A tipster (send in your tips here) sent in the following mailer they received and had some statements about it.
If you received a form 1012-R mailer the California Bar Association wants to hear from you. Click here.
Although it is a poor copy, you can see the mailer tries to look like an official form using the form number 1012-R and the large 2011. I wish I saw what the front of it looked like. If anyone gets one of these, please submit it to me using this form and be sure to include the front of the mailer.
The mailer says it is a Litigation Settlement Notification which could be interpreted as a settlement already exists and the receiver of this mailer is being notified of it. The advertisement says the settlement is to “void note,” and the status is “pending.”
The mailer says:
Our team of lawyers specialize in lender fraud and we are notifying you to discuss settlement arrangements. The attorneys are at the top firms in the nation and have represented hundreds of homeowners with these cases. Prior settlements with these banks have been successful which have included cash settlement and properties rewarded free and clear homes.
Click image for a larger view.
The form appears to highlight three cases in particular and says, “Records indicate you are a potential plaintiff in one of the following cases:” Three cases are marked with either a X and/or *. Not sure what the marks mean since there is no apparent legend.
- Ronald vs. Bank of America
- Wright vs. Bank of America
- Marquette vs. OneWest Bank (Indymac)
I did a Google search for the cases mentioned in the mailer. – Source
One of the links in the search results was to a press release put out by Brookstone Law that said the firm “has contracted to aggregate members for other suits against leading banks and mortgage lenders including:”
- Paul Ronald et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC409444;
- Ignacio Damian Figueroa et al. v. David J. Stern, MERSCORP, Inc. et al – U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida Case No. 10-cv-61296-CMA;
- Richard Wagner et al. v. Citibank Corp et al. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC452265;
- James W. Locker et al. v. Ally Bank, N.A. et al. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC452263;
- Brian R. Carlson et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC452262;
- Antonio Marquette et al. v. OneWest Bank Group, LLC et al. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC452266; and
- Justin Nelson et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC452264 – Source, Source”
I am unaware for who Brookstone Law has contracted to aggregate members for.”
The cases bolded above from the press release appeared in the mailer.
After publishing this other article I was made aware that Brookstone Law and The Law Offices of George Baugh filed the case Wright vs. Bank of America. – Source. That case was also mentioned in the mailer.
I called the phone number in the mailer but I was unable to speak with anyone about it. When you call 1-800-985-5261 the recorded message identifies it as “The Litigation Settlement Department” and says that messages left will not be returned for three or four days.
Others that received a similar notice, but with a different telephone number in it of 800-368-9659 made some observations after speaking with representatives regarding the mailer. You can read what people had to say here.
The address given in the mailer is:
Civil Litigation Department
1000 Bristol Street North, #17-110
Newport Beach, CA 92660
A Google search identifies that address as a mailbox rental service called The Mail Room. – Source. I called and they verified the address is for The Mail Room.
The message in the mailer says:
You will become a joined named plantiff in a national lawsuit that will seek, among other things, to void your note(s), to give you your home free and clear, and/or to aware you relief and monetary damages
I am unaware if the mailer was sent out by a law firm. It does not seem to comply or contain advertising disclaimers typically or required to be used in California regarding legal service advertising. – Source
I did find a another search hit for Form 1012-R. The law firm Hartford Dunn published the following form. – Source
That version of form 1012-R says it was sent out by the Litigation Settlement Department of Kramer & Kaslow Law. The Litigation Settlement Department is the same title used in the recorded message when I called the number in the mailer the tipster (send in your tips here) sent to me.
The form from Kramer & Kaslow Law contains a similar format and some of the same language as the one sent to me by the tipster (send in your tips here).
The Hartford Dunn site has an interesting disclaimer regarding the Ronald vs. Bank of America case listed and the form above. They say:
Disclaimer: Hartford Dunn, LLP is the solely exclusive law firm working specifically with Mitchell J. Stein aka “The Doberman” on the Ronald vs. Bank of America case. All others are not affiliated with Hartford Dunn, LLP. In order to protect your rights and security in this case all matters pursuant Ronald vs. Bank of America is only authorized through Hartford Dunn, LLP. Specifically anyone receiving this mailer has no authorization or approval. To validate and protect your rights call our number listed above. – Source
Hopefully someone will be able to send me the front of the next mailer so we can see the entire marketing piece.
Updates
3-2-2011 / 2:17 PM: A tipster (send in your tips here) has sent in the front of the Litigation Settlement Notification mailer. See below. Postal permit number is Anaheim 904.
Update 3-28-2011
It now appears the original mailer did come from Brookstone. A reader just sent in the following mailer and the telephone number went to Brookstone as you can see by his comment.
Mailer 16 California – Brookstone Law 1-800-985-5261
I received a form 1012-R from Civil Litigation Department 1000 Bristol Street North #17-110 Newport Beach, CA. 92660; the notice instructed me to call 1-800-985-5261 for further details; i called the number and and then arranged for me to speak to a person whose name was David Hamilton who works for Brookstone law as a client service representative and his contact number is 1-800-946-8655 Ext. 445; he explained what their law firm does and convinced me to send a copy of one of my home loans and proof of title to my residence as one of their requirements to qualify for the Mass Joinder litigation lawsuit. He discussed the Paul Ronald vs. Bank of America and Wright vs. Bank of America case with me. After speaking to him, he then instructed me that another person from brookstone law firm will contact me in an hour or two. Soon enough, a Carl Centerfold ( i’m not sure how he spells his name), who works in the quality control department for Brookstone law, contacted me and ask me more questions
You are not alone. I'm here to help. There is no need to suffer in silence. We can get through this. Tomorrow can be better than today. Don't give up.
Do you have a question you'd like to ask me for free? Go ahead and click here.
- Plastic Pandemic: US Credit Card Debt Surges Nearly 20% in Q1 2021! - May 12, 2023
- The IRS Resumes Collections Notices: What You Need to Know Before It’s Too Late - May 12, 2023
- How Can I Deal With Payday Loan Debt? - May 12, 2023
loll…. david hamilton… and yeah carl centerfold… not a model!
I got an almost identical form stating it was a tort litigation lawsuit from Precision Law Center vs. Indymac Bank re: my mortgage? Is it for real?
I got an almost identical form stating it was a tort litigation lawsuit from Precision Law Center vs. Indymac Bank re: my mortgage? Is it for real?
I do not recall how I was contacted originally I was several months delinquent and the person I spoke to was very convincing. A number of days later I sent in all the required loan docs and over the next 2 months paid a $5k retainer. A few days after K2 Law told me I was added to the complaint I received a call from my lender asking me if I wanted to modify. Surprisingly unlike the H.A.M.P. modification it was a very simple process I didn’t even have to leave my house since they sent all the docs via UPS.I don’t know if it was a coincidence or if just my name being on the lawsuit made it happen but by the time the modification was completed I was 6 months behind  which they just added to the end of the mortgage so technically they have not saved me any money yet. Although my payment went up a few cents but a but I believe they did allow me to become current and save my house and am now optimistic on the lawsuit’s outcome. From what I know they are not taking on anymore clients but if you joined the lawsuit this should make you more confident that you made the correct decision.
I do not recall how I was contacted originally I was several months delinquent and the person I spoke to was very convincing. A number of days later I sent in all the required loan docs and over the next 2 months paid a $5k retainer. A few days after K2 Law told me I was added to the complaint I received a call from my lender asking me if I wanted to modify. Surprisingly unlike the H.A.M.P. modification it was a very simple process I didn’t even have to leave my house since they sent all the docs via UPS.I don’t know if it was a coincidence or if just my name being on the lawsuit made it happen but by the time the modification was completed I was 6 months behind which they just added to the end of the mortgage so technically they have not saved me any money yet. Although my payment went up a few cents but a but I believe they did allow me to become current and save my house and am now optimistic on the lawsuit’s outcome. From what I know they are not taking on anymore clients but if you joined the lawsuit this should make you more confident that you made the correct decision.
Let’s wait for the pitch and then report back here in the comments. You need to keep in mind there is no guarantee and any suit will most likely take years. But I’m most intrigued by what their sales pitch is and the claims they make.
Steve,
Just received a mailer from Precision Law Center. My mortgage is with American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.. I spoke with Darryl Washington who is sending me an email and cd. They said the Atty will call me tomorrow. I am very lucky I found your website. Can you tell me about this? I am a single mom and cannot afford to lose. Thanks, Kris
Stein was the guy that was paid to file your suit and it changed only at the last minute.
John,
Just posted the full declaration of Torchia in the infighting that is going on with Stein and others. Turns out he says Brookstone did send out the Form 1012 mailers for a bit. What is really interesting in his declaration is how close it appears you came to not having your case filed by Brookstone at all. Looks like Stein was supposed to be your guy.
Please don’t read anything into my tone on this comment. I’m simply trying to update the record with new information.
I think you will personally be very interested in the inside story. You can read the new article with Torchia’s declaration here.
My bad- You SAID i posted on your blog. Ive certainly been to see your website John.
John Get some sleep- for real man.
Im OK with you. Good Luck for real- Again, I hope it works out.
First off, what? To be honest John, you’ve been posting so many comments I stopped reading them.
Interesting turn of events with SML, Apex, Stein and Steins attack against Brookstone. I spent a bunch of time reading the motion to boot stein off co-counsel. Posted it at Mass Joinder Case Infighting Worse Than High School. Co-Counsel Mitchell Stein Gets the Boot.
