substantiate that they are indeed a real law firm. Which for the record, was a major win, if you know much about the mortgage issues. To dispute this fact, would simply show a lack of experience on your part, which I am sure you have no intention of doing so, since your site implies you do have experience.
        .
        You asked: ” Is there a guarantee participants get one benefit out of this?” I do not know that there is any attorney that would “guarantee” that the person is going to get one benefit, other than the paperwork will be filed ect. I can tell you that it has been related to me that BofA cannot foreclose during the time of litigation, which could be a benefit.
        .
        Steven, I am in your house here, and I am trying so hard to not offend you, so please do not think Steven have you ever had an attorney, lawsuit or any legal matters? When has an attorney “guaranteed” you a benefit during a lawsuit? Since I am thinking that there is a cognitive thinking issue going on here, I want to be clear that I am speaking of the operative word “guarantee.” Nevertheless, If you know of one, I would like their name and phone number, because I myself would like that deal (wink). You are not going to have one for me though, simply because this does not exist in reality.
        .
        You asked: ” Is there any harm in someone getting a second opinion before paying $5,000 to participate?” Did someone say there was? I do not think that the I take issue with this person getting a second opinion, but I do think that I take issue with the one who is giving it, simply because it is not a legal opinion, but someone who is making false claims, such as that you accused the person of not really being a Jr. attorney. I am telling you facts Steven, while you are arguing emotional, unsubstantiated claims. It is equivalent to if I told you that the fact is that you are breathing air, and you answer back with “No I am not, because I cannot see it.” This does make your claims facts, but rumors Steven. That is why the supporters are probably coming out so strongly against you, because they are not used to debating with someone who keeps claiming that a law firm is a scam, because it charges you an upfront fee, or gives you a sales speech. That is an opinion, while it is not a fact Steven.
        .
        You asked: “Has there been a case closed that resulted in the bulk erasure of mortgages?” I do not know if Brookstone has. Since you are the one making the claim, I would think the burden of proof would be for you to have that information, before you make assumptions. Doyou know the answer to that question Steven? Nevertheless, even if they have not, it does not make them scam Steven, unless they say they do and you had information that they do not. Then it would be a scam.
        .
        You asked: “So if you know the person the reader spoke with was an attorney then who was it?” Steven, that is exactly what I am saying here, and I am wondering if there might be a cognitive thinking issue going on, because I never said that I knew the person the caller spoke with. What I did say is that it was not right for you to make a the statement that they were probably not a Jr. Attorney, when YOU did not even know there name. The reason I say that you might have a cognitive thinking issue (no disrespect meant), is because I clearly said to you that I thought that you should find out who they were, before you made statements. In fact, I even said that I was curious now. If your mind were putting thing together correctly, you would have realized that I never said that I knew who they were? The reason that I have said that you have an obligation to have your facts straight, is because there are people that are going to think you have a cognitive thinking issue on the whole Brookstone thing all together, if you display evidence here that misquotes people. This will hurt your credibility. Now, I have been up for three days working, so it is possible that I might be missing something, but I do not think I ever said that. This is because I do not.
        .
        You said: ” You said you heard the $895 is refundable if the person does not have a case, but what about the $5,000?” Well, the $895 is for the experts to go through all those big fat loan documents, which they have to prepare, if it is going to go to court. This is a very consist ant charge, in regards to the many attorneys I have worked with on my company. However, the $5,000 is if the person has to go to court, which the outcome is up to the court. Do you know of any attorney that charges you a retainer, fee to go to court and then tells you that they will give you the money back, if you do not win? Of course you do not Steven, because it simply does not exist. In fact, I would suggest that the one that was making this kind of guarantee, might be the fraudulent one, because it is absolutely irregular Steven.
        .
        Steven, it is so important to me not to disrespect you in your own house (blog), but I am questioning your qualifications to say that your advice is based on experience. This is because I think it is readily apparent to the average reader that you have not substantiated anything about Brookstone, but have actually substantiated that you are lack the experience to really give any advice at all about a law firm, if you are asking such silly questions, such as does law firm give you your money back, if you do not win the case.
        .
        Steven, thank you so much for allowing me to answer, as well as leaving my comments on your blog, while I am sure they are not probably making you look qualified to many of the readers here. Though I may not completely agree that you have much experience, I do believe that you are a good man for not blocking my comments. I also apologize for any type errors, as I have been up for three days. Please feel free to visit my blog at piggybankblog.com, as I promise to show you the same consideration that you showed me here. You are a very nice host – Thank you
        .
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

      • 2cents

        John,

        Can you address the way the dots seem to be connected as being discussed over on ml-implode forum: http://forum.ml-implode.com/viewtopic.php?t=139164&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=0bd3f6bb21b170e8b527c17ef11e2046

        Interested individuals can read this thread on a different forum which in my opinion paints John as a pom pom shill for a failed firm with C&D’s and offices raided by authorities: http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/united-law-group-c326067/page/1.html#c677024

        I found additional references in my research, all of which lead to the formation of my opinion that your posts here are disingenuous and duplications of the posts you made in support of the above referenced failed firm ULG. Your disqus user name in your follow up post that I am replying to still has ULG in it.

