fbpx

Vito Torchia Jr. of Brookstone Law is My Hero Today for Laying Out the Mass Joinder History

by

I’ve written before about Brookstone Law and it’s managing lawyer, Vito Torchia, Jr. Click here for past articles.

Some of those article have touch off firestorms and threats to sue me and this site. But I do always try to be fair and today I am declaring Vito Torchia, Jr. day on the GetOutOfDebt.org site. Why would I do that?

Well in the recent infighting between the most prominent lawyers in mass joinder case filings, it’s gotten really nasty, see this.

In a flurry of exchanges going back and forth one of the recent filings contains a lengthy statement that lays out the entire Brookstone Law involvement in this polluted world of mass joinder cases. I really appreciate Torchia’s honesty and directness in which he lays it all out in his declaration below.

And now we know how things really unfolded.

If you have a couple of hours to kill, here is the full motion for you to read.

By the way, the declaration below seems to support my original claim that Brookstone Law did participate in sending out a Form 1012-R mailer as I postulated in my original article on the mailer.

Sincerely,


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.

Damon Day - Pro Debt Coach

Declaration by Vito Torchia, Jr.

I, Vito Torchia, Jr., declare:

  1. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, except as to those matters based on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge, except as to the matters set forth based on information and belief.
  2. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in California and United States District Court, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California.
  3. I have read the Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Remove Mitchell J. Stein as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and all related Declarations, Exhibits and documents filed concurrently therewith (collectively, the “Opposition”).
  4. I categorically reject Mitchell J. Stein’s (“Stein’s”) unsupported and unsupportable characterization of Brookstone as a “boiler room.” I further reject each and every allegation of wrongdoing. In addition to California, I am also admitted to practice law in New York and Florida. My record in each of these jurisdictions is untarnished and no complaints or disciplinary actions have been taken against me.I further observe that Stein has submitted no documentary evidence for any of his allegations – nor could he, because it does not exist. Instead, he relied upon anonymous hearsay, the purported experiences of one individual and a vivid imagination.
  5. In fact, as Stein is well aware, on March 28, 2011, Brookstone filed a law suit on the very issue that Stein put before this Court regarding anonymous defamatory statements online and as set forth as Exhibit “B” in the Opposition. The law suit alleges that Gary Digirolamo(“Digirolamo”)and approximately 9 others are responsible for these defamatory online blogs. A true and correct copy of this law suit is hereto attached as Exhibit “A.”
  6. Astonishingly, Stein was my lawyer and Brookstone’s lawyer with a fiduciary duty to defend us in the very matter he now uses as a sword against us, in violation of his fundamental duties as a lawyer.
  7. Even more astonishing, Stein is so angry at Brookstone, Kenin M. Spivak (“Spivak”) and me that he has turned the world on its head: last year, Brookstone entered into an informal partnership with Stein and attorney Phil Kramer (“Kramer”) to develop a mass joinder business, including web sites, client support services and client screening. Brookstone has never entered into an arrangement with Spivak, Bridget Jones, Christopher Tomaszewski, SML or Apex (collectively, the “Moving Parties”) pertaining to all or any portion of the foregoing activities.
  8. On or around November 2, 2009, I formed Brookstone Law, a California professional corporation (“Brookstone”). I am the managing attorney of Brookstone and at all times since formation to the present I have owned and currently own 100% of Brookstone. No individual or entity has any right or option to acquire any portion of my ownership in Brookstone.
  9. Contrary to Stein’s unsupported and unsupportable allegations, neither Kenin M. Spivak (“Spivak”) nor any Moving Party, nor anyone else (for that matter) has any financial interest or control in Brookstone, nor has there ever been any discussions or contemplations to that effect.
  10. The most brazen part of the Opposition is that since November, 2010, and continuously until sometime last month, Stein has been counsel to both myself and Brookstone on various matters and specifically including the Complaint for Fraudulent Conveyance against Brookstone Law, P.C. and Vito Torchia, Jr., and Preliminary Injunction issued against Brookstone Law, P.C. and Vito Torchia, Jr., attached as Exhibits “D” and “E,” respectively, to Plaintiffs’ Request For Judicial Notice filed concurrently with the Opposition.
  11. Stein now tries to assassinate my character and Brookstone by raising allegations he knows to be false and for which he is or was my advocate and Brookstone’s advocate. In doing so, he violates too many rules of the California Rules of Professional Conduct and the Business & Professions Code to count – and gives great advantage to our adversaries.
  12. Stein is well aware that Brookstone is not the successor to United Law Group, and that no one involved with any of the allegations against United Law Group has anything to do with Brookstone. Stein is also aware that Brookstone is a creditor of the estate Untied Law Group in United Law Group’s bankruptcy matter. To try to insinuate anything different is, at the very least, disingenuous.
  13. For avoidance of any doubt, Brookstone and I waive no privileges with respect to Stein and expect and demand that he comply with his duties to myself and Brookstone.