I was gonna drop it… but, where, exactly did Steve say THAT?
Annnd, you’re just posting links ’cause you wanna? It says “JOIN MY LAWSUIT”- not Brookstone Law.
“Promote”: To contribute to the progress or growth of;
Let me say this, because it is the last time I will address you:
John- I believe you that you are not being paid by Brookstone to promote their lawsuit- but you certainly are promoting it.
I don’t believe you see the potential harm that supporting them may do to those that BUY their service- Just as I don’t think you see the harm it did when so many lost with their previous company ULG.
I have not been on your blog- or emailed you- ever.
Honestly, I wish you well in your lawsuit against BoA.
John, I wish you could understand that it appears that you are promoting BSL & it appeared that you were promoting ULG- By promoting your lawsuit, you, in turn, are promoting these companies. When you look at the facts surrounding what happened, the BBB complaints (100’s for a law firm????!!!), the attorney being disbarred, the FTC suits & all the clients who lost with them, added up- it looked as if you HAD to benefiting somehow if you were still promoting them. What else would one think?… But, I believe youre not. I believe you are sincerely, extremely passionate about your case. And I hope you succeed. And, I hope anyone who shells out $8,000 to join this lawsuit gets to keep their homes & doesn’t lose their money this time! AND, for the people you’ve helped, I believe you should be recognized- But you need to be careful with ANY promotion of these guys- If it all goes south again, how will you feel then?
So, I hope we can bury the hatchet here, once and for all. I think you need to get some some sleep- like a weeks worth… Best of luck.
So your logic is you have a beef with a commenter named ComplianceSlave, not me, and your response is to attack me? That is crazy and makes no sense.
You complain of screen names but you post under a screen name yourself, piggybankblog. Again, your outrage makes no sense.
See my response below to the links you posted. You already know they are untrue, and have known for some time, and yet you continue to post them. Why? You know they are factually untrue and yet continue to spread them. Hum, and what is the definition of libel?
A month ago I answered your false accusations on those links and yet you continue to post them, repeatedly.
See my previous response.
“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. [Note: ScamChecker later pulled that page because it was untrue.]
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.”
You claim you are abused on the site by one commenter but in fact you appear to be the biggest abuser of all. What’s with the reporting of information that has already been proven to you by me as not factual?
I’ll tell you why I have not removed the comment in question yet, because John Wright can’t answer a simple question I asked about it. Instead you launch off into threats, tirades, lawsuits, protests, and every other crazy sidetrack other than just answering the simple question.
John, in my addressing the comment that you claim was abusive I asked you the following information, which none of your subsequent posts answered.
“In reviewing the comment I think you are upset about it was ” I REALLY want to know what he is getting from Torch for doing all that BS marketing. I hope he gets found out (FBI are you listening?) and goes to prison.” Is that the remark you are claiming is abuse? How is that remark abusive?”
– and –
“What about the false accusations you made against that same commenter and against me? How do I deal with those?”
What is your answer to those questions so we can deal with the original issue at hand.
You’re an angry little man, aren’t ya?
Yawn…. I’ll re engage when you answer the questions… Enjoy stumping for Brookstone.
Later.
John,
If you are about getting the facts straight then taking a few minutes to do your research would be helpful. I believe the scamchecker page is gone now. They pulled it because it was untrue. The debt management guys thing was based on those untrue statements so that’s in the same boat. I believe the complaintsboard thing I’ve addressed in the comments there.
And for your information I do that about those pages here in the site and I’ve pointed that out to you before. You knew I’ve stated categorically they are they are not true yet you continue to post them. Should I feel abused as you claim to be?
You are a very odd duck.
” which I told you I did not promote”
Funny- On this page, http://www.piggybankblog.com/2… Dorothy asks “Where are those links that used to point to ULG?”
Of course, now there are links to Brookstone.
Lies
John- Look up…. Didnt YOU say this?….
“Though you are correct that there are these sort of unethical mass marketing tactics out there, I think it is fair to mention that NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN FROM BROOKSTONE, but are from companies that have already clearly been identified as having nothing to do with even the attorney on record:”
And…
“Steve, these MAIL OUTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BROOKSTONE LAW GROUP. “
Did you mis speak? Or were you lying? Just admit you’re wrong John.
Or, go back to misdirection & post old news of complaints against Steve…. Why in the world would you attack THIS site if you’re all about helping people John?
“if it turns out that you qualify- yes, they will request a retainer to help in the legal costs of fighting the case and getting justice for all of the homeowners who have been ripped off.”
Why all the marketing then? Why have sales companies & “furnish leads”?
So is the retainer to “help in the legal costs” or the marketing & profit? How much of the retainer is paid to the sales company?
2 Things-
I said I hope they find out what you are getting for promoting their lawsuit & then put you in jail. Since I dont know WHAT you are getting, I can not say HOW they would do that.
#2- You say you are going to sue Steve here https://getoutofdebt.org/24788/…
For “potential donation injury” & then go on that because of what i wrote someone had JUST RECANTED their donation! Amazing!… Since earlier you claimed only 4 donations ever, totalling less than $400 in 3 years-
So- I ask you once again John, Do you feel nothing- No responsibility whatever to the thousands who gave ULG their last dollar, trusted ULG, AT YOUR WORD, and then lost their homes?
For anyone reading this his issue is really over on this post.
For anyone reading this his issue is really over on this post.
I am not aware of any slander on this thread. I think you may be talking about this other post where you and some commenter were going at each other. I already answered that over there.
FYI. I’m turning the computer off for the night so don’t be surprised when you don’t hear back from me.
What would an IP address you traced have to do with me? Traced an IP from what room? What’s a room?
What does that have to do with the mailer?
Why do I need to take the mailer down?
One more thing about the video. It was and is news. Check the Smoking Gun that posted it just three days ago. Or how about ABC News that just published information about it?
Oh yes, then there is this link on ABC News and Channel 13 in central Florida as well.
Already answered.
Misdirection.
What does that have to do with the mailer?
The video is about an internet issue that has been seen by millions and posted with the consent of her parents, who are actually in it. The second video addresses the issue.
So what was your question about the terms?
And the description under the video describes why it is there. You forgot to put it into context.
“When you respond in the wrong way with attacks and flames it only makes you look worse and convinces people you have something to hide or deflect. You can see how this YouTube video makes the girl and her father appear, not all that great. (By the way, if you want to see the whole story of this event with the before and after video and are willing to hear some curse words, click here.)
Then you wind up with responses like the one below and flame wars ensues, the issue creates a life of it’s own, more people find it and loads of people jump in.”
What question?
Be specific.
You were the one that said the first 1012 mailer I published was an unethical mailer, not me. Check your own previous comment to see why you called these type of mailers
I do have a wide latitude on free speech as evidenced by all the false and untrue postings you have made about me on this site and yours. I never removed your unfair and untrue comments.
I’m not sure what you are referring to as abuse though. What on this article is abusive?
What am I not being fair about?
Even though claims were made the mailer did not come from Brookstone, a reader who recently received one, and sent it in, says they called the number and was then connected to a Brookstone representative.
See the update on the article for the new scanned mailer. I emailed Vito six hours ago for an explanation why the new mailer would lead to Brookstone and I have not heard back yet.
Update
I just added a new copy of a Form 1012-R mailer that appears just like the first one I published in the article, The reader who sent it in said.
“I received a form 1012-R from Civil Litigation Department 1000 Bristol Street North #17-110 Newport Beach, CA. 92660; the notice instructed me to call 1-800-985-5261 for further details; i called the number and and then arranged for me to speak to a person whose name was David Hamilton who works for Brookstone law as a client service representative and his contact number is 1-800-946-8655 Ext. 445; he explained what their law firm does and convinced me to send a copy of one of my home loans and proof of title to my residence as one of their requirements to qualify for the Mass Joinder litigation lawsuit. He discussed the Paul Ronald vs. Bank of America and Wright vs. Bank of America case with me. After speaking to him, he then instructed me that another person from brookstone law firm will contact me in an hour or two. Soon enough, a Carl Centerfold ( i’m not sure how he spells his name), who works in the quality control department for Brookstone law, contacted me and ask me more questions”
Based on that information, despite what some commenters may have claimed, it does appear the original mailer did lead to Brookstone Law as I wondered.
Update
I just added a new copy of a Form 1012-R mailer that appears just like the first one I published in the article, The reader who sent it in said.
“I received a form 1012-R from Civil Litigation Department 1000 Bristol Street North #17-110 Newport Beach, CA. 92660; the notice instructed me to call 1-800-985-5261 for further details; i called the number and and then arranged for me to speak to a person whose name was David Hamilton who works for Brookstone law as a client service representative and his contact number is 1-800-946-8655 Ext. 445; he explained what their law firm does and convinced me to send a copy of one of my home loans and proof of title to my residence as one of their requirements to qualify for the Mass Joinder litigation lawsuit. He discussed the Paul Ronald vs. Bank of America and Wright vs. Bank of America case with me. After speaking to him, he then instructed me that another person from brookstone law firm will contact me in an hour or two. Soon enough, a Carl Centerfold ( i’m not sure how he spells his name), who works in the quality control department for Brookstone law, contacted me and ask me more questions”
Based on that information, despite what some commenters may have claimed, it does appear the original mailer did lead to Brookstone Law as I wondered.
