Latest Posts
Home > Debt Articles > Mitchell J. Stein Transcript From California Action Involving Mass Joinder Marketing Part 2

Mitchell J. Stein Transcript From California Action Involving Mass Joinder Marketing Part 2

This is a continuation of the first part of the transcript post. You can click here to read the first part.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND WITH RESPECT TO THE TENTATIVE RULING ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. WHILE I DIDN’T QUOTE ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE TENTATIVE, IT’S AN 18-PAGE TENTATIVE. IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A 65-PAGE TENTATIVE HAD I QUOTED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

I CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING THAT MR. STEIN WAS INVOLVED IN THIS SCHEME, AND I’M GRANTING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

NOW, LET’S MOVE ON TO THE FREEZE ORDER. DO WE NEED TO DO THAT NEXT, OR SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION?

MR. TOMA: YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CONTAINS THE ASSET FREEZE ORDER. THERE’S A SEPARATE ORDER JUST CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER THAT WE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.

THE COURT: SO YOU JUST WANT ME TO SIGN THOSE.

MR. TOMA: THERE’S TWO SEPARATE ORDERS, YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SOMEPLACE OR OTHER I HAVE THESE.

MR. TOMA: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BUT THERE’S NO OSC WITH RESPECT TO THAT?

MR. TOMA: THE OSC THAT WAS SCHEDULED WAS WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ASSET FREEZE ORDER AND AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER.

THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, WHAT ABOUT MR. STEIN’S STATEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY IN THE FLORIDA COURT — WHICH I HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF; BUT ANYWAY, WHAT ABOUT THAT?

MR. TOMA: YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY THERE WAS A HEARING ON — IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN FLORIDA WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. THAT MOTION WAS GRANTED.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO –

THE COURT: MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN BANKRUPTCY?

MR. TOMA: YES, YES.

MR. STEIN: WITH OR WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND?

MR. TOMA: YES. THE PLAINTIFFS –

MR. STEIN: NO ANSWER.

MR. TOMA: — WILL BE REQUIRED TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, I BELIEVE, WITHIN FIVE DAYS, IN WHICH CASE WE WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD FILE ANOTHER MOTION TO DISMISS AT THAT POINT.

THE COURT: OH, OKAY. YOU MEAN, THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT?

MR. TOMA: YES, THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN FLORIDA.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. STEIN: MAY I CLARIFY WHAT I THINK HAPPENED YESTERDAY? AND WE CAN GET — I MEAN, I’LL HAVE A TRANSCRIPT TONIGHT, SO I CAN SUBMIT IT TO THE –

THE COURT: WERE YOU THERE?

MR. STEIN: EXCUSE ME?

THE COURT: WERE YOU THERE?

MR. STEIN: NO, I WAS NOT THERE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. STEIN: AND NEITHER WAS MR. TOMA.

THE COURT: NO, I KNOW, BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS, THERE WAS A MOTION TO DISMISS THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT. THAT WAS GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

MR. STEIN: THAT’S CORRECT. AND THERE WAS ANOTHER — THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT OCCURRED, AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT WAS THAT THE COURT STATED THAT ANY FREEZING OF DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION ACCOUNTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.

AND I’M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY. BUT I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT IS AT ISSUE, AND IT IS AT ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO YOUR EX PARTE, ARE THE ACCOUNTS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS ALREADY LOOKED AT.

MR. STEIN: NO, THAT’S NOT WHAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT RULED. BUT I’LL — AS I SAID, WHEN I HAVE — WHEN I GET THE TRANSCRIPTS –


MR. BENJAMIN: YOUR HONOR, COULD I ADDRESS ONE MATTER ON BEHALF OF THE RECEIVER, WHICH IS, WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED IS THAT MR. STEIN SENT AN EMAIL TO THE RECEIVER — AMONG OTHER PEOPLE — YESTERDAY, THREATENING TO BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE RECEIVER IF THE RECEIVER DID NOT IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THOSE ACCOUNTS. HE THREATENED TO DO SO AT 12:15 TOMORROW.