  14. In addition to fully qualified attorneys, paralegals and other professional staff, Brookstone has a contractual relationship with a software and marketing company that gives Brookstone strong advantages in serving large numbers of individual clients. Among other competencies, we have web designers, writers, state-of-the-art billing and client relations software and a support team that interacts with our clients and lawyers to ensure the best possible communications and service for our clients.
  15. On or around October 12, 2010, I met with Digirolamo, a representative of the law firm Kramer & Kaslow. During this meeting I was told that Kramer had partnered with Stein on the Ronald v. Bank of America case currently pending in Los Angeles, California. It was proposed that Brookstone assist Kramer and Stein in qualifying clients for the Ronald matter and for additional mass joinder cases Kramer and Stein contemplated filing by the end of 2010 against numerous other banks in connection with a broader relationship to be defined.
  16. On or around October 28, 2010, Brookstone met with Stein and Kramer at Stein’s house in Calabasas, California. During the course of this meeting a preliminary “working agreement” was proposed detailing how Brookstone could work with Kramer and Stein on the Ronald case. In connection therewith, it was proposed that Brookstone would become involved in the cases as a co-counsel with responsibilities to be determined, but probably including, at the least, supporting research efforts and maintaining communications and relationships with clients.
  17. On or around November 1, 2010, Brookstone received an email from Kramer & Kaslow in furtherance of Brookstone working with Stein and Kramer. Attached to this email were copies of blank Stein Retention Agreements regarding the Ronald case and for contemplated matters against lenders JP Morgan Chase and GMAC. The initial Ronald Retention Agreement sent to Brookstone from Kramer & Kaslow for our review was a Stein-Spivak Retention Agreement. However, when Brookstone started to implement its processes, Brookstone was directed by Kramer &Kaslow to use a Stein Retention Agreement that did not include any mention of Spivak. Also attached were Kramer & Kaslow Retention Agreements regarding matters against lenders Citibank, IndyMac, Wells Fargo and a lender “catch-all” for additional lenders to be named later. Kramer instructed Brookstone to use these Retention Agreements for any client that qualified for the mass joinder actions.
  18. At no time did Kramer or Stein advise us that Spivak had any involvement in their partnership or in their arrangements with Brookstone. However, Stein told me about Spivak and told me that as co-lead counsel in the Ronald action his work on the Ronald case would benefit any clients who joined that action.
  19. As Brookstone was beginning its efforts, we expressed concerns to Kramer about his use of brokers. In particular, we were concerned about potential capping issues. Kramer assured us that that everything he was doing was perfectly legal and that did not violate the rules pertaining to capping. We then advised Kramer and Stein that for Brookstone to work with them, we would have to completely separate our efforts. As part of that separation, we wanted to open a separate joint banking account that would only be used by Brookstone and Kramer & Kaslow and through which Brookstone could be certain there would be no payments to or from brokers.
  20. On or around November 2, 2010, Kramer & Kaslow and Stein provided their respective logos and marketing materials to Brookstone so that Brookstone could use those materials on Brookstone’s website. Shortly after Brookstone posted the materials, a disagreement arose between Brookstone on the one hand, and Kramer and Stein on the other, as to the proper use of the materials and logos.
  21. On or around November 6, 2010, I met with Stein and Kramer to address the inconsistencies in their requirements and to address issues as to our working relationship. At this meeting, I reiterated my concerns about Kramer’s use of brokers and potential capping issues. Kramer again assured Brookstone that everything was perfectly legal. Stein added thatKramer was an excellent attorney and advised that Kramer would not be involved with activities that violate any law or rule.
  22. During this meeting Stein told me that Kramer would be having lunch with Spivak in two weeks to talk to Spivak about removing himself as counsel in the Ronald matter. To that time, I still had not met, spoken or otherwise communicated with Spivak. Stein assured me that Spivak would be off the Ronald case by the end of 2010 and that Kramer would be added as a plaintiffs’ counsel at that time.
  23. Shortly thereafter, Brookstone proposed to Stein that Brookstone work directly with Stein on the Ronald case since Brookstone is a fully capable law firm. Stein told us that everything regarding the Ronald case and all future matters involving joinder cases had to go through Kramer.
  24. On or around November 16, 2010, I contacted Stein with regard to the possibility that Brookstone and I (personally) would engage him as our lawyer in an adversary proceeding then pending against us in Bankruptcy Court in Orange County California (i.e., the matters for which Stein attacked us in the Opposition).
  25. On or around November 21, 2010, each of Brookstone and I engaged Stein to represent us in that matter and also with respect to other matters. At that time, Stein suggested that I also engage Spivak as an expert witness in the adversary proceeding and that Brookstone engage Spivak’s law firm, SML with respect to certain compliance matters. Stein also suggested that both Brookstone and I engage bankruptcy lawyer George Baugh (“Baugh”) to assist Stein in representing us in the Bankruptcy court proceeding. On that day, Stein phoned Spivak and we spoke on a speaker phone – the first time I had ever communicated with Spivak.