I currently have a loan from GMAC. It was purchased from Direct Equity Mtg LLC when I refinanced my loan about 1 yr ago. When I called the 1-877 number a person who gave me his first and last name said he was representing the firm, Matthew K. Davis Mass Litigation Alliance. My form is an H-118, not a 1012-R like I’ve read about. My loan is not in default, but when I spoke to them, they told me the company who wrote my loan, Direct Equity, was in trouble for writing fraudulent loans and I could be entitled to a settlement, have my principle loan amount reduced to 80% of a newly appraised value which would be set for the next 30 yrs. at 2% interest, the difference would be completely eliminated, or get my house for free due to the banks not being able to provide the documents as to who owns the loan. He asked for my email so he can send me a link to the website where i can read more about this so called “Class Action Lawsuit”. He proceeded to tell me they have settled over 2200 cases of which, not one case was lost due to mediation talks with the lenders, and the ones that were contested by the lender, the property owners got to keep they’re homes due to lack of documentation as to who owns the loan. The cost to me is $2350.00 of which only half up front is due to start the ball rolling. When they receive half of my retainer fee, that’s what he called it, the would send a “Demand for Record” request which the lender has 45 days to respond by sending all the documents pertaining to my loan to the law firm for review. If discrepencies or fraudulent statements are made within the loan docs, then they will proceed to take action against the lender as soon as they receive the other half of my retainer fee. Does this sound like the same thing?
It goes out on feeds to various places so it’s already out there.
so no delete ability ?
Too late. Already out there.
attorney asked to hide that last post til after the police and bar took care of it
I’m not surprised.
well called the attorney that was susposeddly working with precision law center and he was unaware that he was working with them , remembers being approached about something like this but doesnt know who precicion law or alexander cortez .
i told him i was posting this info and he had no problems with me posting
and asked when this works to post his # so anyone else that needs help can contact him and get the same assistance i got
very much the same, but didnt finish it before he caaled me back
You might want to read my secret shopper call on this and let me know if the promises made sound familiar.
5 k retainer and 30% of any damages awarded up to 75 k
Is he going to take on the case or put you in another case?
How much does he want to charge and what percentage does he want if he wins?
he called me back and talking to him now
and yes he did pitch to join it
attorneys name is michael ayaz
So did they pitch you a mass joinder suit with them or with someone else?
bank of america
That’s the first time I’ve heard about Precision Law Center.
Who is your mortgage with? Which lender?
Steve
received a mailer on Saturday about this exact thing , 1012-r form and all is almost identical to what you posted . When i called the number i spoke with Alexander Cortez at Precision Law Center in Los Angles ( or orange county wasn’t clear ) gave me a great pitch and all but sounded far to good to be true so i asked for PH # and did some checking . PrecisionLawCenter.com is their web site but otherwise i cant find anything on them .. are they even connected to this or just a marketing company trying to sell me to 1 of the companies ?
Trust you gut on this. If this approach proves to be valid there will be other lawyers and other cases. There is no evidence this effort will prevail in the claims made.
3-12-11: I received one of these 2 days ago. It indicates it’s related to “The People vs CTX Mortgage Company LLC” and is a “Litigation Notification” regarding a “pending” mass joinder case.
The telephone number is 1-877-266-0110, but there is NO company of any type listed as the source on this mailer. It simply says “Litigation Department” in field c. When I called yesterday indicating that I would like to know more about this mailer, the young man said he was very busy: “Oops. I’m receiving a fax right now. If it’s OK, I’ll call you back in 5 minutes. Your number is….(from a caller ID).” He never called back.
Looks suspicious to me. I would appreciate more information about this from a reputable source. My pessimistic side says they will try to convince me to spend legal fees for this.
DH
3-12-11: I received one of these 2 days ago. It indicates it’s related to “The People vs CTX Mortgage Company LLC” and is a “Litigation Notification” regarding a “pending” mass joinder case.
The telephone number is 1-877-266-0110, but there is NO company of any type listed as the source on this mailer. It simply says “Litigation Department” in field c. When I called yesterday indicating that I would like to know more about this mailer, the young man said he was very busy: “Oops. I’m receiving a fax right now. If it’s OK, I’ll call you back in 5 minutes. Your number is….(from a caller ID).” He never called back.
Looks suspicious to me. I would appreciate more information about this from a reputable source. My pessimistic side says they will try to convince me to spend legal fees for this.
DH
Trust you gut on this. If this approach proves to be valid there will be other lawyers and other cases. There is no evidence this effort will prevail in the claims made.
received a mailer on Saturday about this exact thing , 1012-r form and all is almost identical to what you posted . When i called the number i spoke with Alexander Cortez at Precision Law Center in Los Angles ( or orange county wasn’t clear ) gave me a great pitch and all but sounded far to good to be true so i asked for PH # and did some checking . PrecisionLawCenter.com is their web site but otherwise i cant find anything on them .. are they even connected to this or just a marketing company trying to sell me to 1 of the companies ?
That’s the first time I’ve heard about Precision Law Center.
Who is your mortgage with? Which lender?
Steve
bank of america
So did they pitch you a mass joinder suit with them or with someone else?
attorneys name is michael ayaz
and yes he did pitch to join it
he called me back and talking to him now
Is he going to take on the case or put you in another case?
How much does he want to charge and what percentage does he want if he wins?
5 k retainer and 30% of any damages awarded up to 75 k
You might want to read my secret shopper call on this and let me know if the promises made sound familiar.
very much the same, but didnt finish it before he caaled me back
i told him i was posting this info and he had no problems with me posting
and asked when this works to post his # so anyone else that needs help can contact him and get the same assistance i got
well called the attorney that was susposeddly working with precision law center and he was unaware that he was working with them , remembers being approached about something like this but doesnt know who precicion law or alexander cortez .
I’m not surprised.
attorney asked to hide that last post til after the police and bar took care of it
Too late. Already out there.
so no delete ability ?
It goes out on feeds to various places so it’s already out there.
I currently have a loan from GMAC. It was purchased from Direct Equity Mtg LLC when I refinanced my loan about 1 yr ago. When I called the 1-877 number a person who gave me his first and last name said he was representing the firm, Matthew K. Davis Mass Litigation Alliance. My form is an H-118, not a 1012-R like I’ve read about. My loan is not in default, but when I spoke to them, they told me the company who wrote my loan, Direct Equity, was in trouble for writing fraudulent loans and I could be entitled to a settlement, have my principle loan amount reduced to 80% of a newly appraised value which would be set for the next 30 yrs. at 2% interest, the difference would be completely eliminated, or get my house for free due to the banks not being able to provide the documents as to who owns the loan. He asked for my email so he can send me a link to the website where i can read more about this so called “Class Action Lawsuit”. He proceeded to tell me they have settled over 2200 cases of which, not one case was lost due to mediation talks with the lenders, and the ones that were contested by the lender, the property owners got to keep they’re homes due to lack of documentation as to who owns the loan. The cost to me is $2350.00 of which only half up front is due to start the ball rolling. When they receive half of my retainer fee, that’s what he called it, the would send a “Demand for Record” request which the lender has 45 days to respond by sending all the documents pertaining to my loan to the law firm for review. If discrepencies or fraudulent statements are made within the loan docs, then they will proceed to take action against the lender as soon as they receive the other half of my retainer fee. Does this sound like the same thing?
Steve,
Just received a mailer from Precision Law Center. My mortgage is with American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.. I spoke with Darryl Washington who is sending me an email and cd. They said the Atty will call me tomorrow. I am very lucky I found your website. Can you tell me about this? I am a single mom and cannot afford to lose. Thanks, Kris
Let’s wait for the pitch and then report back here in the comments. You need to keep in mind there is no guarantee and any suit will most likely take years. But I’m most intrigued by what their sales pitch is and the claims they make.
Just posted new mailer from Mesa Law Group. Still Form 1012-R mailer. You can see it here.
Just posted new mailer from Mesa Law Group. Still Form 1012-R mailer. You can see it here.
Funny, you made that connection. You are exactly right. The path did go from Sub-Prime Loans Marketing -> Loan Mods -> Debt Settlement -> Mass Joinder. My concern is we are just seeing the first part of the wave here on this.
The debt settlement marketers are desperately searching for their next area to get in to. Some thought it was going to be extended auto warranties. But based on the commissions that are being paid out in the mass joinder sales, I would bet this will be the next wave.
What the law firms don’t have the experience to see is if they let the mass joinder marketing explode and let the bad actors in they will only screw this up for everyone. Police it now and let good people get help. Don’t police it and the result is that regulators will step in to clean it up.
I’m with you. I’d like to follow the money as well.
Steve, the marketing is very similar to what I was seeing from debt settlement companies and loss mitigation firms. Many mod firms had to change their business models when advance fees were prohibited which is why they jumped on the Mass Joinder gravy train. Although many of the sites have been taken down recently, you can see that there were a large number of firms marketing the the product.
We aren’t just talking about one or two firms and shady individuals. The reality is that is it epidemic and involves mailings, internet marketing, telemarketing, etc. This is why I am calling out the law firms- the sheer scope and magnitude of the marketing requires the interests of the public to take precedence over the firm’s image.
I am looking for individuals who have paid money to the firms and have evidence that they paid funds to any of these firms. Specifically, I would like to follow the money trail and where the funds that homeowners have paid have gone.
And yes, I think you are on the right path in investigating who the parties are that are behind the mass marketing and recruiting affiliates. The MO of the debt settlement and loss mitigation marketers is similar.