        What I have taken away from what I have read on this topic this morning is that you were the front for ULG with your suit adding some legitimacy to claims made by those promoting ULG for profit and may be now duplicating that effort with your current suit.

      • Anonymous

        Hey you bet :) If you scroll down towards the bottom, I gave the whole story. You see, it is not a secret, as there are 30,000 people on my blog that already know, because they were my supporters during that time too. others care about my screen names, where as I do not care, because I am just a client of Brookstone, and it not like I am losing money from it lOl However, you can read a lot about me on my blog at piggybankblog.com, which kind of already answers your questions about ULG. As I am sure you can imagine, it is a lot to type over and over. However, did post it for someone down below I think :)

      • Anonymous

        You keep saying 30,000 people on your blog. 30,000 registered people?

      • Anonymous

        Hi-

        Actually, I think I just posted it on your site?

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Johnny,

        First off, my name is not Steven.

        I never said Brookstone was a scam so please don’t put those words in my mouth. In fact you are the one that keeps using the word scam in association with Brookstone, not me. I never disputed the fact they are a law firm. In fact I wrote about them as a law firm in my previous article on Brookstone.

        And if you know the person I said I didn’t think was a jr. attorney is actually a Junior Attorney then who is it. I’m happy to correct the record. Telling me repeatedly the person is an attorney but not telling me who it is leaves me unable to verify that information. It also leaves you unable to confirm the person giving this reader the pitch as the reader describes was a jr. attorney.

        My answer was based on my experience in the debt relief field. I have been emailing back and forth with Vito Torchia, Jr and I’ll share with you what I said to him.

        I did not say the person they met with was not an attorney because I don’t know who the person is. Do you?

        What I said was “I seriously doubt the person you met with is a junior attorney. It smells like a commissioned sales person.” In my opinion the pitch they got sounded like a sales pitch as they stated.

        The reader said “A junior attorney spoke with us because they were so busy with all the people who had responded to their mailing.” So who was the junior attorney then? Tell me who the junior attorney was the couple might have met with and I’ll post the name and confirm the person is an attorney.

        Don’t you want to know which of your staff told the reader “They told us we may get a free and clear loan, that our loan with Wells Fargo would be null and void and basically not exist any more. We would owe them nothing. Or there would be a large reduction in the principal of our loan which would far out way the mere $5,895.00 dollars we are giving them with no guaranties what so ever. They also told us that they have already wone at least 6 free and clear loan cases already (no proof).”

        And why is someone allegedly calling the reader “Brookstone is now calling me every day once or twice to give them my VISA info to start the document investigation as soon as possible.” Doesn’t that seem high pressure to you? Something that a commissioned sales person might do?

        So Johnny I’ve given you an opportunity to state your opinion and point of view.

        Johnny, so rather than take swipes at me how about answering the readers question then?

        What do you say to their primary question:

        “I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”

      • Anonymous

        .
        . You are a very sensative man Steve (lol). I honestly did not mean to hurt feelings by calling you “Steven,” and it did not hurt my feelings that you called me “Johnny, ” even though I can tell it was meant to be somewhat of a snarky remark. The fact is that people call me John, Johnny, Jack and Jon Jon.
        .

        Secondly, insinuating that person at Brookstone lied to them………is implying that she was being scammed. This is what I mean about cognitive thinking. The only one that was putting words in someone’s mouth, was you, which I clearly said “I never said that” In which I have had to say “I never said that” three times, because you were practically quoting me. I even asked you where did I say that in the last email, in regards to you actually putting words into my mouth. You declined to answer Steve, and instead tried to turn it around on me, while you tried to accuse me of what I just accused you of.
        .
        Steve, it is also customary for the person who made the claim to have the burden of proof, such as you were the one that said they were probably not a Jr. Attorney. She was the one that told you that they were. I am not going to go do your homework for you Steve. After all, you are the one claiming that you talk to Vito, which by the way I already know about, so how about you asking? Not only are you the one who suggested they were probably lied to, but it is your blog, and she is asking you the question. However, ONCE AGAIN, I never said that I knew their name, and you are once again drawing conclusions, based on your feelings that you think I said I knew their name. This makes it very frustrating to have a conversation with you, esp. when you are apparently trying to compete with me. I just start to get bored with the “I know I am , but what are you?” Okay, I know you are going to probably come back and say “I never said that, ” while not understand that it is not literal .
        .
        No, I am not interested finding the person who told her that she would get her home free and clear. Basically because that person does not exist. Once again, that is not what she said. If you read it, she said they told her that she “may.” In fact, she might. So what? Also, they are not “my staff.” This is the third time you have put words in my mouth. In fact, I think clearly spelled out that I do not work for Brookstone. Maybe this is just what you think, so it slipped out. However, from what I read here, you think a lot, but it also is not true.
        .
        I also hate to disappoint you, but you did not reveal my secret about UlG. This is because I had my blog when I was with ULG, and therefore, 30,000 of my supporters already know. I don’t mean to take a bone from your mouth, but there is a reason I do not change my screen name, which is because I do not care. You care, but I do not.
        .
        As far as the clear and free thing, I will tell you this, which is if you had that cognitive thinking thing, you would realize that i just gave you an article last time that talk about a ruling on MERS. I they cannot use MERS Steve, and they do not have the notes, what do you think that means? I cannot keep helping all the people on your blog though Steve. You see, I have my own blog. If you cannot answer the question, you should not insinuate that you have the answer. So far I had all the answers, but you do not seem to appreciate that I have answered every question you asked. Now can I ask you a question Steve? Is Brookstone suing you?