WE THEN REQUESTED A COPY OF THE ORDER WHICH HE CLAIMED EXISTED, STATING THOSE ACCOUNTS HAD TO BE UNFROZEN. AND HE ACTUALLY STATED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS HAD BEEN DENIED, AS WELL. WHEN THAT REQUEST WAS MADE OF MR. STEIN, HE REPEATED HIS REQUEST TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE RECEIVER.

SO PRESENTLY, ALTHOUGH, OBVIOUSLY, THE RECEIVER WILL CONSIDER A LAWFUL ORDER THAT’S ISSUED –

WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS — WE BELIEVE MR. STEIN IS IN VIOLATION OF THE STAY OF ACTIONS IN THE ORDER APPOINTING THE RECEIVER, WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS BOTH FILING SUITS AGAINST THE RECEIVER AND HARASSING THE RECEIVER TO RECEIVE ASSETS, PARTICULARLY –

THERE’S ABOUT $30,000 FROZEN IN THOSE ACCOUNTS, AND MR. STEIN IS THREATENING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE RECEIVER AT 12:00 NOON TOMORROW, WITHOUT PROVIDING US WITH THOSE ORDERS, IF WE DON’T GIVE HIM THAT $30,000.

OBVIOUSLY, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO IT WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT, IN FACT, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS SO DIRECTED; BUT IT’S CERTAINLY OF GREAT CONCERN TO THE RECEIVERSHIP, THESE THREATS BEING MADE BY MR. STEIN.

MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS COURT WANTS TO MAKE AN ORDER THAT I CAN’T FILE A LAWSUIT, IT WOULD BE LOVELY.

THE COURT: THERE’S ALREADY ORDER IN PLACE.

MR. STEIN: THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER. IT IS MY POSITION THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER, AND SUCH AN ORDER WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TO BAR SOMEONE FROM SUING FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.

THE COURT: DIDN’T YOU LISTEN TO WHAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE RECEIVER HAD TO SAY?

MR. STEIN: YES. I THINK HE SAID –

THE COURT: IF YOU HAVE SUCH AN ORDER, GIVE IT TO THEM. IF YOU HAVE SUCH AN ORDER BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT –

MR. STEIN: NO, WHAT — I WAS RESPONDING TO THE RECEIVER’S STATEMENT THAT I AM BARRED FROM SUING THE RECEIVER FOR VIOLATING A COURT ORDER, NOT THAT — NOT WHAT THE ORDER SAID YESTERDAY. AND I DON’T BELIEVE I’M BARRED FROM SUING ANYONE FOR AN UNLAWFUL ACT. I BELIEVE SUCH AN ORDER WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE.

THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT COURT ORDER?

MR. STEIN: THE COURT ORDER THAT I BELIEVE WAS ISSUED YESTERDAY BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. AND THE RECEIVER’S RESPONSE TO ME WAS VERY REASONABLE. THE RECEIVER SAID, “I WILL STUDY THE ORDER, AND WE’LL TALK ABOUT IT.”

THE COURT: FINE. DONE. DONE. THEY DON’T HAVE IT YET.

MR. STEIN: NOBODY HAS IT.

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. STEIN: THAT’S CORRECT.


MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, AS OF THE DATE OF THE RAID, THE PARTNERSHIP HAD CALIFORNIA COUNSEL THAT WAS ABLE TO TAKE OVER FOR THE PARTNERSHIP, A.

B, I AM NOT — I AM NOT — I HAVE NOT BEEN ORDERED TO NOT PRACTICE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, ON BEHALF OF — AS THE STATE BAR — AND I’LL READ THE LANGUAGE FROM THE STATE BAR’S BRIEF. IN BEHALF OF ANY LLP — IN THE WORDS OF THE STATE BAR, NOT MY WORDS — I WILL PRACTICE LAW, AND CONTINUE ON BEHALF OF AN LLP TO PRACTICE LAW, AND PROTECT CLIENTS UNTIL THE STATE BAR COURT BRINGS A — HAS ONE CLIENT COMPLAINT, BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE ONE; BRINGS A DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ME.