Steve, the marketing is very similar to what I was seeing from debt settlement companies and loss mitigation firms. Many mod firms had to change their business models when advance fees were prohibited which is why they jumped on the Mass Joinder gravy train. Although many of the sites have been taken down recently, you can see that there were a large number of firms marketing the the product.
We aren’t just talking about one or two firms and shady individuals. The reality is that is it epidemic and involves mailings, internet marketing, telemarketing, etc. This is why I am calling out the law firms- the sheer scope and magnitude of the marketing requires the interests of the public to take precedence over the firm’s image.
I am looking for individuals who have paid money to the firms and have evidence that they paid funds to any of these firms. Specifically, I would like to follow the money trail and where the funds that homeowners have paid have gone.
And yes, I think you are on the right path in investigating who the parties are that are behind the mass marketing and recruiting affiliates. The MO of the debt settlement and loss mitigation marketers is similar.
Funny, you made that connection. You are exactly right. The path did go from Sub-Prime Loans Marketing -> Loan Mods -> Debt Settlement -> Mass Joinder. My concern is we are just seeing the first part of the wave here on this.
The debt settlement marketers are desperately searching for their next area to get in to. Some thought it was going to be extended auto warranties. But based on the commissions that are being paid out in the mass joinder sales, I would bet this will be the next wave.
What the law firms don’t have the experience to see is if they let the mass joinder marketing explode and let the bad actors in they will only screw this up for everyone. Police it now and let good people get help. Don’t police it and the result is that regulators will step in to clean it up.
I’m with you. I’d like to follow the money as well.
John,
Just credited you with the stimulus of this post and linked to you in “Mass Joinder & Mass Litigation Affiliate and Marketing Information” so we can put all the material in one place.
I did make one interesting observation, the Form 1012 mailer I showed at the top of this article was sent long after after Kramer sent the C&D letters. That leads me to believe it was not one of those firms.
Anyway, please feel free to direct anyone you may know that runs into any mass joinder marketing to post a comment over there on “Mass Joinder & Mass Litigation Affiliate and Marketing Information“.
In an effort to wrap my head around all the marketing going on regarding mass joinder suits I assembled a post showing the marketing. There certainly is enough to show Stein was affiliate with Kramer. Please see “Mass Joinder & Mass Litigation Affiliate and Marketing Information“
John,
Is this true? “Brookstone told me that the Wright vs. bank of america case and the ronald case are going to be combined”
See this comment that said that.
Steve
Krista,
Here is what I beginning to think. With debt settlement sales taking a hit due to new regulations it’s beginning to look like the less than open and forthcoming marketers might have fled from that area and and running at a sprint towards the big commissions for selling mass joinder cases.
I’ve worked in the debt world and learned a long time ago that the larger the commission the bigger the lies and misrepresentation get by marketing folks. They see the big commission hanging out there and do some really questionable things to close the deal.
Folks that market commission sales jobs for debt relief, and now this mass joinder stuff, only invite abuse and it almost never ends well in the long run.
I’m going to start working on an article about who I can find doing mass joinder marketing and with your help maybe we can narrow down the players.
John,
I think it would be great to work on this together and solve the mystery. There are so many marketing pieces and so much dubious information flowing from marketing reps it is hard to tell what’s up.
If we put BL and K2 aside, let’s just start from scratch. The next tip I get I’ll post it without any background work and we can solve it together.
Do you live anywhere near Newport Beach where the mailer was sent from?
Steve
Here you go Vito: This is the link I got from Steve when he asked me a
question. There is this huge dialog between me and him on his site, but
this is the last one that I responded to below:
To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/
Here are some big issues I cannot wrap my mind around are:
1. Why didn’t Kramer clearly disclose that he was not authorized to represent Stein when the public warning was issued or he was interviewed by Andelman? Although Andelman now disowns that Kramer directed him to the Ronald vs B of A case, that does not make sense based on the content of his article. Furthermore, the link to the Ronald vs B of A case in Andelman’s article is a K2 Law website. Check out his blog and click on the link to the case and you will see that while the document isn’t there anymore, the link is still to the K2 Law website. (Note: I printed the source code to the site to a pdf document in case he changes it).
2. Why did Stein not post clear warnings and his website that he was not affiliated to Kramer et al, and simply state that Brookstone is the only authorized law firm to work with him on the Ronald B of A case? I’m sure you’ve seen Stein’s site and know what I mean about the vague warning.
3. Why did Kramer & Kaslow initially show Hartford Dunn and Brookstone Law as approved Of Counsel firms on their website? Why did Kramer & Kaslow’s site show Hartford Dunn as an Approved National intake partner?
4. Why did Stein not send out his own Cease & Desist letters, bring this to regulator’s attention, or immediately file for TROs on all of the companies?
Now Stein is working with Brookstone Law in connection with the Ronald vs B of A case. What bothers me about this is that while Stein does show support for Brookstone and has a link to them on his website, Facebook and Twitter account, there is no record of Stein directly and publicly acknowledging his involvement Brookstone. The announcements have all come from Brookstone.
I’m concerned that there is a marketing firm in the middle that is sending out the mailers and signing up affiliates. There has been buzz on the internet and other sites, that the marketing firm involves Chris Fox who used to work for Green Credit Solutions.
None of this passes the reasonableness test. Furthermore, Vito at Brookstone has already acknowledged that Damian Kutzner (who has a checkered past) from United Law Group (see Steve’s prior articles) is a Brookstone Employee.
Here are some big issues I cannot wrap my mind around are:
1. Why didn’t Kramer clearly disclose that he was not authorized to represent Stein when the public warning was issued or he was interviewed by Andelman? Although Andelman now disowns that Kramer directed him to the Ronald vs B of A case, that does not make sense based on the content of his article. Furthermore, the link to the Ronald vs B of A case in Andelman’s article is a K2 Law website. Check out his blog and click on the link to the case and you will see that while the document isn’t there anymore, the link is still to the K2 Law website. (Note: I printed the source code to the site to a pdf document in case he changes it).
2. Why did Stein not post clear warnings and his website that he was not affiliated to Kramer et al, and simply state that Brookstone is the only authorized law firm to work with him on the Ronald B of A case? I’m sure you’ve seen Stein’s site and know what I mean about the vague warning.
3. Why did Kramer & Kaslow initially show Hartford Dunn and Brookstone Law as approved Of Counsel firms on their website? Why did Kramer & Kaslow’s site show Hartford Dunn as an Approved National intake partner?
4. Why did Stein not send out his own Cease & Desist letters, bring this to regulator’s attention, or immediately file for TROs on all of the companies?
Now Stein is working with Brookstone Law in connection with the Ronald vs B of A case. What bothers me about this is that while Stein does show support for Brookstone and has a link to them on his website, Facebook and Twitter account, there is no record of Stein directly and publicly acknowledging his involvement Brookstone. The announcements have all come from Brookstone.
I’m concerned that there is a marketing firm in the middle that is sending out the mailers and signing up affiliates. There has been buzz on the internet and other sites, that the marketing firm involves Chris Fox who used to work for Green Credit Solutions.
None of this passes the reasonableness test. Furthermore, Vito at Brookstone has already acknowledged that Damian Kutzner (who has a checkered past) from United Law Group (see Steve’s prior articles) is a Brookstone Employee.
Krista,
Here is what I beginning to think. With debt settlement sales taking a hit due to new regulations it’s beginning to look like the less than open and forthcoming marketers might have fled from that area and and running at a sprint towards the big commissions for selling mass joinder cases.
I’ve worked in the debt world and learned a long time ago that the larger the commission the bigger the lies and misrepresentation get by marketing folks. They see the big commission hanging out there and do some really questionable things to close the deal.
Folks that market commission sales jobs for debt relief, and now this mass joinder stuff, only invite abuse and it almost never ends well in the long run.
I’m going to start working on an article about who I can find doing mass joinder marketing and with your help maybe we can narrow down the players.
In an effort to wrap my head around all the marketing going on regarding mass joinder suits I assembled a post showing the marketing. There certainly is enough to show Stein was affiliate with Kramer. Please see “Mass Joinder & Mass Litigation Affiliate and Marketing Information“
OK, I went and took a look at Mesa Law and I don’t think so and here is why. The majority of the cases listed on the mailer at the top of the article, were filed by Kramer & Kaslow. Your case is the odd ball on the mailer.
Here is the issue that trips me up.
1. You said on your site “Please be advised that Brookstone Law Firm is the only Authorized Distributor” of Wright v Bank of America. – Source. I found that while I was checking out the Mesa thing. So I read that as no other firm can sell entrance into your case.
2. The press release above said that BL was contracted to aggregate clients into the Kramer & Kaslow cases listed on your card. – Source. So there is some relationship between K2 and BL.
3. Kramer & Kaslow sent out a somewhat similar mailer using the Form 1012 approach.
From that a logical conclusion is if BL is the only distributor of Wright v BoA and “has contracted to aggregate members for other suits” then there is a high degree of probability that BL may have a relationship to the mailer. (So you can see that my article was founded in logic, not an agenda.)
– or –
The mailer is a total fraud only intended to screw consumers by putting them in touch with another entity not authorized to represent your case.
– or –
K2 sent out the mailer and is authorized by BL to sell entrance into your case, even though you said BL is the only authorized distributor. (The least logical answer since you already said they are not authorized.)
Please let me know if my logic was flawed. Together we can solve the mystery.