        .
        I am tired Steve. I am probably making so many type errors. I am sorry, but I have not slept in three days because of work, so I have to go to bed. I will try to come on and answer your questions when I can, but I am sure that you understand that I have the people in my blog to take care of. Other than that, you can find most of your answers on my blog.
        .
        I have to go to sleep now. Regardless of our differences, I wish well in all your endeavors.
        .
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
        .
        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        Back the bus up here on the jr. attorney lied to them. You are putting words into my mouth. The reader never said the person represented themselves as a jr. attorney. They said they talked with someone they identified as a jr. attorney but could not name them. If you know who it was, name them and move on.

        You are the one that keeps making the scam assertions. I have never claimed that.

        The pitch sounded as if if came from a salesperson. That is the extent of my observation. And I did not say the Anonymous person was not an attorney. I said I doubted they were. u also said, name the person and I’d gladly print it.

        So if I follow your burden of proof blurb then the burden of proof rested on the reader to definitively prove the person was a jr. attorney since they are the one that said it?

        You ask why didn’t I ask Vito, and as you can see by my previous comment, I did. He had not responded.

        You even say you can’t identify who the person was, so what are you adding to resolve the mystery?

        The free and clear statement is exactly what the reader said, “I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”

        So if the person you say the reader reports gave her that impression does not exist than how is my initial impression that person was a salesperson not equally valid?

        I didn’t revel any secret with you and ULG, that’s on the web. It was 2cents that made a comment and pointed that out. Not me.

        My question in another comment was about you benefiting from the class action suit against ULG since you are part of that class. “So if you are a former client of ULG and part of the class would you also be participating in the current class action suit against United Law Group and the members that are now part of Brookstone. The forum post linked to the suit here. ”

        I also asked you if you paid $5,895 to participate in the Brookstone suit. You did not answer that question.

        So in summary, you don’t get enough sleep, you can’t or won’t identify the person the reader spoke to, you can’t verify if my opinion it sounded like a salesperson was incorrect, you have not answered if you paid Brookstone $5,895 to participate in the suit, you said the pressure the reader was getting to give up their credit card to proceed “sound[ed] a little excessive to me”, you have not addressed the readers question other than to say “I am not interested finding the person who told her that she would get her home free and clear. Basically because that person does not exist.”

        And for the record, I did not say you worked for Brookstone, they were your staff as you claim.

        You asked if Brookstone was suing me. I am not aware of any such suit.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        The commenter below, 2cents, linked to a forum that said you were a plaintiff in a case and previously represented by United Law Group. Is that true?

        So if you are a former client of ULG and part of the class would you also be participating in the current class action suit against United Law Group and the members that are now part of Brookstone. The forum post linked to the suit here.

        Actually it appears you are the lead plaintiff in the BofA case filed by George Baugh and Brookstone against Bank of America. – Source

        Did you have to pay $5,895 to participate in this case?

      • Anonymous

        Steve:
        .
        Thank you for at least having the integrity to leave my comments posted.
        .
        I of course must go on other sites to defend my lawsuit now, while it being from others who I feel are a threat to the integrity of my lawsuit. However, please be advised that I have every intention of posting warnings about your past, if I hear you directly or indirectly attacking my lawsuit, myself or the firm representing me, while saying unfair things or using lies. This is because I will feel obligated to make the public aware of just who is giving them advice concerning my lawsuit. Though the other blogger on here said that you do not hide this past, I am confident that the person who originally posted the question did not know these things about you. They have a right to know, so that they can weigh out the value of your opinion. However, In my opinion, you are simply not qualified to give anyone advice regarding the firm that represents me, my lawsuit or your feelings about my relationship with the firm representing me. This is why I want make sure that my lawsuit is protected from whatever agenda you apparently have against Brookstone. I will not allow you to directly or indirectly imply that I work for ULG or Brookstone, because it is a lie. The fact is that their relationship with me is nothing other than a client attorney relationship. In other words, we do not hang out (wink). Your blogs comments that implied that they are “your staff ” are simply revealing that you think I have something to do with ULG or Brookstone, while your comments are cleverly designed to give that impression, or lead the reader to your unsubstantiated opinion The simple fact is that I am allowed to be represented, without my lawsuit and myself being attacked in this kind of unfair manner.
        .
        With that being said, I am not defending the law firm, as much I am defending my lawsuit and those of my supporters who joined my lawsuit. I simply will not allow what happened with my lawsuit at ULG to happen again. It was rumors like this, where people were viciously attacking something they knew nothing about, which were unsubstantiated by the facts, which undermined my lawsuit last time. I will not allow this to happen again, and I will fight back this time. This is because I have zero tolerance for bullshit right now, which is exactly what it is.
        .
        My supporters will be monitoring your site from here on out Steve, in which I will only come on your site, if you are giving advice about myself, the firm representing me and my lawsuit.
        .
        As a result of your precipitous actions, I have posted your story first in my BofA News Today area, as well as I have revealed to my supporters my intentions in my daily blog on the date of 02/26/11. You will see there just why I am hyper sensitive right now, if you read how there are two companies potentially defrauding my supporters at this time. This is the news you should be reporting, if you truly want to protect the public, as you imply you do.
        .
        John’s Daily Blog: http://www.piggybankblog.com/2010/01/05/johns-daily-blo/
        .
        BofA News Today: http://www.piggybankblog.com/2010/09/02/bofa-news-today-2/
        Thank you for your time.
        .
        My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        What warnings about my past? You asked me questions about some issues and I openly answered them. The answers are innocent enough. So what in the world is there to warn anyone about?