  26. Accordingly, on or around that date, I entered into a mutually executed written engagement agreement with Spivak and Brookstone entered into a written engagement agreement with SML, each with respect to the specific matters described above. At that time, I also entered into written agreements with Stein and Baugh. However, although I signed the written agreements on behalf of myself and Brookstone, neither Stein nor Baugh ever provided me with a fully executed copy of their respective engagement agreements. Every time I have asked Stein for a copy of the agreement he claims that he already has given me a copy. However, he has never provided and I have never received a copy.
  27. In connection with my and Brookstone’s engagement of Stein, Baugh, Spivak and SML Brookstone and I paid Stein, Baugh, Spivak and SML. The SML agreement called for the payment of an additional $10,000, which at the direction of Stein, Brookstone and I paid directly to Stein instead of SML. At the time, it was my understanding that Stein would pay the $10,000 to SML. I later learned that Stein had underpaid SML by $10,000. When I so advised Stein, he refused to forward any monies to SML. Brookstone then paid the additional amounts directly. Both SML and Spivak fully performed the services for which they were engaged and devoted the hours and professionalism to those matters equal to or in excess of that which I had expected.
  28. On November 23, 2010, during aphone conversation with Brookstone, Stein stated that he was done working exclusively with Kramer, but that he would continue on a non-exclusive basis. Stein told Brookstone that he wanted to position Brookstone to be the leader and authority on the banking/mortgage/foreclosure crisis. Stein told us that he wanted to work with Brookstone to file mass joinders in various states.He explained that he “understood” what Brookstone could do and wanted to “expand into two platforms.” He promised that he would bring in substantial money by the end of 2011. Stein said that he had “a field of vision” and that it was time to hire additional lawyers for me to manage. He also said that Stein and Brookstone would jointly file a class action Stein was in the middle of drafting.
  29. On or around the week of December 6, 2010, Stein, contradicting his previous reservations about working with Kramer, once again claimed to only want to work through Kramer.
  30. On or around December 9, I received an email from Digirolamo from his Kramer & Kaslow email confirming that Kramer & Kaslow was the only law firm Stein was going to work with. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct partial copy of this email.
  31. On or around December 12, 2010, Brookstone and Stein discussed working together on a new lawsuit against Bank of America.
  32. On December 30, 2010, I forwarded, via email, a draft copy of a complaint for that proposed lawsuit (the “Wright” action) to Stein for his review.
  33. On January 2, 2011, Stein acknowledged reading the Wright complaint and stated “I understand what you want to do, and can help you do it.” Stein and I arranged to meet the following day.
  34. When I met Stein on January 3, 2011, Kramer was present. At this meeting, Stein agreed to be lead counsel for the proposed Wright case, finalize the complaint and file it by January 7, 2011. Stein and Kramer informed me that they had filed five new mass joinder cases in Los Angeles against various banks. They both expressed an interest on Brookstone working on these matters with them. Once again I expressed a serious concern to Kramer about client origination issues. I explained that based upon what I had been reading on the Internet and feedback I had received from the market, it appeared that Kramer’s client solicitations might not comply with all ethical requirements.
  35. Both Kramer and Stein said that I did not understand the law. Kramer said that Kramer only pays “marketing fees.” Stein said that there will never be a problem. Stein asserted that attorney-client privilege would prevent discovery of any problems and that I should just get on board and “everything will be fine.”
  36. My refusal to proceed with brokers and other elements of the Kramer and Stein marketing plan soon led to a deterioration in our relationship.
  37. On or around January 5, 2011, Stein requested Brookstone to help create and host a new website for Stein to complement his www.dobielaw.org website with which Brookstone has never had any involvement. Stein’s new web address would be www.mjsteinassociates.comAlthough Brookstone agreed to host the site, Stein has always had full control over every aspect of this site from content to layout. Brookstone never puts any content or information on the site without Stein’s express direction. The contact phone numbers and emails all go directly to Stein at his private.ocibod@gmail.com email address. Stein (or someone at his direction who has nothing to do with Brookstone) posts all blog responses.
  38. On or around January 6, 2011, Stein informed me that the Wright complaint was not ready to be filed on Friday, January 7, 2011, but that it would be filed the following Friday, January 14, 2011. A true and correct copy of that email is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
  39. Around this time I became aware that various law firms were using mailers in order to market to potential clients. One of these mailers was called a FORM 1012-R.
  40. On or around January 12, 2011, I forwarded a copy of a FORM 1012-R to Stein, as Brookstone’s counsel and partner in mass joinders to obtain Stein approval of the mailer for use by Brookstone. I specifically asked that he respond if any changes were needed before Brookstone could use the mailer. I asked Stein to reply back to me as soon as possible. Stein never responded, leading me to believe he had no objections. I did not seek Spivak’s advice or the advice of anyone at SML.
  41. On or around January 16, 2011, Stein sent me a very hostile email, in which he claimed that he had an issue with Brookstone and with the Wright plaintiffs. When I pressed Stein for an explanation, he backtracked, dropped his accusations and said he had no concerns with Brookstone.