I see. I have to admit, I do get a little confused with the format of your site, as I am not used to it. For example, this response you made did not come to my email, but I had to scroll up to find it. So I might be reading one place, while I am posting at another.
.
JW
I think I forgot to answer your main question. I think it is “Mesa Law Group, if I am looking at the correct one.
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
John,
So today I published an article that showed the amount of “finder fee” that is being paid out.
The affiliates get to set or adjust the price but there is retail pricing for mass joinder suits being sold. According to the documents I published, an affiliate that charges a $7,000 retainer gets $4,750 kicked back. That’s a hell of a finders fee.
I’m still curious who you think sent out the mailer that featured your case. Is anyone other than Brookstone Law selling entrance to your case? To be clear, I’m not pointing the finger at Brookstone Law.
I guess I’m perplexed at what reasonable explanation could there be why your case is on a mailer even you called an “unethical mass mailing.”
I’m not trying to name anyone, I’m trying to solve the mystery of the mailer and I sure could use your help to get to the bottom of it.
Can you help me?
Steve
I have absolute concerns Steve. This is because people will get angry at me, if these places screw up, which I have nothing to do with, just like Brookstone has nothing to do with them. Certainly, I do not want to think that anyone is being victimized, while my name is being used, so it really bothers me a lot. This is because all we have at the end of the day is our name, and why I have actually went after them in protest. That is why in retrospect, I am kind of happy that you did write this article, so that I can get the word out.
.
Here is one of the more recent ones I went after:
.
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2…
.
A lot of times people get “finder’s fees,” so they will set up companies to just do just that. I of course never asked for a finder’s fee, because I realized that it could compromise the integrity of my case, which is the most important thing to me. Nevertheless, I think they do it because it is a name that people might recognize immediately. For example, some of my supporters fell for it. Then after the firm comes up with some reason for why the person cannot be in that lawsuit, they will just simply create a new lawsuit for them to be in. They basically hijacked the people from a popular lawsuit, simply because they do not have to do much marketing because it has already been done. Let’s face it, as funny as it sounds, lawsuits like this do have to be marketed, which is why a law firm like Brookstone will charge a retainer. Though I am absolutely sure that there is an element of it that is for the money, such any business is about, I do believe that it is very expensive to go up against the largest bank in the world.
.
However, there is an acceptable classy way to market a lawsuit vs. a cheesy deceptive way to market it, such as these were here. I of course do my own marketing, as far as letting people know about it, while I spend my own money on it. This is part of the reason why they did not make me pay the retainer the second time around. They also felt sorry for me too.
.
Even considering that I am pissed off at the deceptive marketing that was used to maybe trick these people, who wanted to be fighting alongside me, my first and foremost concern is for the homeowner. So I do not want to shut them down because people would lose their money. I rather just make sure that it does not happen anymore, but also make sure they are planning on representing these people.
.
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING THE LARGEST BANK IN THE WORLD!
.
Respectfully,
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
John,
Previously forgot to ask. Do you have some concern that the mailer above appears to feature your case, Wright v Bank of America as the one that appears most indicated for the recipient with a *X?
Who do you think is recruiting new participants in your lawsuit with this mailer?
John,
Do you think the soon to be announced settlement between the government and banks will impact mass joinder cases?
See Obama officials, attorneys general closer to possible deal with banks in foreclosure mess.
“Senior Obama administration officials, newly joined by state attorneys general, were on the brink Thursday of finalizing major elements of a possible settlement with large U.S. banks accused of flawed and fraudulent foreclosure practices, sources familiar with the discussions said.” – Source
I have no axe to grind with Brookstone. I did not hunt down the mailer, it was sent to me. I simply reported on what it appeared the facts were. If you dispute any of the facts I’ve reported I’m happy to talk about them specifically.
A search did not locate another source which reported on the majority of the cases in the mailer. If you can find one, let me know. Here is what I found when I searched.
What in my report was false?
The story also mentioned Hartford Dunn, and Kramer & Kaslow. This article was not about Brookstone, it is about the mailer.
John, I get the fact that your most pressing issue is that you don’t want anything to “damage” your lawsuit. But this piece had nothing to do with Brookstone or your suit. I did not name Brookstone as the responsible party.
What I said was that when you entered the cases on the mailer into a search it came up with Brookstone Law press releases and I linked to the one I saw. Here it is again.
Let me be clear, I HAVE NO AGENDA AGAINST BROOKSTONE LAW.
Though you are correct that there are these sort of unethical mass marketing tactics out there, I think it is fair to mention that NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN FROM BROOKSTONE, but are from companies that have already clearly been identified as having nothing to do with even the attorney on record:
.
Court Transcript: http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.co…
.
As I am sure you already know (?), this would lead to the firm Kramer and Kaslow having to send out cease and desist letters to these companies that were fraudulently been marketing to people, which WAS NOT BROOKSTONE.
.
Krame and Kaslow: http://www.kramerkaslowpc.com/…
.
This is why I have actually exposed these companies on my blog, simply because they have been causing confusion in the market place, such as your article is now doing. At any rate, I have issued a public warning on my blog at the following link:
.
http://www.piggybankblog.com/c…
.
Steve, these MAIL OUTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BROOKSTONE LAW GROUP. Though I appreciate that you and I have buried the hatchet, and that we have maybe started a future friendship between our blogs, I have to advise you that your constant false allegations towards Brookstone are discouraging. This is because you are doing damage to the name of the law firm that is representing me, and in retrospect doing damage to my lawsuit.
.
Therefore, please see the back and front of these mail outs, so you can clearly see that it was MESA LAW GROUP and not Brookstone:
.
Piggybankblog.com link: http://www.piggybankblog.com/2…
.
With that being said, I am not sure what beef you have with Brookstone, or the people that work there, but I fear you might be poking a tiger in a cage (Brookstone), if you keep turning them into a victim, such as your article and comments tend to do here at your blog. It would be different if this was the first article that you had ever written about them, but it is not. This is why I am certain it is only going to appear that you have it out for them, if you do not just leave them alone. Considering all the damage that you have done to them with these kind of false allegations, it is highly suggested that you just leave their name out of your articles in the future. This is because I think you owe that to them, since you have falsely accused them so many times. So please re-consider whatever agenda it is that you might have against Brookstone, because it is not fair to them, but ultimately it is not fair to my lawsuit either. This is because it was these kind of damaging misrepresentation of facts, which ruined the credibility of the firm that was representing me in the previous lawsuit I had.
.
In conclusion, I am respectfully requesting that you please correct these mistakes in this article, but that you also maybe consider writing your next article about some of the nice things Brookstone has done, such as they have represented some people with disabilities for absolutely no charge.
.
Respectfully,
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
Though you are correct that there are these sort of unethical mass marketing tactics out there, I think it is fair to mention that NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN FROM BROOKSTONE, but are from companies that have already clearly been identified as having nothing to do with even the attorney on record:
.
Court Transcript: http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/transcript.pdf
.
As I am sure you already know (?), this would lead to the firm Kramer and Kaslow having to send out cease and desist letters to these companies that were fraudulently been marketing to people, which WAS NOT BROOKSTONE.
.
Krame and Kaslow: http://www.kramerkaslowpc.com/news.html
.
This is why I have actually exposed these companies on my blog, simply because they have been causing confusion in the market place, such as your article is now doing. At any rate, I have issued a public warning on my blog at the following link:
.
http://www.piggybankblog.com/category/warning-not-affiliated-with-us/
.
Steve, these MAIL OUTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BROOKSTONE LAW GROUP. Though I appreciate that you and I have buried the hatchet, and that we have maybe started a future friendship between our blogs, I have to advise you that your constant false allegations towards Brookstone are discouraging. This is because you are doing damage to the name of the law firm that is representing me, and in retrospect doing damage to my lawsuit.
.
Therefore, please see the back and front of these mail outs, so you can clearly see that it was MESA LAW GROUP and not Brookstone:
.
Piggybankblog.com link: http://www.piggybankblog.com/2000/01/01/imposters/
.
With that being said, I am not sure what beef you have with Brookstone, or the people that work there, but I fear you might be poking a tiger in a cage (Brookstone), if you keep turning them into a victim, such as your article and comments tend to do here at your blog. It would be different if this was the first article that you had ever written about them, but it is not. This is why I am certain it is only going to appear that you have it out for them, if you do not just leave them alone. Considering all the damage that you have done to them with these kind of false allegations, it is highly suggested that you just leave their name out of your articles in the future. This is because I think you owe that to them, since you have falsely accused them so many times. So please re-consider whatever agenda it is that you might have against Brookstone, because it is not fair to them, but ultimately it is not fair to my lawsuit either. This is because it was these kind of damaging misrepresentation of facts, which ruined the credibility of the firm that was representing me in the previous lawsuit I had.
.
In conclusion, I am respectfully requesting that you please correct these mistakes in this article, but that you also maybe consider writing your next article about some of the nice things Brookstone has done, such as they have represented some people with disabilities for absolutely no charge.
.
Respectfully,
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
I have no axe to grind with Brookstone. I did not hunt down the mailer, it was sent to me. I simply reported on what it appeared the facts were. If you dispute any of the facts I’ve reported I’m happy to talk about them specifically.
A search did not locate another source which reported on the majority of the cases in the mailer. If you can find one, let me know. Here is what I found when I searched.
What in my report was false?
The story also mentioned Hartford Dunn, and Kramer & Kaslow. This article was not about Brookstone, it is about the mailer.