      • Really?

        Did he ever answer about how this whole thing was to expose you Steve? I’d like The Truth!!

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        I think have been extremely open and forth coming in my answers here. I don’t have a clue what there is to expose or warn people about.

      • Really?

        John says his whole point of getting on here was to expose your past! That he finally tricked you into it & now he will “expose you”. And I quote, ” You see Steven, I have decided to protest against your site, even before we had a dialog. This is why I baited you, and you fell for it hook, line and SINKER. (lol)”.

        What in the world would he possibly gain by such a thing? First of all, a child would see that there is no other site that exposes so many debt relief scams. By even coming on this site, he has exposed himself.

        Here’s a question John- After your 1st law firm was raided by the FBI & then filed bankruptcy after you had paid them, why would you go with a firm so obviously put together with the same players? There are plenty of attorneys with class suits against BoA on CONTINGENCY for their clients that have not been charged with RICO charges by the Feds. Why do you believe if more people join your mass suit that it would benefit you??? That makes NO sense.

        Why won’t you admit that your purpose to come on this site was gather more clients for the law firm you market for? Why would you say one word on a site followed by so many regulators?

        You would be wise to simply go away. The more you say, the more you expose yourself. Anyone reading any of this will see ULG’s background, K2, Kramer, Kutzner & Vito’s previous experience and all the consumer complaints on all the BBB sites regarding these companies past “work” in taking $ from distressed homeowners, Not answering their own clients customer service needs, federal law suits, disbarments, odd marketing arrangements and RUN from you and Brookstone.

        Steve has helped expose hundreds of scams in the debt relief world by simply reporting their activities here while offering free guidance to consumers who have no idea who to trust anymore. And now because you decided to come here to market your wares on his site & contributers have added a ton of background info to Brookstone’s players pasts, you are exposing HIM????

        Lastly, you answered one of my questions by saying you have no idea how long Brookstone has been in business & that you don’t care because theyre simply the best. Later, you claimed that you personally brought the players together that have formed Brookstone. This lawfirm is less than a year old John & you know exactly when it was formed & by who & for what purpose.

        Is anyone reading this still taking you serious John. If Brookstone’s sales affiliates contact you America, ask them how a law firm can pay a sales company? There are always loopholes around fee laws, aren;t there John?

        You’ve done enough damage, John. Go away. When Vito sees the mess you’ve created here, he’s gonna be pissed.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        Is there any reason why you posted links on your site about issues I have already answered and proved to be false? I was surprised to see you reposted and article from debt management guys that is full of errors.

        I have extended every courtesy to you to comment and post here on my site yet your response is to post outright lies and misinformation about me on your site. In fact to even attack the fact I’m bald.

        You thanked me for my integrity for letting you comment here and leave your comments up but on your site there appears no place for me to set the record straight on the misinformation you published.

        The post you borrowed from the debt management guys gets so many things wrong and contained many factual errors about the debt relief business they purported to write about.

        If you are interested to read what it is the debt management guys are going off about, it was in response to a post I made about a press release they put out that had some unbelievably wrong statements in it. You can read the story here.

        If you are going to post links to information I have already told you is untrue at the very least, to demonstrate your integrity, please post the links I’ve already given you to rebut those untrue statements and links.

      • Really?

        Bet you a loan mod he won’t… He has NO integrity.

      • Anonymous

        You are a joke. We know you are (ip) (lol) If you are a really good friend to Steve, you will stop getting him in trouble, as I am sure he has not appreciated your help thus far (wink).
        .
        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • Anonymous

        Why are you winking? What trouble is Steve in?

      • Anonymous

        Your comment seems like a veiled threat. You were doing pretty good up until then. What kind of “trouble” will Steve be in?
        Why would you say that?