  42. On or around January 18, 2011, Brookstone expanded SML’s engagement to include a proposed acquisition of a law practice. That advice was unrelated to Wright or any of our mass joinder cases. Because of our relationship with Stein, Stein was copied on most communications pertaining to that engagement and was invited to participate in all conference calls, though he declined to do so.
  43. On January 21, 2011, Stein advised me that he would file the Wright complaint on Monday, January 24, 2011. A true and correct copy of that email is annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
  44. On January 23, 2011, Stein advised me that he would file the Wright complaint on Tuesday, January 25, 2011.
  45. On or around January 25, 2011, Stein again delayed the filing of the Wright complaint and told me that it would be filed on January 28, 2011.
  46. On or around January 7, 2011,Stein told Brookstone that he wanted a $20,000 retainer to file the Wright complaint. On January 28, 2011, I paid Stein the requested $20,000 as consideration for filing the Wright complaint.
  47. On or around January 30, 2011, Stein informed me that he did not want to file the Wright complaint. He told me that Kramer had agreed to file the Wright complaint. I objected to Kramer filing the Wright complaint because of the concerns I had previously expressed.
  48. On February 1, 2011, Stein and Mike Riley (“Riley”) came to Brookstone’s office in Newport Beach. Baugh also attended this meeting later on. At this meeting Stein and Riley met with Brookstone’s attorneys and staff. We discussed how we could all work together on mass joinders on a national level in certain key states. Stein suggested that we form a national law firm, based in California, called Hartford Dunn, LLP, in which Stein and some of his colleagues would partner up on mass joinders. Stein recommended that Baugh be the managing partner and that Erickson M. Davis be the other partner. Stein stated that he would be of counsel to Hartford Dunn in the beginning. It was discussed that because Riley was not a California attorney he could not be an initial partner. Stein then tasked me with forming Hartford Dunn.
  49. At this meetingStein recommended that Baugh file the Wright complaint. He also suggested that Brookstone take its name off the complaint, even though we had originated and qualified the clients and our lawyers were working closely with them. I declined to remove Brookstone from the complaint. Stein agreed to work behind the scenes and consult.
  50. Perhaps in anticipation of working together on Hartford Dunn, Stein suggested it would be a good idea to incorporate Stein’s logo into the slide show that played on monitors in our reception area and other locations in our office. Brookstone agreed and we added Stein’s logos in rotation with other material on our monitors.
  51. Shortly thereafter, Stein worked with Brookstone on the creation of www.hartforddunn.com. As with Stein’s other website, www.mjsteinassociates.com, Stein oversaw every aspect to this website from content to layout. Although Brookstone hosts this sight Brookstone has no role regarding posting any content or information on the site. Every aspect of the Hartford Dunn website is controlled by Stein and/or Riley.
  52. As a secretarial matter, on or around February 4, 2011, I sent an email to Stein, Riley, Baugh and Kramer attached to which was the Hartford Dunn filed Registration with the California Secretary of State and the Federal Tax Identification Number so that they could open up a bank account. As it turns out, Kramer opened a Hartford Dunn bank account at a Wells Fargo bank in Calabasas.
  53. I have read the transcript and Status Reports pertaining to the February 3, 2011 hearing in the Ronald case which reflect a discussion of Stein’s involvement with Kramer, Kramer &Kaslow, K2 (my understanding was that K2 was a type of joint venture between Stein and Kramer) as well as Stein’s denial of having seen the FORM 1012-R mailer submitted by Bank of America’s counsel.
  54. On February 9, 2011, Baugh and Brookstone filed the Wright complaint (Wright v. Bank of America) in Orange County. Soon afterward, Baugh asked for a fee of $10,000 for filing the Wright complaint.
  55. Although Stein was paid $20,000 expressly to file the Wright complaint, given Baugh’s request for only $10,000, I emailed Stein on March 5, 2011 to request that of the $20,000 that Brookstone had paid him, he forward $10,000 to Baugh. Stein rejected this in a harsh email and demanded a full accounting of all monies Brookstone has received from Wright plaintiffs. It was becoming evident that Stein refused to work with Brookstone in a collaborative and honest manner.
  56. On March 6, 2011, I responded that I would be happy to have a discussion with Stein about Stein’s contributions to Brookstone, but that the $20,000 Brookstone had paid him was for a specific service to be rendered and that Stein had failed to render that service. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the March 5th and 6th email thread.
  57. Stein refused to forward any monies to Baugh and refused to refund any sums to Brookstone. He accused me of listening to Spivak (which was untrue, as at that time, Spivak had nothing to do with Wright or my dispute with Stein). Stein then advised me that he was immediately withdrawing from all matters in which he represented Brookstone or me and that the attorney client relationship had been terminated. Contrary to the Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 3-700(D)(2), Stein did not refund and refused to refund any part of the fee Brookstone or I had paid in advance, even though Brookstone paid Stein to cover four very specific matters, two of which are currently in the middle of litigation and the other two of which were never initiated.
  58. Our relationship with Baugh also became strained. I then informed Baugh
    that Brookstone had decided not to work with him on Wright, though we continued to
    work with him on the Bankruptcy matter.