IF THIS COURT WISHES TO ENJOIN ME FROM PRACTICING LAW, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY THAT I WOULD STOP, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THAT, AND THEN WE CAN FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT’S LAWFUL UNDER SECTION 6190 AND 6180.

THE ISSUE OF THE LAW PRACTICE AS DEFINED AS A PARTNERSHIP IS CRITICAL. AND THIS COURT’S FINDING THAT — WELL, THERE’S NO REASON TO GO OVER IT AGAIN, GIVEN THAT, AS THE COURT HAS SAID, IT’S ACADEMIC.

I’VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE PAUL HASTINGS EXAMPLE, SO THAT’S ACADEMIC.

THE COURT HAS CORRECTLY INDICATED, WITH PAUL HASTINGS, THEY WOULD HAVE ANOTHER LAWYER TO TAKE OVER.

I’VE INDICATED THE PARTNERSHIP DID HAVE ANOTHER LAWYER TO TAKE OVER, MR. DAVIS.

GIVEN THAT THE STATE BAR TOLD ALL OF THE CLIENTS — AND IT’S UNDISPUTED, I THINK, THAT JUDGE FRANK JOHNSON DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED EXISTENCE OF AN LLP ON AUGUST 15TH — THE ALLEGED EXISTENCE. I THINK THAT’S UNDISPUTED. AND I DON’T HEAR ANYONE DISAGREEING WITH ME.

I THINK THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT, AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR, ON MYSELF AND MR. DAVIS TO FORM SUCH A STRUCTURE TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS FROM FORECLOSURE. WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH ALL CLIENTS BUT ONE, A MINNESOTA GENTLEMAN FROM BUFFALO, MINNESOTA, WHO HAD HIS ORIGINAL TRIPLICATE — THREE PROMISSORY NOTES SITTING IN THE PAPER FILES OF THE OFFICE, THREE ORIGINAL NOTES WITH FORGED SIGNATURES FROM BANK OF AMERICA.

AND THOSE FILES WERE TAKEN. AND THAT’S NOT EVIDENCE; I’M NOT SUBMITTING IT AS EVIDENCE. I’M STATING IT FOR THE RECORD, OF WHAT HAPPENED. THAT WAS THE ONLY PERSON THAT WE COULD NOT PROTECT THAT — IN THAT FAST OF A MANNER.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE PROTECTED EVERYONE ELSE. AND MR. DAVIS’S DECISION TO GO BACK INTO THE SOLE PRACTITIONERSHIP OF LAW UNTIL THIS DISPUTE WAS RESOLVED WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF PROTECTING THE CLIENTS, WHICH IS WHAT THE STATUTE WAS DRAFTED FOR.

IT WAS NOT DRAFTED TO GO INTO PAUL HASTINGS, TAKE ONE LAWYER OUT, AND FIND OUT WHO — AND GO INTO THE FILE ROOM AND TAKE 80 FILES AND FIND OUT WHO IS THERE TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS.

THAT’S WHAT WE’VE DONE. THAT’S WHAT I’LL CONTINUE TO DO. UNDER THE CURRENT COURT ORDERS, I’M NOT PRECLUDED FROM PRACTICING LAW. AND THE STATE BAR SAID, “HE CAN PRACTICE LAW FOR ANY LLP THAT HE’S A MEMBER OF.”

AND THE COURT HAS SAID THAT THAT LLP DOESN’T EXIST. AND WE PAID FOR IT, SO WE’LL BE MAKING SOME CALLS AFTER TODAY’S HEARING ABOUT GETTING OUR MONEY BACK, BECAUSE IT’S NOT A HUNDRED DOLLARS.


MR. STEIN: ALL OF THE — ALL OF THE FACTS THAT I MENTIONED IN THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION FINDS THAT I’M NOT COMPETENT BECAUSE I HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS SCHEME WITH THESE OTHER DEFENDANTS. AND THE SCHEME IS UNLAWFUL, AND THEREFORE, I’M INCOMPETENT.