      • Anonymous

        He is no trouble at all (wink) I am the one in trouble, because someone in this room is trying to hurt my lawsuit, while they try to get me to say things for their very low budget attorney (lol) (wink) I am in trouble though, because I am the potential victim, as well as Brookstone. I really wish your ips would stop visiting my chat room, because we already have what we need. You do not have to worry about another protest as long as there are not anymore of our witnesses, who report it to me again.
        .
        Did you notice that the original person never asked another question? (lol) They would have made an excellent witness (wink).
        .
        I will say it again, as long as Steven is not slandering my name, hurting lawsuit with lies directly or indirectly, there will be protest. All you have to do is look at the name of this room, while patching that together with a few ips and matching the statement in the chat room with this room and we have I am done.
        .
        Now, if you would please stop writing me, I might not write back. You keep asking questions, and I keep answering them, because I am trying show you respect (wink).
        .
        Have a nice day :)
        .
        Respectfully,
        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • Anonymous

        ??????????

      • Anonymous

        Steve:
        .
        I did not make any comment that you were bald, as that was a comment left by someone else, who as far as I know had nothing to do with me. The reason I posted the article, is because either you or one of your friends came to my live chat room trying to do harm to my lawsuit AGAIN. It is fair to mention that we have the ip address, which we studied way before we came to this site. We are also aware of “this person” on certain complaint boards. At any rate, they thought they were going to be able to make my supporters angry, by revealing to them that I did not have to pay what they all paid. This would explain why you were so interested in asking me the question in the first place, as you had intentions of using it as weapon. The only thing you did not realize, is that my supporters already knew (lol) In my situatin, the firm get 30% of whatever I win. Do you really think I would have revealed it to you, if I was not willing to reveal it to my public? (lol) So I am going to react every time I see this little monkey on a blog trying to use it.
        .
        You made this claim:
        .
        Steve wrote: ” You thanked me for my integrity for letting you comment here and leave your comments up but on your site there appears no place for me to set the record straight on the misinformation you published.
        .
        The post you borrowed from the debt management guys gets so many things wrong and contained many factual errors about the debt relief business they purported to write about.”
        Exactly! That is how I feel Steve! See how it feels? Regardless of your feelings, I am only a client at Brookstone, which I want you to stop making unsubstantiated claims, while you dispatch our monkey’s to my site. I know you are going to say it was not you, but even if, we know they work with you on issues like this one. However, I am going to fight back every time you do, so I am not sure your friends are helping you. This is why every time I see this kind of unethical tactics used to do harm to my lawsuit or the firm representing me, I will respond in protest, as a means to show the public just what kind of person is making these claims.
        For the record, it is your position that you proved your innocence, but not mine or my “staff,” as you say. However, I have no intentions of having any further dialog of protest with you, as long as I do not perceive that you are trying to hurt my lawsuit or the firm representing me, with whatever agenda you seem to have.
        In closing, if it makes you feel better, I did not send out a mass email to my list or have it posted on brother sites in protest. In other words, I went easy on you Steve, which was me showing you consideration for leaving my comments on your site. It should also be mentioned that there is a comment section on the page your article is posted on, if you would like to tell your side. Other than that, I think you already did in the article itself. So the public is seeing both sides of the issue.
        .
        Also for the record, I did not leave one comment on the article I posted, as it is not my style to pick on someone because they are bald. In fact, until you mentioned it, I had no idea you were bald.
        .
        I wish you well in all your positive endeavors, as I consider this issue resolved.
        .
        Respectfully,
        John Wright

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        So are you going to give me the courtesy, since your site promotes itself as truthful and honest, to respond to the post you placed on your site that you copied from another site?

      • Anonymous

        Steve, I would be very respectful to you in this interview, I promise. You would be my guest and be able to tell your side of the story. You can even talk about your feelings about Brookstone and ULG if you want. You can speak about why you think that I paid nothing upfront at 30% is wrong. My audience and supporters already know all this, so it will not shock them, but you can talk about it if you want.
        .
        Really the only thing I do not like, is the things that you say that imply things that are not true. I also do not like it when your friends post complaints that are not really customers or are meant to just do damage. Other than that, you and I should be looking for common ground, so that we can negotiate a peaceful cease fire kind of relationship.
        .
        I promise that I will be very fair and respectful to you as my guest. I promise :)
        Respectfully,
        John Wright

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        John,

        I’d be happy to do it via email.

        I’m sorry if some of the other commenters rubbed you the wrong way but I certainly took my share of abuse as well. I can feel your pain.

        You made a couple of statements that I want to address. I don’t have any particular feelings about Brookstone and ULG. I reported on the issues readers wanted me to address and I moved on. There are so many issues for me to deal with in the larger debt relief space that just don’t have the time to linger.

        I also don’t think there is anything wrong that you paid nothing and others paid $5,895. My point was that I felt it was a material fact that the reader should be aware of simply in the interest of disclosure to the reader. If you wanted to tell the reader that you felt she should pay $5,895 that you had not paid it. Just disclose it.

        I’m not sure you saw the story today on the Form 1012-R mailer that included your Wright vs. Bank of America case. If you have not seen it, here is the link. Please feel free to comment. I’d love to get your take on the mailer.