John, I get the fact that your most pressing issue is that you don’t want anything to “damage” your lawsuit. But this piece had nothing to do with Brookstone or your suit. I did not name Brookstone as the responsible party.
What I said was that when you entered the cases on the mailer into a search it came up with Brookstone Law press releases and I linked to the one I saw. Here it is again.
Let me be clear, I HAVE NO AGENDA AGAINST BROOKSTONE LAW.
I see. I have to admit, I do get a little confused with the format of your site, as I am not used to it. For example, this response you made did not come to my email, but I had to scroll up to find it. So I might be reading one place, while I am posting at another.
.
JW
John,Do you think the soon to be announced settlement between the government and banks will impact mass joinder cases?See Obama officials, attorneys general closer to possible deal with banks in foreclosure mess.”Senior Obama administration officials, newly joined by state attorneys general, were on the brink Thursday of finalizing major elements of a possible settlement with large U.S. banks accused of flawed and fraudulent foreclosure practices, sources familiar with the discussions said.” – Source
John,
Previously forgot to ask. Do you have some concern that the mailer above appears to feature your case, Wright v Bank of America as the one that appears most indicated for the recipient with a *X?
Who do you think is recruiting new participants in your lawsuit with this mailer?
I have absolute concerns Steve. This is because people will get angry at me, if these places screw up, which I have nothing to do with, just like Brookstone has nothing to do with them. Certainly, I do not want to think that anyone is being victimized, while my name is being used, so it really bothers me a lot. This is because all we have at the end of the day is our name, and why I have actually went after them in protest. That is why in retrospect, I am kind of happy that you did write this article, so that I can get the word out.
.
Here is one of the more recent ones I went after:
.
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2003/09/09/masslitalliance-com/
.
A lot of times people get “finder’s fees,” so they will set up companies to just do just that. I of course never asked for a finder’s fee, because I realized that it could compromise the integrity of my case, which is the most important thing to me. Nevertheless, I think they do it because it is a name that people might recognize immediately. For example, some of my supporters fell for it. Then after the firm comes up with some reason for why the person cannot be in that lawsuit, they will just simply create a new lawsuit for them to be in. They basically hijacked the people from a popular lawsuit, simply because they do not have to do much marketing because it has already been done. Let’s face it, as funny as it sounds, lawsuits like this do have to be marketed, which is why a law firm like Brookstone will charge a retainer. Though I am absolutely sure that there is an element of it that is for the money, such any business is about, I do believe that it is very expensive to go up against the largest bank in the world.
.
However, there is an acceptable classy way to market a lawsuit vs. a cheesy deceptive way to market it, such as these were here. I of course do my own marketing, as far as letting people know about it, while I spend my own money on it. This is part of the reason why they did not make me pay the retainer the second time around. They also felt sorry for me too.
.
Even considering that I am pissed off at the deceptive marketing that was used to maybe trick these people, who wanted to be fighting alongside me, my first and foremost concern is for the homeowner. So I do not want to shut them down because people would lose their money. I rather just make sure that it does not happen anymore, but also make sure they are planning on representing these people.
.
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING THE LARGEST BANK IN THE WORLD!
.
Respectfully,
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
John,
So today I published an article that showed the amount of “finder fee” that is being paid out.
The affiliates get to set or adjust the price but there is retail pricing for mass joinder suits being sold. According to the documents I published, an affiliate that charges a $7,000 retainer gets $4,750 kicked back. That’s a hell of a finders fee.
I’m still curious who you think sent out the mailer that featured your case. Is anyone other than Brookstone Law selling entrance to your case? To be clear, I’m not pointing the finger at Brookstone Law.
I guess I’m perplexed at what reasonable explanation could there be why your case is on a mailer even you called an “unethical mass mailing.”
I’m not trying to name anyone, I’m trying to solve the mystery of the mailer and I sure could use your help to get to the bottom of it.
Can you help me?
Steve
I think I forgot to answer your main question. I think it is “Mesa Law Group, if I am looking at the correct one.
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
OK, I went and took a look at Mesa Law and I don’t think so and here is why. The majority of the cases listed on the mailer at the top of the article, were filed by Kramer & Kaslow. Your case is the odd ball on the mailer.
Here is the issue that trips me up.
1. You said on your site “Please be advised that Brookstone Law Firm is the only Authorized Distributor” of Wright v Bank of America. – Source. I found that while I was checking out the Mesa thing. So I read that as no other firm can sell entrance into your case.
2. The press release above said that BL was contracted to aggregate clients into the Kramer & Kaslow cases listed on your card. – Source. So there is some relationship between K2 and BL.
3. Kramer & Kaslow sent out a somewhat similar mailer using the Form 1012 approach.
From that a logical conclusion is if BL is the only distributor of Wright v BoA and “has contracted to aggregate members for other suits” then there is a high degree of probability that BL may have a relationship to the mailer. (So you can see that my article was founded in logic, not an agenda.)
– or –
The mailer is a total fraud only intended to screw consumers by putting them in touch with another entity not authorized to represent your case.
– or –
K2 sent out the mailer and is authorized by BL to sell entrance into your case, even though you said BL is the only authorized distributor. (The least logical answer since you already said they are not authorized.)
Please let me know if my logic was flawed. Together we can solve the mystery.
Here you go Vito: This is the link I got from Steve when he asked me a
question. There is this huge dialog between me and him on his site, but
this is the last one that I responded to below:
To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/
John,
Is this true? “Brookstone told me that the Wright vs. bank of america case and the ronald case are going to be combined”
See this comment that said that.
Steve
John,
Just credited you with the stimulus of this post and linked to you in “Mass Joinder & Mass Litigation Affiliate and Marketing Information” so we can put all the material in one place.
I did make one interesting observation, the Form 1012 mailer I showed at the top of this article was sent long after after Kramer sent the C&D letters. That leads me to believe it was not one of those firms.
Anyway, please feel free to direct anyone you may know that runs into any mass joinder marketing to post a comment over there on “Mass Joinder & Mass Litigation Affiliate and Marketing Information“.
John,
I think it would be great to work on this together and solve the mystery. There are so many marketing pieces and so much dubious information flowing from marketing reps it is hard to tell what’s up.
If we put BL and K2 aside, let’s just start from scratch. The next tip I get I’ll post it without any background work and we can solve it together.
Do you live anywhere near Newport Beach where the mailer was sent from?
Steve
John,
Just posted the full declaration of Torchia in the infighting that is going on with Stein and others. Turns out he says Brookstone did send out the Form 1012 mailers for a bit. What is really interesting in his declaration is how close it appears you came to not having your case filed by Brookstone at all. Looks like Stein was supposed to be your guy.
Please don’t read anything into my tone on this comment. I’m simply trying to update the record with new information.
I think you will personally be very interested in the inside story. You can read the new article with Torchia’s declaration here.
Stein was the guy that was paid to file your suit and it changed only at the last minute.
Even though claims were made the mailer did not come from Brookstone, a reader who recently received one, and sent it in, says they called the number and was then connected to a Brookstone representative.
See the update on the article for the new scanned mailer. I emailed Vito six hours ago for an explanation why the new mailer would lead to Brookstone and I have not heard back yet.
You were the one that said the first 1012 mailer I published was an unethical mailer, not me. Check your own previous comment to see why you called these type of mailers
I do have a wide latitude on free speech as evidenced by all the false and untrue postings you have made about me on this site and yours. I never removed your unfair and untrue comments.
I’m not sure what you are referring to as abuse though. What on this article is abusive?
What am I not being fair about?
Be specific.
What question?
Misdirection. What does that have to do with the mailer? The video is about an internet issue that has been seen by millions and posted with the consent of her parents, who are actually in it. The second video addresses the issue.So what was your question about the terms?And the description under the video describes why it is there. You forgot to put it into context.”When you respond in the wrong way with attacks and flames it only makes you look worse and convinces people you have something to hide or deflect. You can see how this YouTube video makes the girl and her father appear, not all that great. (By the way, if you want to see the whole story of this event with the before and after video and are willing to hear some curse words, click here.)Then you wind up with responses like the one below and flame wars ensues, the issue creates a life of it’s own, more people find it and loads of people jump in.”
Already answered.
What would an IP address you traced have to do with me? Traced an IP from what room? What’s a room?
One more thing about the video. It was and is news. Check the Smoking Gun that posted it just three days ago. Or how about ABC News that just published information about it?Oh yes, then there is this link on ABC News and Channel 13 in central Florida as well.
What does that have to do with the mailer?
Why do I need to take the mailer down?
I am not aware of any slander on this thread. I think you may be talking about this other post where you and some commenter were going at each other. I already answered that over there.
FYI. I’m turning the computer off for the night so don’t be surprised when you don’t hear back from me.
2 Things-
I said I hope they find out what you are getting for promoting their lawsuit & then put you in jail. Since I dont know WHAT you are getting, I can not say HOW they would do that.
#2- You say you are going to sue Steve here https://getoutofdebt.org/24788/brookstone-law-and-damian-kutzner-an-interesting-combination#comment-173645589
For “potential donation injury” & then go on that because of what i wrote someone had JUST RECANTED their donation! Amazing!… Since earlier you claimed only 4 donations ever, totalling less than $400 in 3 years-
So- I ask you once again John, Do you feel nothing- No responsibility whatever to the thousands who gave ULG their last dollar, trusted ULG, AT YOUR WORD, and then lost their homes?