THE STATUTE 6180, YOUR HONOR, SAYS — AND IT’S VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK, THAT WE LOOK AT THE STATUTE. IT SAYS:

“WHEN AN ATTORNEY ENGAGED IN LAW PRACTICE IN THIS STATE DIES” — I THINK I’M ALIVE — “RESIGNS” — I HAVEN’T RESIGNED –

“BECOMES AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE BAR” — WHICH I HADN’T DONE AS OF AUGUST 15TH — “IS DISBARRED” — HASN’T HAPPENED; CAN ONLY HAPPEN IN THE SUPREME COURT OR AS DELEGATED TO THE STATE BAR COURT; CAN’T HAPPEN HERE — “OR IS SUSPENDED FROM THE ACTIVE PRACTICE OF LAW AND IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION TO GIVE NOTICE OF THIS SUSPENSION” — THAT HASN’T HAPPENED — “NOTICE OF CESSATION OF THE LAW PRACTICE SHALL BE GIVEN, AND THE COURTS OF THIS STATE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION, AS PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE.”

THAT’S 6180. I’M NOT DEAD, I’M NOT INACTIVE, I HAVEN’T BEEN DISBARRED, AND I HAVEN’T BEEN SUSPENDED.

I NEED SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME — I’M HOLDING 6180; I’M JUST READING IT FOR THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE STATUTE — WHAT UNDER THAT STATUTE PROVIDES THE STATE BAR, PRESUMING THAT THE COURT HAS FOUND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, ET CETERA, EVEN THOUGH ALL — EVEN THOUGH THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY MONEY FLOWING TO ME. I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT FINDING.

THE COURT: OKAY, BUT LET ME JUST SAY TO YOU THAT THE APPELLATE COURT HAS LOOKED AT THIS. THE APPELLATE COURT HAS LOOKED AT THIS IN THIS CASE, WITH RESPECT TO MR. KRAMER, AND FOUND THAT THAT STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION. AND IT’S A VERY BROAD APPLICATION, AND THERE IS AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO THAT EFFECT.

SO I’M NOT GOING TO LOOK AT THAT ISSUE AGAIN WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT IT’S APPLICABLE.


MR. STEIN: WELL, THERE’S — IN THE TENTATIVE RULING, WITH REGARD TO THE FREEZING OF MONEY, IT SAYS,

“THERE’S NO EVIDENCE” — QUOTE, ON PAGE 1, NEW PARAGRAPH 3:

“THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THAT ANY OF THE ACCOUNTS REFERENCED IN THE EX PARTE REQUEST ARE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF DEFENDANT STEIN,” PERIOD.

BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE. THERE’S EVIDENCE THAT FOUR OF THEM ARE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY. SO THE — THAT’S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, THE RECEIVER JUST SAID HE DOESN’T UNDERSTAND HOW I CAN OPEN AN ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO INJUNCTION PROHIBITING ME FROM PRACTICING LAW; IS THAT CORRECT? OR INCORRECT?

THE COURT: I DON’T THINK THERE IS AN INJUNCTION.

MR. STEIN: OKAY. SO WHEN YOU PRACTICE LAW, YOU — I DO A LOT OF PRO BONO WORK, AND I HAVE DONE IT FOR 25 YEARS, BUT YOU TEND TO GET PAID.

THE COURT: I HOPE SO.

MR. STEIN: SO IF THE RECEIVER IS SAYING TO THIS COURT THAT I CAN’T OPEN UP AN ACCOUNT, I’M SAYING TO THIS COURT, “I AM GOING TO OPEN UP AN ACCOUNT TOMORROW, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.” I MEAN, I’M PRACTICING LAW.

SO THE RECEIVER IS SAYING THINGS THAT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE IF SAID TO A PANEL OF APPELLATE JUSTICES. IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE. DISCIPLINE IS RESERVED FOR THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, NOT FOR THIS COURT AND NOT FOR THE PEOPLE.