  59. Given Stein’s position, I discussed with SML expanding its engagement with Brookstone to include advice on a first amended complaint in the Wright action and on complaints in two other joinder actions Brookstone is contemplating filing, as well as advice on two bankruptcy matters. SML agreed to my proposal, which covered two to three months of legal services.
  60. Interestingly, on or about March 17, 2011, less than two and a half weeks ago, the following exchange took place in Stein’s “Tip of the Iceberg” blog entry on his website www.mjsteinassociates.com (as explained above, while this website is hosted by Brookstone all content is provided directly by Stein who is “admin” below):

    From “Amelia,” dated March 17, 2011, at 12:49am:
    “I received a call from Brookstone Law firm from S. Cal. He interviewed me and asked for docs to be faxed or emailed.

    Is it one of the companies you are working with?

    Thank you,”

    Response from “admin” dated March 17, 2011 at 1:16am:
    “Yes.”

  61. On or around March 28, 2011, I, along with another attorney in my office by the name of Joshua Shelton, met with a Mr. Frank Martinez and Mr. Edward Bostock in Brookstone’s Newport Beach offices. Prior to this meeting I previously had spoken to Mr. Martinez about 2 months ago over the phone for about half an hour.
  62. At this meeting, I met with Mr. Martinez and Mr. Bostock for approximately 10 minutes then I had to leave for a prior appointment. Mr. Shelton continued in the meeting for approximately another 45 minutes or so. During the time I was in the meeting I briefly talked about the banking crisis, the issues people have when dealing with the banks and Spivak’s potential involvement in the Wright First Amended Complaint. Mr. Martinez asked about Stein and his involvement with the Wright case. I explained that although Stein was not on the caption page on the Wright complaint, Stein had worked on the complaint and was working, behind the scenes in the Wright matter. I categorically reject the balance of Mr. Martinez’s and Mr. Bostock’s declarations as untrue fabrications.
  63. With respect to timing, my experience with Stein’s has been one where he often says one thing, but does another, or makes contradictory statements, and is hotheaded, though he told me he was withdrawing, he had not returned any money and I assumed he would eventually change his mind again and continue to represent Brookstone and me and continue to work on the matters he was paid to work on. It was not until I read the Opposition that I realized that Stein completely ruined our professional relationship and violated the trust placed in him.
  64. We also are in discussions with SML regarding SML associating in as co-counsel in some or all of the cases in which it is helping us with the complaints. We have prepared a draft engagement letter pursuant to which clients would retain Brookstone, but they also would be advised of SML’s participation in the case. Though we have agreed on most items, we have jointly decided that before proceeding past the initial phase, we will consult with ethics counsel and potentially the State Bar to ensure that all of our activities are fully compliant with all applicable requirements.
  65. Contrary to the assertions set forth in the Opposition:
    • a. Until after March 6, none of the Moving Parties or SML had anything to do with Brookstone regarding any emails, mailings, client solicitations, client discussions, financial matters, or any other matters pertaining to any Brookstone, Kramer or Stein joinder actions, except only that in February or March 2011, Spivak provided legal advice on certain compliance matters.
    • b. To the extent the description of Brookstone’s operation in the Opposition is correct (and much of it is not), until March 2011, all such activities were either specifically approved by Stein, or Stein failed to object thereto after due and complete notice thereof. Even after Stein withdrew as Brookstone’s counsel, Brookstone completed some support services we had agreed to provide Stein. Those services were performed at the direction of, and with the approval of, Stein or his new partner, Riley.
    • SML and Brookstone are totally and completely separate law firms.
    • SML and Spivak have nothing to do with Brookstone’s operations. By contrast, those operations were developed by Brookstone with and first, for Stein and Kramer. Just two weeks ago on his blog, Stein acknowledged that he works with Brookstone. Stein’s website has a link to Brookstone.
Emails as Exhibits D






Emails as Exhibits E

Steve Rhode
Follow Me
Steve Rhode
Steve Rhode is the Get Out of Debt Guy and has been helping good people with bad debt problems since 1994. You can learn more about Steve, here.
Steve Rhode
Follow Me
Latest posts by Steve Rhode (see all)
See also  Mass Joinder Raids and a Review of the Lawsuits Against Lawyers and Marketers

92 thoughts on “Vito Torchia Jr. of Brookstone Law is My Hero Today for Laying Out the Mass Joinder History”

  1. Is this the same Mitch Stein who is behind the 1.9 billion dollar National Century Financial scam? The same one who funneled deals through EMedsoft, Sanga, Chartwell, etc., etc. etc.? The same guy who banked all the loot through Manny Barling and his wife, Tracey Hampton Stein who controlled Beverly National Irrev Trust, The Trammel Trust and scads of other money laundering shells?
    I can’t believe they haven’t put that guy away. There isn’t enough bandwith on the internet to list all the crooked deals that guy is in on. The only question is where those irrev trusts are cited and how much money has been laundered and exported. This mortgage mass joinder stuff is chickenfeed compared to what that guy’s stolen since the late 90’s. Look up Avanir Pharmaceuticals or Healthmed on SEC Edgar and start digging. Its all there if you know what to look for. Simply amazing the guy isn’t in prison yet with Lance Poulsen.

    Reply

  2. Ugh….okay Vito, or Damian, or whoever you are.

    1. The agreement does not need to be signed to be executed. The amount of the employment agrees matches almost exactly to the amount of United law Group’s (Brookstone’s predecessor) largest creditor. Quit it with that “typo” crap.  He got caught. Damian needed to find a way to recoup his investment, which he did by getting paid through Brookstone.

    2. Why would Damian, a CONVICTED CRIMINAL with NO LAW BACKGROUND be paid anything to work as a consultant for a law firm.

    3. Clearly Vito knew Damian’s scam of splitting fees (Vito was an Associate at United Law Group) with attorneys but chose to ignore it to chase the quick buck.

    4.  Why not file a Class Action (Which is free to the participants) instead of a Mass Joinder law suit which is a KNOWN SCAM (See Calbar website).

    Look, it is this simple: There are no shortcuts to hard work. Damian is a known and convicted scam artist. I would have more sympathy for Vito, if he hadn’t worked at United Law Group, and therefore knew of Damian’s scams (or at a minimum, reputation for scams). Vito’s ego got the best of him. In his declaration, he talks about “I was concerned about the marketing schemes of these other attorneys…” then WHY hook up with them.  He held himself out as the MANAGING PARTNER, HE TOOK HIS CLIENT’S MONEY – He took a calculated risk and now will pay the price.

    Me? I have never met either of these individuals, but I have read what United Law Group and Brookstone have done to exploit and profit off  these homeowners by pretending to be a competent law firm and they will pay, with jailtime, which means they will probably get  what’s coming to them.

    Reply

  3. That made him my “hero” for that day. It’s so hard to get inside details out in the mass joiner world, declaration or not, at least we got some facts.

    Have you read my other Brooksone articles that include Damian?

    Reply

  4. Sounds like you have some hidden agenda against Damian.. Like you know him or you have some agenda to attack him.. Why are you spinning Steve honest statement? Where do you get your facts from? I read the United Law Group vs Brookstone bk transcript and Vito Never admitted to paying Damian 400K.. I personaly found out that the employment contract your referring to was never executed as this was a fishing excursion by the Trustee Jeff Golden. I even found out that there was a typo on this employment document that again was NEVER EXECUTED as to the fact the truth was that Damian Kutzner was to recieve a Salary of 3500-4000 a month. You are getting your facts from reading other blogs a make belief statements. If you have actual facts to prove your statement then please help us all and SHOW US.. DONT TELL US your opinon or bash Steve for stating the facts. Steve posted the Trustee statement about Damian Kutzner making 320k a year but the transcripts from court clarify that this was a typo and Vito even stated this was untrue. Vito is a competent attorney and has gotten alot of flack from people who base there opionions on hearsay versus the actual truth.