        Steve

      • Anonymous

        Hi Steve:
        Thank you for your very nice comments that I received by email today. I really appreciated what you had to say Steve, and I think this is the beginning of building a relationship of trust between you and I. I just really think that we could do better working together to help homeowners save their homes Vs. working against one another. People are really suffering out there, and they need our help, so I have worked very hard to create an environment where they can be defended from Bank of America, while trying to achieve their modification. My site has been able to help people achieve getting those modifications too, just by sending an email to the CEO of BofA with my name on it. These are things that work that you and I can get the message out on. I can even give you evidence that it works. I have even set up with BofA a very diplomatic back door communication. For example, one executive called me at 6:30 am and asked me for a favor. He feared for a person’s safety, and asked me to remove their picture from my blog, in which I did with no hesitation, because I do not want anyone to get hurt. Then when someone who’s husband was dying in the back room got her for sale date, I utilized that connection for a favor, and they stopped the sale on their home. Even though there is a lot of advantage to people joining my lawsuit, I have been responsible by telling them that should write the CEO first, just to see if we can get it for them that way.
        .
        You and I have read so many lies on the web about ULG and Brookstone, and by what you tell me, you too. Like the one where it said that guy broke into ULG and stole things, and that he was the brains behind the whole thing was an absolute lie. I happen to have been on the phone with that person the day it happened, because they were nice enough to call me and tell me that I was not represented anymore because ULG filed BK. This person was mad at me, but more so because he had not received a paycheck for months, and the bk was done on pay day, which was insult to injury. They locked some of his personal items in there, such as snoop dog promotional shirts. He went in and got them, and then the authorities reported that he stole things. I was on the phone when he said he was going to get his personal items. Then they say that he is in control of everything, but he was locked out that day by the current CEO, which was hardly in control of anything. All he does is create a software for law firms to process thousands of people. This is why you will see the same face at a different firm, but he does not run anything other than the software, for what I understand. At any rate, I have been able to use my low level celebrity to protect people from not only BofA, but also if Brookstone too, because if they should have a clients complaint from someone on my blog, I call them and they help them right away. This is because they know I am sort of a reporter, so they are fast to show me they are a good service. My piggybankblog evolvement actually makes people more safe than if they went somewhere else, because I would hold Brookstone accountable, and they know it. This is because when I call they listen and the complainant is called instantly. So in reality, I control them and they do not control me. I however have never been paid a dime for what I do. I have used my own money for piggybankblog.com (20k) and have just now started to take donations, because I do not have the money anymore to do it. I have received 4 donations (lol), which is hardly a living. However, it is okay because I know people are struggling, and my information is for free. I work really hard Steve, and it just hurts to see lies said that I am part of some conspiracy or that I get money I do not get. It is even harder to hear them talk about people that I know are good people at Brookstone. Some of those people hated working at ULG, because they were constantly having to clean up their mess, but none of it was a scam, which you and I can talk about more later, if you want. I mean , I have watched Brookstone give away things, because they have represented so many people for free, but none of that is every reported. If I call them and say “hey, this persons husband is dying in the backroom, but BofA is evicting them in a week, would you represent them for free? They say “absolutely John!” So they do good things Steve, and I mean a lot of good things. If you would get in good with them, you would also be able to help your audience with them in the same way I do. They never tell you me what to do, so I know they would not tell you either, but they just want to be able to trust the person is not going to tell lies about them. They will not tell you what to write because they never tell me what to write. In fact, their toes start to curl over some of the stuff I do or write (lol) However, you could do a good service by being a person that could be the voice of the Brookstone clients, such as I have, if you want. Just let me know, and I will see if I can use my low level celebrity power to set this up. Either way, What I am saying is that I am able to use my low celebrity status in a way that makes positive changes, such as I want them to change that calling for someone’s credit card all the time, if that is true. Like I said, I have heard more complaints that they do not call back for the credit card soon enough(lol), which I still have on file and could show you (lol) At any rate, I am able to escort that person complaint to Brookstone, and they answer it immediately.
        .
        As far as the rumor thing, I already know that you are very aware of how things get turned around there on the web because it happened to you too. This is why I am saying that if you do not trust them okay, but you can trust me because I am never going to put my name and picture out there, if they are going to scam a bunch of people. That is because people would blame me, if not want to kill me (lol) I really believe in Brookstone, as well as I have studied things about them way ahead of time, and I assure you this is real. I have just too many evidences to say different, such as I have spoken to Mitch Stein, who is a very high caliber attorney, who verified all this. I spoke to him just the other day on the phone, so I know it is on the up and up. No good named attorney would ruin their name.
        .
        I will be announcing in tomorrows blog that you and I have decided to put our differences aside, and see if we can work on something more positive, such as helping people keep their homes. I will also advise them that you said you would do an interview, but I wish you would reconsider and do a live chat interview. It would be totally controlled, while I would give you all the questions ahead of time, so that you are prepared. I would do the interview on 04/01/11, and I will promote over that time. I would ask interested bloggers to send their questions to me before the interview. This way I can have you be prepared for those too. It would be a totally controlled environment because it would need to be. Otherwise, chat rooms can get out of control I will also be very respectful, and not ask any questions that were not on the list. It is important that I conduct the interview with integrity and treat you with respect, otherwise nobody would let me interview them. If there is a question that you are uncomfortable with, you can just let me know that it is off limits. You can even stay after the interview and do a meet and greet with your fans. This actually might actually be more helpful for you to combat those articles, and get the truth out there. Then I would suggest doing a press release saying “Steve finally feels Vindicated,” or something like that.
        .
        Steve, I am really happy that we can be friend now and work together. I am sorry if you felt that I was hard on you, but in retrospect it was worth it because we might have ended up creating a more powerful alliance in the end.
        .
        Please feel free to email me privately anytime at [email protected]
        .
        Respectfully,
        John Wright
        piggybankblog.com