AND THE RULING OF THE CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT THAT THIS COURT IS REFERRING TO DOES NOT DISBAR MR. KRAMER — I GUESS, IS THE APPELLANT IN THAT CASE, AND DOESN’T PURPORT TO DISBAR HIM. THE APPLICATION BY THE PEOPLE DOESN’T DO THAT. IT IS LEFT TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE STATE BAR, AND THEY HAVE DELEGATED, AS OF 1955, THAT DISCRETION TO THE STATE BAR COURT. SO IF THE RECEIVER SAID THAT OR IMPLIED THAT — I’M TELLING THE COURT RIGHT NOW, SO IF THE COURT WANTS ME TO ENJOIN ME, I WON’T DO IT — I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRACTICE LAW. I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT THESE PEOPLE.

AND I’M GOING TO PROBABLY GET PAID; PARTICULARLY WHEN I WIN, AND THERE’S A CONTINGENCY AWARD, I’M PROBABLY GOING TO GET PAID A LOT OF MONEY.

AND SINCE I DIDN’T RECEIVE ANY MONEY, THESE PEOPLE ARE NEVER GOING TO GET AN ORDER OF RESTITUTION BECAUSE I DIDN’T RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THIS.

BUT I’M GOING TO OPEN A BANK ACCOUNT AND CONTINUE TO PRACTICE LAW. I’M NOT GOING TO ABANDON CLIENTS. I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING SO FORWARD ABOUT IT, BUT I CAN’T BELIEVE THE STATEMENT I JUST HEARD. I DON’T THINK ANYONE IN THE COURTROOM CAN BELIEVE IT.

THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, LET’S JUST DEAL WITH THE EX PARTE. THE EX PARTE — IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS THAT ARE AT ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS EX PARTE WERE ALREADY REVIEWED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. AM I RIGHT?

MR. TOMA: THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. MR. STEIN MADE AN EMERGENCY MOTION BACK IN AUGUST, AND THERE WAS NOTICE OF THESE FROZEN BANK ACCOUNTS.


THE COURT: I JUST REALLY CAN’T TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ANY OF THIS; I REALLY CAN’T. SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT ME TO DO, BRING IT BEFORE ME WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, IF THAT’S WHAT YOU’D LIKE ME TO DO. I’M HAPPY TO LOOK AT IT. BUT AT THIS STAGE, I’M DEALING WITH WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW.

SO I’M DENYING THE EX PARTE FOR THE REASONS STATED. I’M ADOPTING MY TENTATIVE IN BOTH THE OSC RE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER LAW PRACTICE OF MITCHELL J. STEIN AND THE OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BEFORE THE STATE BAR.

AND PEOPLE, BEFORE YOU LEAVE TODAY, I WANT YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU GET THE PROPER ORDERS IN FRONT OF ME. OKAY?

MS. LEECE: YOUR HONOR –

THE COURT: YES.

MS. LEECE: — WE FILED AN ORDER, BUT I HAVE ANOTHER COPY HERE.


MR. STEIN: RIGHT. AND THE COURT INDICATED THAT THE LAW OF THE CASE WAS THAT 6180 AND -90 WAS READ IN A CERTAIN WAY. AND NOW COUNSEL HAS ASKED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. AND TO THE EXTENT THERE’S AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THOSE WITNESSES — WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THEM AND TO — THE COURT: NO, I — OKAY. YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES. IT’S TALKING ABOUT THE CODE SECTION AS COVERING THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR.

YOU SAID YOU’RE NOT DEAD, AND YOU’RE NOT AN ALCOHOLIC, AND YOU’RE NOT ALL OF THESE THINGS. AND YOU WERE ARGUING THAT THE CODE SECTION DOESN’T APPLY TO THE SITUATION. ALL RIGHT. THE APPELLATE COURT FOUND DIFFERENTLY AND FOUND THAT IT COULD BE READ BROADLY.

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A PERMANENT ORDER. TODAY WAS A MOTION — WAS AN OSC RE MAKING THE ORDER PERMANENT. YOU DIDN’T RAISE THIS ISSUE, YOU DIDN’T ASK FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND I’VE MADE THE RULING.


Source Document

Mitchell J. Stein Transcript From California Action Involving Mass Joinder Marketing Part 2 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.

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.