    Reply

  5. The Title? “
    Vito Torchia Jr. of Brookstone Law is My Hero Today for Laying Out the Mass Joinder History”

    He didn’t volunteer the information, it was part of a declaration in a lawsuit where he is trying to absolve himself from liability, which is PUBLIC information. And it HIS side of the story, AND based upon your prior articles, it is inaccurate as to who controls the law group

    ..And that makes him your hero????

    Reply

  7. I am baffled at reading your responses and sudden sympathy for Vito. You have some gall to refer to them as ” The most prominent…” anything  They are sociopath scam artists, exploiting homeowners. These are NOT CLASS ACTION suits.  They are SCAMS that sucker desperate homeowners.

    The declaration looks like it was written by a 12 year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar. THE
    DECLARATION FAILS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT DAMIAN KUTZNER RUNS THE
    BROOKSTONE OPERATION from behind the scenes. Why is that not in the pleading.   The Pleading is an OUTRIGHT LIE!

    Specifically: “Stein is well aware that Brookstone is not the successor to United
    Law Group, and that no one involved with any of the allegations against
    United Law Group has anything to do with Brookstone. Stein is also aware
    that Brookstone is a creditor of the estate Untied Law Group in United
    Law Group’s bankruptcy matter. To try to insinuate anything different
    is, at the very least, disingenuous”

    What about Damian? We all know you do not have to be NAMED in the corporate papers to be INVOLVED and Vito has admitted before that Damian is behind the scenes (Maybe fact check your own articles, Steve….)

    He has been indicted on
    multiple occasions and has several unpaid judgments against him. Did you
    miss that crucial fact? Vito sounds like a little crybaby who is in
    over his head, and now, like his predecessor Sean Rutledge, will be
    disbarred. Can you believe him..”I sent the 1012 form to Mitchell
    and didn’t hear back so I thought it was okay”

    He  sounds like a 1st
    year associate, NOT A MANAGING PARTNER AS HE HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO BE! HE should know whether the form was proper, since it is HIS NAME on the pleadings.

    Damian Kutzner owned United Law Group and received a $400K salary to
    “Run” operations at Brookstone. Vito is a greedy attorney, in over his
    head. Clearly, he likes the title of MANAGING PARTNER, but doesn’t have
    the knowledge or education to run the firm.

    He is Damian’s puppet.
    Together they have tried to exploit homeowners and together they will fall….presumably in Prison, on their knees facing each other while they get what they deserve.

    I am truly disappointed at your change in tenor when you KNOW Damian
    holds the purse strings  and runs the operations from behind the scenes.

    Reply

  8. I am baffled at reading your responses and sudden sympathy for Vito. You have some gall to refer to them as ” The most prominent…” anything  They are sociopath scam artists, exploiting homeowners. These are NOT CLASS ACTION suits.  They are SCAMS that sucker desperate homeowners.

    The declaration looks like it was written by a 12 year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar. THE
    DECLARATION FAILS TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT DAMIAN KUTZNER RUNS THE
    BROOKSTONE OPERATION from behind the scenes. Why is that not in the pleading.   The Pleading is an OUTRIGHT LIE!

    Specifically: “Stein is well aware that Brookstone is not the successor to United
    Law Group, and that no one involved with any of the allegations against
    United Law Group has anything to do with Brookstone. Stein is also aware
    that Brookstone is a creditor of the estate Untied Law Group in United
    Law Group’s bankruptcy matter. To try to insinuate anything different
    is, at the very least, disingenuous”

    What about Damian? We all know you do not have to be NAMED in the corporate papers to be INVOLVED and Vito has admitted before that Damian is behind the scenes (Maybe fact check your own articles, Steve….)

    He has been indicted on
    multiple occasions and has several unpaid judgments against him. Did you
    miss that crucial fact? Vito sounds like a little crybaby who is in
    over his head, and now, like his predecessor Sean Rutledge, will be
    disbarred. Can you believe him..”I sent the 1012 form to Mitchell
    and didn’t hear back so I thought it was okay”

    He  sounds like a 1st
    year associate, NOT A MANAGING PARTNER AS HE HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO BE! HE should know whether the form was proper, since it is HIS NAME on the pleadings.

    Damian Kutzner owned United Law Group and received a $400K salary to
    “Run” operations at Brookstone. Vito is a greedy attorney, in over his
    head. Clearly, he likes the title of MANAGING PARTNER, but doesn’t have
    the knowledge or education to run the firm.

    He is Damian’s puppet.
    Together they have tried to exploit homeowners and together they will fall….presumably in Prison, on their knees facing each other while they get what they deserve.

    I am truly disappointed at your change in tenor when you KNOW Damian
    holds the purse strings  and runs the operations from behind the scenes.

    Reply

      • The Title? ”
        Vito Torchia Jr. of Brookstone Law is My Hero Today for Laying Out the Mass Joinder History”

        He didn’t volunteer the information, it was part of a declaration in a lawsuit where he is trying to absolve himself from liability, which is PUBLIC information. And it HIS side of the story, AND based upon your prior articles, it is inaccurate as to who controls the law group

        ..And that makes him your hero????