John- Look up…. Didnt YOU say this?….
“Though you are correct that there are these sort of unethical mass marketing tactics out there, I think it is fair to mention that NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN FROM BROOKSTONE, but are from companies that have already clearly been identified as having nothing to do with even the attorney on record:”
And…
“Steve, these MAIL OUTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BROOKSTONE LAW GROUP. ”
Did you mis speak? Or were you lying? Just admit you’re wrong John.
Or, go back to misdirection & post old news of complaints against Steve…. Why in the world would you attack THIS site if you’re all about helping people John?
Anonymous, some of the savvy around here have read this partial transcript from the Ronald v B of A case: (Courtesy of John Wright who admits he has not slept for days)
http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.co…
Anonymous, some of the savvy around here have read this partial transcript from the Ronald v B of A case: (Courtesy of John Wright who admits he has not slept for days)
http://www.johnwrightvsbofa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/transcript.pdf
I agree. Second opinions are always a good idea.
This form is for a company named Brookstone Law, based in Newport Beach, CA.
They are currently involved in a series of cases, including Paul Ronald v. Bank of America and Wright v. Bank of America.
The savvy among us will actually take the time to read the court transcripts so far of these cases (published online), and decide for themselves if the cases have merit, and whether or not it would be a good idea to see if you are eligible to join the case as a Plaintiff.
As of 03/02/11 both the Ronald and Wright cases have survived appeal to Federal Court, and a demurrer by the defendant (Bank of America)– meaning, that the judge in the case believes that the filing of the case is not baseless or frivolous, and that if BofA loses, they aren’t going to have much recourse on appeal.
The case involves Plaintiffs who were put into shady loans by Countrywide (later acquired by Bank of America), who were given false information -of which they relied on- by those banks, and also is about Bank of America’s current willful and malicious activities around intentional abuse of the TARP money it recieved, as well as issues related to MERS.
But even more, (or mostly) its about the damage that BofA is currently causing to homeowners via ongoing illegal business practices/activities, of which I happened to record them openly admitting to on tape.
This isn’t a baseless scam.
Brookstone Law will only take your case after due dilligence, and if it turns out that you qualify- yes, they will request a retainer to help in the legal costs of fighting the case and getting justice for all of the homeowners who have been ripped off.
This form is for a company named Brookstone Law, based in Newport Beach, CA.
They are currently involved in a series of cases, including Paul Ronald v. Bank of America and Wright v. Bank of America.
The savvy among us will actually take the time to read the court transcripts so far of these cases (published online), and decide for themselves if the cases have merit, and whether or not it would be a good idea to see if you are eligible to join the case as a Plaintiff.
As of 03/02/11 both the Ronald and Wright cases have survived appeal to Federal Court, and a demurrer by the defendant (Bank of America)– meaning, that the judge in the case believes that the filing of the case is not baseless or frivolous, and that if BofA loses, they aren’t going to have much recourse on appeal.
The case involves Plaintiffs who were put into shady loans by Countrywide (later acquired by Bank of America), who were given false information -of which they relied on- by those banks, and also is about Bank of America’s current willful and malicious activities around intentional abuse of the TARP money it recieved, as well as issues related to MERS.
But even more, (or mostly) its about the damage that BofA is currently causing to homeowners via ongoing illegal business practices/activities, of which I happened to record them openly admitting to on tape.
This isn’t a baseless scam.
Brookstone Law will only take your case after due dilligence, and if it turns out that you qualify- yes, they will request a retainer to help in the legal costs of fighting the case and getting justice for all of the homeowners who have been ripped off.
I agree. Second opinions are always a good idea.
You’re an angry little man, aren’t ya?
Yawn…. I’ll re engage when you answer the questions… Enjoy stumping for Brookstone.
Later.
See my response below to the links you posted. You already know they are untrue, and have known for some time, and yet you continue to post them. Why? You know they are factually untrue and yet continue to spread them. Hum, and what is the definition of libel?
A month ago I answered your false accusations on those links and yet you continue to post them, repeatedly.
See my previous response.
“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. [Note: ScamChecker later pulled that page because it was untrue.]
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.”
You claim you are abused on the site by one commenter but in fact you appear to be the biggest abuser of all. What’s with the reporting of information that has already been proven to you by me as not factual?
I’ll tell you why I have not removed the comment in question yet, because John Wright can’t answer a simple question I asked about it. Instead you launch off into threats, tirades, lawsuits, protests, and every other crazy sidetrack other than just answering the simple question.
John, in my addressing the comment that you claim was abusive I asked you the following information, which none of your subsequent posts answered.
“In reviewing the comment I think you are upset about it was ” I REALLY want to know what he is getting from Torch for doing all that BS marketing. I hope he gets found out (FBI are you listening?) and goes to prison.” Is that the remark you are claiming is abuse? How is that remark abusive?”
– and –
“What about the false accusations you made against that same commenter and against me? How do I deal with those?”
What is your answer to those questions so we can deal with the original issue at hand.
First off, what? To be honest John, you’ve been posting so many comments I stopped reading them.
Interesting turn of events with SML, Apex, Stein and Steins attack against Brookstone. I spent a bunch of time reading the motion to boot stein off co-counsel. Posted it at Mass Joinder Case Infighting Worse Than High School. Co-Counsel Mitchell Stein Gets the Boot.
“if it turns out that you qualify- yes, they will request a retainer to help in the legal costs of fighting the case and getting justice for all of the homeowners who have been ripped off.”
Why all the marketing then? Why have sales companies & “furnish leads”?
So is the retainer to “help in the legal costs” or the marketing & profit? How much of the retainer is paid to the sales company?
” which I told you I did not promote”
Funny- On this page, http://www.piggybankblog.com/2010/09/03/bofa-taped-evidenc/ Dorothy asks “Where are those links that used to point to ULG?”
Of course, now there are links to Brookstone.
Lies
I was gonna drop it… but, where, exactly did Steve say THAT?
Annnd, you’re just posting links ’cause you wanna? It says “JOIN MY LAWSUIT”- not Brookstone Law.
“Promote”: To contribute to the progress or growth of;
Let me say this, because it is the last time I will address you:
John- I believe you that you are not being paid by Brookstone to promote their lawsuit- but you certainly are promoting it.
I don’t believe you see the potential harm that supporting them may do to those that BUY their service- Just as I don’t think you see the harm it did when so many lost with their previous company ULG.
I have not been on your blog- or emailed you- ever.
Honestly, I wish you well in your lawsuit against BoA.
John, I wish you could understand that it appears that you are promoting BSL & it appeared that you were promoting ULG- By promoting your lawsuit, you, in turn, are promoting these companies. When you look at the facts surrounding what happened, the BBB complaints (100’s for a law firm????!!!), the attorney being disbarred, the FTC suits & all the clients who lost with them, added up- it looked as if you HAD to benefiting somehow if you were still promoting them. What else would one think?… But, I believe youre not. I believe you are sincerely, extremely passionate about your case. And I hope you succeed. And, I hope anyone who shells out $8,000 to join this lawsuit gets to keep their homes & doesn’t lose their money this time! AND, for the people you’ve helped, I believe you should be recognized- But you need to be careful with ANY promotion of these guys- If it all goes south again, how will you feel then?
So, I hope we can bury the hatchet here, once and for all. I think you need to get some some sleep- like a weeks worth… Best of luck.
My bad- You SAID i posted on your blog. Ive certainly been to see your website John.
John Get some sleep- for real man.
Im OK with you. Good Luck for real- Again, I hope it works out.
John,
If you are about getting the facts straight then taking a few minutes to do your research would be helpful. I believe the scamchecker page is gone now. They pulled it because it was untrue. The debt management guys thing was based on those untrue statements so that’s in the same boat. I believe the complaintsboard thing I’ve addressed in the comments there.
And for your information I do that about those pages here in the site and I’ve pointed that out to you before. You knew I’ve stated categorically they are they are not true yet you continue to post them. Should I feel abused as you claim to be?
You are a very odd duck.
So your logic is you have a beef with a commenter named ComplianceSlave, not me, and your response is to attack me? That is crazy and makes no sense.
You complain of screen names but you post under a screen name yourself, piggybankblog. Again, your outrage makes no sense.
I’ll be happy to try. What is the issue you are trying to address? Is it that you are behind, looking for modification, feel your note is defective? What?
Would somebody please come forward and tell us in plain black and white English what alternatives do we consumers have, other than dealing directly with the Banks Home Retention Departments ???
Would somebody please come forward and tell us in plain black and white English what alternatives do we consumers have, other than dealing directly with the Banks Home Retention Departments ???
I’ll be happy to try. What is the issue you are trying to address? Is it that you are behind, looking for modification, feel your note is defective? What?
I would anticipate they would try to call you back to sell you on the program. And yes, if you call a toll-free number they can capture your phone number even if you have it blocked.
Well, however you reach out to them, if you are willing to give us an update on your experience, please do.
i have read plenty of reviews and i am not willing to call but try and discuss over internet because the caller reviews are at around 90% bad instead of good.
many callers have mentioned these are phone numbers to trick people who are already in debt and somehow keep there number on file and call back with several unwanted calls.
Close. The mailer appears to direct homeowners that receive it to participate in some recently filed lawsuits against mortgage lenders. Other have reported they have been solicited to pay $895 for document review and $5,000 more to participate. See this story.