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Hi John,

        I thought you should see a story I just published about the marketing on some of the mass joinder suits. It’s important because this kind of stuff may harm the collective effort moving forward if this type of markup and questionable “fee-splitting” is occurring.

        I invite you and your readers to go look at the markups and marketing and feel free to comment on the story. Here is the link to the story on mass joinder affiliate marketing.

        Just to be 100% clear John, I am not inferring anything negative about “your suit” and don’t want to get back into that discussion with you again. We’ve buried that hatchet and I’d like to move forward, encouraging your feedback and participation on other issues.

        Steve

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Is This a Threat?John,The written word can sometimes be misinterpreted so rather than make an assumption about anything you have said I wanted to make sure I understood the meaning and intention of your words.You Say“I of course must go on other sites to defend my lawsuit now, while it being from others who I feel are a threat to the integrity of my lawsuit.”MeWhat does that have to do with the reader’s question? All of the comments you have made have been on a story about a reader interaction with Brookstone law. They did not name any case, did not name a lawsuit by you, and did not name “your lawsuit.” The point of the article seems to be the reader’s question which you have never answered.The reader asked, “I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”You Threaten“However, please be advised that I have every intention of posting warnings about your past, if I hear you directly or indirectly attacking my lawsuit, myself or the firm representing me, while saying unfair things or using lies.”MeWhat warnings about my past? What is there to warn of? I take that as a threat. I have already answered all of your questions about issues you raised and the answers are innocent. I even talk about those issues on my own site and readers can get the truth here.It appears you are saying if I write any more stories about Brookstone you will make untrue posts to punish me. That, I take as a threat to harm me for my work.There may be more stories about Brookstone or Vito Torchia, Jr. In fact I had previously asked Vito Torchia Jr for a statement or feed back on the class action suit he and ULG have been named in which readers can view here. I may be publishing that story.There may be more reader questions that roll in about Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. and I take your statement as a warning if I publish them. I think what you are missing is that none of this is either about a lawsuit you are participating in or you. So why the warning? I have not printed unfair things or lies. The primary issue in my response still appears only to be my doubt the person the reader spoke to was a junior attorney. Yet neither you, Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. has identified who the person was and so my doubt still stands. It’s a doubt, not a lie. My doubt is the truth until the person involved can be identified. Reasonable doubt equals innocence.You Say“This is because I will feel obligated to make the public aware of just who is giving them advice concerning my lawsuit.”MeAwesome, but I did not do that. I have no knowledge the reader is asking about “your” lawsuit and the other people named in it might object to it being “your” lawsuit. As far as I can see Vito Torchia, Jr. and Brookstone Law have filed a suit against Bank of America which names a number of plaintiffs, of which you are one. For the record, I have not provided advice about any lawsuit. You Say“However, In my opinion, you are simply not qualified to give anyone advice regarding the firm that represents me, my lawsuit or your feelings about my relationship with the firm representing me.”MeIf you actually read the reader’s question and my response I did not give advice about Brookstone Law, Vito Torchia, Jr., you, or your feelings. My answer was directly about what the reader asked. I did not say Brookstone Law is a scam, Vito Torchia, Jr. is a scam, John Wright is a scam, or the lawsuit filed by Brookstone Law against Bank of America is a scam. The reason I did not say that is because it was not what the reader asked. You Say“This is why I want make sure that my lawsuit is protected from whatever agenda you apparently have against Brookstone.”MeI have no agenda against Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. I have written one article which involved Brookstone Law, here. The article was promoted by a tip I received. All the facts I presented in that article are will sourced and linked to. You will note that I even gave Vito Torchia, Jr. an opportunity to respond to that article and I included his response. An opportunity you did not give me before publishing your attack against me on your site.This reader question happened to be about Brookstone Law simply because that’s what the reader asked about. Who knows, future readers may ask me something about Brookstone Law or Vito Torchia, Jr. and if a reader asks me to answer it, I will.I do see one of the pending questions says the reader met with Aalok Sikand and yes, Aalok Sikand is a lawyer in California. You Say“I will not allow you to directly or indirectly imply that I work for ULG or Brookstone, because it is a lie.”MeI never said you did and if another commenter said you did you are free to respond to that person. The only thing I may have said that you might have misinterpreted as an employment statement was that since you did not have to pay the $5,895 to participate in the lawsuit as others have been pitched that one may observe that you are a promoter of the suit and have received a financial benefit for that. All I said was I thought that should be disclosed. You Say“Your blogs comments that implied that they are “your staff ” are simply revealing that you think I have something to do with ULG or Brookstone, while your comments are cleverly designed to give that impression, or lead the reader to your unsubstantiated opinion “MeLet me be clear, I have never said you work for ULG or Brookstone. I am happy to state you don’t work for United Law Group or Brookstone Law. I have not inferred, alluded or attempted to give the impression in any way that you did, do, or will. If someone else has said something that gave that impression, feel free to go and attack and threaten that person. However, that person was not me.You Say“I simply will not allow what happened with my lawsuit at ULG to happen again.”MeWhat happened to your lawsuit at ULG?You Say“I will not allow this to happen again, and I will fight back this time. This is because I have zero tolerance for bullshit right now, which is exactly what it is.”MeWhat happened the first time and are you inferring the reader’s question is bullshit? I know you said it is bullshit but what is “it?”You Say“My supporters will be monitoring your site from here on out Steve, in which I will only come on your site, if you are giving advice about myself, the firm representing me and my lawsuit.”MeGreat. Maybe they can then help by answering a future reader question that might involve this subject. Comments are welcome, attacks, not so much. In fact any supporter of yours is welcome to come and answer this reader’s question above. The readers asks:”I would like to find out if Brookstone Law’s Claims are true and do they really have a chance in hell to get a free and clear loan or a significant principal reduction on our loan (and others). Or are they just going to take our money and say later they tried their best but it didn’t work out the way they said.”You Say“As a result of your precipitous actions, I have posted your story first in my BofA News Today area, as well as I have revealed to my supporters my intentions in my daily blog on the date of 02/26/11.”MeJust to be clear here. What you published, copy here, was nothing more that an untrue and unfounded attack on me by another site against me which contains statements I have already shown you to be not true. And to be accurate, that is not “my story.” It is not a story about me that you wrote. And it is simply an attack against me which you copied off another site and published on your site. The story is not accurate and I’ve demonstrated to you prior to your posting where issues raised in the story and accompanying links were not accurate yet you elected to post them anyway. If you wanted someone to sue for libel you just laid out a perfect opportunity.And I’m not sure what my “precipitous actions” were. I write about the debt relief industry and answer reader questions. If you are using precipitous as in done suddenly or without careful consideration, I’m not sure how that applies. My answering the question submitted was neither done suddenly, dramatic or without careful consideration. In fact I suggested to the reader they get a second opinion in the interest of careful consideration.You Say“You will see there just why I am hyper sensitive right now, if you read how there are two companies potentially defrauding my supporters at this time.”MeI have no clue what companies you are talking about and don’t know the issue you mention. If you want to submit material for me to possibly publish I’m happy to review it as long as it is well sourced with the facts stated. Additionally if a reader asks me a question about your anonymous mystery companies, I’ll answer it as I do all reader questions submitted for me to answer.