        Reply

        • That made him my “hero” for that day. It’s so hard to get inside details out in the mass joiner world, declaration or not, at least we got some facts.

          Have you read my other Brooksone articles that include Damian?

          Reply

    • Sounds like you have some hidden agenda against Damian.. Like you know him or you have some agenda to attack him.. Why are you spinning Steve honest statement? Where do you get your facts from? I read the United Law Group vs Brookstone bk transcript and Vito Never admitted to paying Damian 400K.. I personaly found out that the employment contract your referring to was never executed as this was a fishing excursion by the Trustee Jeff Golden. I even found out that there was a typo on this employment document that again was NEVER EXECUTED as to the fact the truth was that Damian Kutzner was to recieve a Salary of 3500-4000 a month. You are getting your facts from reading other blogs a make belief statements. If you have actual facts to prove your statement then please help us all and SHOW US.. DONT TELL US your opinon or bash Steve for stating the facts. Steve posted the Trustee statement about Damian Kutzner making 320k a year but the transcripts from court clarify that this was a typo and Vito even stated this was untrue. Vito is a competent attorney and has gotten alot of flack from people who base there opionions on hearsay versus the actual truth.

      Reply

      • Ugh….okay Vito, or Damian, or whoever you are.

        1. The agreement does not need to be signed to be executed. The amount of the employment agrees matches almost exactly to the amount of United law Group’s (Brookstone’s predecessor) largest creditor. Quit it with that “typo” crap.  He got caught. Damian needed to find a way to recoup his investment, which he did by getting paid through Brookstone.

        2. Why would Damian, a CONVICTED CRIMINAL with NO LAW BACKGROUND be paid anything to work as a consultant for a law firm.

        3. Clearly Vito knew Damian’s scam of splitting fees (Vito was an Associate at United Law Group) with attorneys but chose to ignore it to chase the quick buck.

        4.  Why not file a Class Action (Which is free to the participants) instead of a Mass Joinder law suit which is a KNOWN SCAM (See Calbar website).

        Look, it is this simple: There are no shortcuts to hard work. Damian is a known and convicted scam artist. I would have more sympathy for Vito, if he hadn’t worked at United Law Group, and therefore knew of Damian’s scams (or at a minimum, reputation for scams). Vito’s ego got the best of him. In his declaration, he talks about “I was concerned about the marketing schemes of these other attorneys…” then WHY hook up with them.  He held himself out as the MANAGING PARTNER, HE TOOK HIS CLIENT’S MONEY – He took a calculated risk and now will pay the price.

        Me? I have never met either of these individuals, but I have read what United Law Group and Brookstone have done to exploit and profit off  these homeowners by pretending to be a competent law firm and they will pay, with jailtime, which means they will probably get  what’s coming to them.

        Reply

  9. Krista, maybe you should contact the Federal Loan Modification Bureau. They appear to be a “consumer advocate” like Steve Rhode. Their website says, “You have heard of all the scams ripping off homeowners trying to Prevent Foreclosure. We attempt to safeguard the integrity of the Loan Modification Industry. We know what companies you can trust and those you can’t.” Their mailing address is Washington DC so you know they are legit!! Oh, wait, it looks like they are just another wolf in sheep’s clothing like Steve Rhode…lol

    Here is their website:
    http://www.flmb.org/index.php

    Reply

  12. SML,,,Apex trying to recruit plaintiffs from Mass Joinder Ronald Vs Bof A,,,to use a metaphor,,, similiar to the southern states withdraw from the Union,,they are sending out solicitation to us in Email form,,,, the devil is in the fine print,,,,if anyone reads this from SML,,APEX,,,MJS,,,please WE NEED TO STAY UNITED TO WIN MITCH AND KENIN QUIT FIGHTING OVER THE SHINEY RED DUMP TRUCK IN THE SAND BOX AND PLAY NICE

    Reply

  14. “Sduran165 smells like an insider.”—by Krista

    Krista, I would bet $1,000 that you are an informant for the Big Banks…If you lived in Orange County, CA you would probably know lots of employees and the people who are educating homeowners about how these suits work. I’ve already Secret Shopped at least 15 different affiliates to see what they are saying, and MANY of the “ambassadors” are exaggerating when they don’t have to. The cases have merit, and sell themselves…I have an idea of what’s being said. If you want to call me an insider, maybe I am by now…LOL

    The lawsuits have been filed, the clients are being informed and taken care of I hope (depending on which firm they work with). The causes of action in the lawsuits are based on CASE LAW and other rulings across the country by other courts. The “ambassadors” need to work on their representation of what this is and what it’s not.

    Reply

  15. Plaintiff Torchia is looking for money plain and simple same with Apex and SML,,,Stein is already rich ,,,has more hours as attorney,,,won more cases,,and most importantlyyy,,,listen close now,,,, Spivak wants 38% contingency ,,,Stein is asking for the original 30% that all of us signed up for in 09

    Reply

  16. It wont matter. sduran165 is likely running one of those shops. remember, the “client” isnt paying the affiliate, they’re paying the law group. The law group pays the sales commission & the sales companies bear no responsibility.

    Reply

  17. Sduran165 smells like an insider. Though the person says they are a homeowner who has spoke to a number of affiliates, the post smacks of insider promotion or possibly an affiliate. Why else would they know about what the other affiliates were doing, various contracts, and other homeowners that signed up?

    The comment about me not knowing all the facts also smacks of insider promotion- especially given that I have been clearly following the saga for quite a while including changing websites and intake companies along with Facebook and website comments and blog posts. Just because the stuff gets taken down or changed, doesn’t mean a record doesn’t still exist.