How about giving them a call and listening to the pitch associated with your mailer and then reporting back here with an update. I’d be grateful to hear back from you on your impressions after calling.
i wonder if this is to (defraud homeowners into filing predatory lending lawsuits)
i wonder if this is to (defraud homeowners into filing predatory lending lawsuits)
Close. The mailer appears to direct homeowners that receive it to participate in some recently filed lawsuits against mortgage lenders. Other have reported they have been solicited to pay $895 for document review and $5,000 more to participate. See this story.How about giving them a call and listening to the pitch associated with your mailer and then reporting back here with an update. I’d be grateful to hear back from you on your impressions after calling.
Before I respond. What do you think the form is offering?
I’m curious what the casual impression is of it and if it leads people to have an incorrect impression.
On the form that i have received which is exactly as the one above and says Form 1-12-R litigation notification i am confused if i should even send it back it only says the sender is Litigation Department Official Business? Doesn’t sound so trustworthy whatsoever.
–any responses pls comment back.thnks.
On the form that i have received which is exactly as the one above and says Form 1-12-R litigation notification i am confused if i should even send it back it only says the sender is Litigation Department Official Business? Doesn’t sound so trustworthy whatsoever.
–any responses pls comment back.thnks.
Before I respond. What do you think the form is offering?
I’m curious what the casual impression is of it and if it leads people to have an incorrect impression.
i have read plenty of reviews and i am not willing to call but try and discuss over internet because the caller reviews are at around 90% bad instead of good.
many callers have mentioned these are phone numbers to trick people who are already in debt and somehow keep there number on file and call back with several unwanted calls.
I would anticipate they would try to call you back to sell you on the program. And yes, if you call a toll-free number they can capture your phone number even if you have it blocked.
Well, however you reach out to them, if you are willing to give us an update on your experience, please do.
Krista,
The best way to get files to me is through the confidential tip form.
Steve
Steve, I agree that it odd. My initial thought was that Brookstone Law was posturing itself to be the new HUB firm. In addition to the document on Hartford Dunn’s website, Brookstone Law wrote or published the PR Release “Philip A. Kramer, Esq. Uncovers Non-Attorneys Acting as Attorneys Nationwide Claiming to be Affiliated with Law Offices of Kramer & Kaslow”:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/…
The Press Release was immediately posted on John Wright’s Piggy Bank Blog Website:
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2…
John Wright also posted Kramer & Kaslow’s warning on this discussion thread on Loansafe.org:
http://www.loansafe.org/forum/…
If you will shoot me an email, I’ll shoot you back some documents including an employment ad I found on the net from Brookstone Law. I printed it as a pdf:
Needed: Excellent Consumer Client Intake for
Law Firm (Newport Beach)
We are currently part of the largest litigation joinder in U.S. Class Action History!
Develop your skills in an exciting, fast paced office environment. We want self motivated, hard
working representatives that are able to accurately analyze each client’s needs efficiently, keep the
client’s best interest in mind, and assist each client through the attorney-client process, while
maintaining a professional attitude. We are looking for individuals with strong people skills and
telephone etiquette. Those applying must be dedicated to the client’s well-being and desire to help
client reach financial success.
*We have an aggressive lead campaign with multiple lead sources.
*Strong phone skills and ability to accurately pre-screen clients needs.
*Continuous training and learning in an exciting field and growing business.
*Provide multiple services for clients.
*Compensation: base salary plus commission.
*B2B inside sales for multiple services.
*Once you have established you are one of our elite closers with management ability, you may be
chosen to lead a team.
* Both retail and wholesale opportunity.
http://www.brookstone-law.com/…
http://www.brookstone-law.com/…
http://www.brookstone-law.com/…
Be sure to clink on those pdf links and save the copies of the images of the Brookstone law office.
Pay attention to B2B and retail/wholesale opportunity.
As to Kramer & Kaslow, I do have documentation on their affiliate training, commission schedule, payment instructions, etc that I printed when I started researching the issue. Because websites get changed with their stories, I recommend that you preserve a record of every website you visit and the documents you procure from each. I also keep records on forum discussion threads.
Thanks,
Krista Railey
Steve, I agree that it odd. My initial thought was that Brookstone Law was posturing itself to be the new HUB firm. In addition to the document on Hartford Dunn’s website, Brookstone Law wrote or published the PR Release “Philip A. Kramer, Esq. Uncovers Non-Attorneys Acting as Attorneys Nationwide Claiming to be Affiliated with Law Offices of Kramer & Kaslow”:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20110210/bs_prweb/prweb8128061_13
The Press Release was immediately posted on John Wright’s Piggy Bank Blog Website:
http://www.piggybankblog.com/2009/09/09/warning-kramer-stein-law-is-not-authorized-by-us/
John Wright also posted Kramer & Kaslow’s warning on this discussion thread on Loansafe.org:
http://www.loansafe.org/forum/stop-foreclosure-tell-us-your-story/36967-k2-law-firm-mass-joinder-lawsuit-vs-bofa-3.html
If you will shoot me an email, I’ll shoot you back some documents including an employment ad I found on the net from Brookstone Law. I printed it as a pdf:
Needed: Excellent Consumer Client Intake for
Law Firm (Newport Beach)
We are currently part of the largest litigation joinder in U.S. Class Action History!
Develop your skills in an exciting, fast paced office environment. We want self motivated, hard
working representatives that are able to accurately analyze each client’s needs efficiently, keep the
client’s best interest in mind, and assist each client through the attorney-client process, while
maintaining a professional attitude. We are looking for individuals with strong people skills and
telephone etiquette. Those applying must be dedicated to the client’s well-being and desire to help
client reach financial success.
*We have an aggressive lead campaign with multiple lead sources.
*Strong phone skills and ability to accurately pre-screen clients needs.
*Continuous training and learning in an exciting field and growing business.
*Provide multiple services for clients.
*Compensation: base salary plus commission.
*B2B inside sales for multiple services.
*Once you have established you are one of our elite closers with management ability, you may be
chosen to lead a team.
* Both retail and wholesale opportunity.
http://www.brookstone-law.com/images/craigslist_pics/image001.jpg
http://www.brookstone-law.com/images/craigslist_pics/image002.jpg
http://www.brookstone-law.com/images/craigslist_pics/image003.jpg
Be sure to clink on those pdf links and save the copies of the images of the Brookstone law office.
Pay attention to B2B and retail/wholesale opportunity.
As to Kramer & Kaslow, I do have documentation on their affiliate training, commission schedule, payment instructions, etc that I printed when I started researching the issue. Because websites get changed with their stories, I recommend that you preserve a record of every website you visit and the documents you procure from each. I also keep records on forum discussion threads.
Thanks,
Krista Railey
Krista,
The best way to get files to me is through the confidential tip form.
Steve
Krista,
Good catch. I’d missed the footer on the Hartford Dunn PDF. Just an observation but that document says it comes from Brookstone Law yet the only mention of Brookstone Law is in the footer and not as one of the recommended firms. I just find that observation unusual. Why would one law firm emanate communication which refers a bunch of others?
Any thoughts?
Steve, great work. Don’t forget to click on the pdf document on the Hartford Dunn website. It is a document titled “Mortgage Litigation Affiliate Practice”. Here is a link to the document:
http://hartforddunn.com/pdfs/H…
Note the disclaimer on the bottom:
“This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a “Of Counsel” working relationship, accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information.”
The document also says:
“Getting Started in the Hartford Dunn, LLP Affiliate Network:
Request a Hartford Dunn, LLP Agreement
Fill out, sign and send back the agreement
We will open up an online CRM account
Start submitting your business today
We will handle everything else. It is that easy!”
The original Kramer-kaslow.com site that posted the consumer warning show Hartford Dunn as an approved National Intake firm (along with Mass Litigation Alliance). The main page of that website also showed Brookstone Law, Matt Davis, and Mass Litigation Alliance as approved Of Counsel firms.
My name is Krista Railey, and I know that if you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day all you have is a pig wearing lipstick.
Thank you,
Krista Railey
Steve, great work. Don’t forget to click on the pdf document on the Hartford Dunn website. It is a document titled “Mortgage Litigation Affiliate Practice”. Here is a link to the document:
http://hartforddunn.com/pdfs/Hartford_Dunn.pdf
Note the disclaimer on the bottom:
“This communication emanates from the Law Firm of Brookstone Law. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011. Brookstone Law has licensed these materials from Mr. Riley and has a “Of Counsel” working relationship, accordingly only Brookstone Law and Mr. Riley is authorized to disseminate the foregoing information.”
The document also says:
“Getting Started in the Hartford Dunn, LLP Affiliate Network:
Request a Hartford Dunn, LLP Agreement
Fill out, sign and send back the agreement
We will open up an online CRM account
Start submitting your business today
We will handle everything else. It is that easy!”
The original Kramer-kaslow.com site that posted the consumer warning show Hartford Dunn as an approved National Intake firm (along with Mass Litigation Alliance). The main page of that website also showed Brookstone Law, Matt Davis, and Mass Litigation Alliance as approved Of Counsel firms.
My name is Krista Railey, and I know that if you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day all you have is a pig wearing lipstick.
Thank you,
Krista Railey
Krista,Good catch. I’d missed the footer on the Hartford Dunn PDF. Just an observation but that document says it comes from Brookstone Law yet the only mention of Brookstone Law is in the footer and not as one of the recommended firms. I just find that observation unusual. Why would one law firm emanate communication which refers a bunch of others?Any thoughts?