    • Rlg_miller

      I too have been fighting BOFA for over two years and i also would do it again. I am happy for the lawyers who are ready to stand up for us.I support Brookstone Law. If the banks would have done the modifications as requested homeowners would not be in the mess they are in.
      I am rhonda miller and I am fighting back.

      • http://GetOutOfDebt.org Steve Rhode

        Why is everyone posting comments with the same statement they “support Brookstone Law?”

        Were you asked to come here and comment?

  • Wrightamber56

    I to was contacted by the so called “Brookstone Law”. They said that they worked with the top 25 law firms in California. So I asked for the person to name them. And to my big surprise he declined to name any law firms, stating there were to many to name. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt and said name one. Which of course he could not. I also, asked for any state bar #’s or tax i.d. # to look them up. And got nothing. I say this is Scam stay away and tell them to leave you alone.

  • Wrightamber56

    I to was contacted by the so called “Brookstone Law”. They said that they worked with the top 25 law firms in California. So I asked for the person to name them. And to my big surprise he declined to name any law firms, stating there were to many to name. So I gave him the benefit of the doubt and said name one. Which of course he could not. I also, asked for any state bar #’s or tax i.d. # to look them up. And got nothing. I say this is Scam stay away and tell them to leave you alone.

    • Really?

      Class action against ULG, Vito & many more for Racketeering.
      http://www.lakeshorelaw.org/~/

      John, These people are your lawyers…. You are promoting them. Why?

Get My FREE Get Out of Debt Guy Newsletter

It is the smart thing to do.

I promise to keep your email safe and secure.

Close

I want to keep you posted each weekday with just one email about the latest get out of debt news, scam alerts and information to beat back debt.

You can unsubscribe at any time with just one click.

After you subscribe, check your email to confirm your subscription. If the confirmation email does not appear in your inbox in a few minutes, check your spam folder for it. Sometimes it likes to annoyingly hide there.


  • It will keep you posted on the latest scams.
  • You will be alerted to the latest articles.
  • You will wind up smarter than everyone else dealing with debt.