    Now that Mass Litigation Alliance is done, the affiliates have moved over to Consolidated Litigation Group. When you Google them now, there are many more MLA affiliates that have converted over to the new company and website. But, of course, Kramer has already removed Consolidated Litigation Group as an of counsel intake firm from the Kramer-Kaslow.com website.

    But Sduran did point out one really disturbing thing- that the fee is non-refundable. One obvious concern is what happens if the affiliates sell a bunch of people and take their money and then roll up shop and disappear?

    Reply

  18. Is that you Mitch…………just sayin…..we know you trying to save your own house by listing your wife as a plaintiff…….just sayin

    Reply

  20. Well Damian Kutzner, Vito and the folks over at Brookstone will come back with plenty of PROPAGANDA on why this… and that… and this… and that…, but the reality is that without this Mass Joinder shield they will only be left with what are according to the DRE and Cal Bar non-compliant SB-94 loan mods.

    Reply

  22. I just returned from the national meeting of Attorneys General and they are watching. Government enforcement just takes time.

    Reply

  23. When enforcement officials start doing their job. This whole thing is WAY BIGGER (and WAY more crooked and corrupt) than anyone could possibly even imagine!

    Reply

  24. For the last time, I was not endorsing Vito. I didn’t follow the UGI saga, and concentrated on Green Credit Solutions back when the mod shops were in full force. I really started looking into the mass joinders when a K2 affiliate posted on an old GCS thread. I contacted affiliate and was horrified at what I was told. Then I caught wind that Chris Fox (previously w/GCS) was involved.

    If the affiliates had been shut down after the Kramer-Kaslow.com website had shut down, and inconsistent information was posted on Piggy Bank Blog (not bagging on John), I probably would have stopped paying attention. But with all the posts and comments around the internet claiming that affiliates were marketing the mass joinders, it was hard to ignore.

    Again, Kramer was saying the affiliates were not authorized, so naturally I assumed that the affiliates were scamming homeowners. When I read the 2.3.11 transcript that showed that Kramer wasn’t authorized for Stein which further confused me as to why Stein’s Ronald vs B of A is listed on the Kramer-Kaslow website. And then you have Stein claiming that Mass Litigation Alliance, Attorneys Processing Center (APC), and Brookstone aren’t authorized. Then you have the attorneys on the Ronald vs. B of A case filing a motion to remove Stein as co-lead counsel. Then there is Brookstone Law that is suing APC/MLA. And of course, there is the lawsuit filed in Orange County by a disbarred attorney who was selling the Mass Joinder and hiring affiliates. Did I miss anything?

    Oh yeah, I missed that Mass Litigation Alliance is no longer of counsel for Kramer according to the Kramer-Kaslow.com website, Consolidated Litigation Group, PC is now the only firm authorized by Kramer. Here is a link to the Consolidated Litigation Group website:

    http://www.consolidatedlitigat…

    The website looks just like the Mass Litigation Alliance website, and surprisingly, all these MLA affiliate sites have converted to Consolidated Litigation Group:

    http://masslitalliance.org/

    http://www.lenderlit.com/

    http://www.masslitigationpc.or…

    http://mass-litigation.com/ind…

    http://masslitalliance.net/

    http://justmtgloans.com/contac…

    http://www.legalfreeandclear.c…

    http://bank77.com/faqlog.php

    http://joindercase.com/faqs.ph…

    http://defendyourdeed.com/faqs…

    http://tomboldt.masslitallianc…

    http://litigationintake.com/fa…

    http://www.kandklitigation.com

    And get this, the Consolidated Litigation Group shows the same address as Mass Litigation Alliance and has a link to MLA’s Facebook page. Of course, the different websites have different intake office address. Isn’t that special?

    It is also interesting to note that the Consolidated Litigation Group website is registered to J. Robert Berrellez. Mr. Berrellez is (or was) in the modification business, and his website: http://www.247247inc.com shows that it is a website for Christopher J. Van Son, the new attorney listed on the Consolidated Litigation Group website.

    File this under things that make you go hmmmm…..

    Yeah, and I’m the one with the problem. I’m just sayin’…

    Reply

  26. I am not an “informant” for the big banks. I am a concerned California citizen who has found many non-attorneys marketing the suits, and did my own secret shopping with an “ambassador”. With so many intake shops set up and various websites marketing the mass joinders, I am concerned for homeowners- especially when I see posts from panicked homeowners that claim they paid and are facing imminent foreclosure.

    My message is that homeowners should consult with attorneys and know all the facts before they pay money for legal services. If they join the case based on representations made by affiliates (and the DRE and CA Bar have already warned about some of the representation made on websites and advertising), and pay money to an affiliate, how do they know that the money is going to the attorney firms and/or that they will be ultimately added to the suit?

    On one hand, there is finger pointing blaming individuals and businesses for using the some of the firms name’s without authorization, on the other hand there were Cease & Desist letters and a list of banned sites posted to the Kramer-Kaslow website, yet on still another hand, a crop of Mass Litigation Alliance websites soon emerged- some of which were from banned Kramer & Kaslow affiliates.

    Then you have Brookstone Law, and I asked Stein directly if Brookstone was authorized. I also pointed out to Stein an affiliate pay schedule that was posted by an affiliate and claimed to pay commission on the B of A case. At the time, Brookstone was openly claiming to represent the Stein case, and since Stein’s website did not claim that Brookstone was or was not authorized, I think it was a fair question. Please note that according to Stein’s email to Brookstone, Stein wanted an accounting of all retainers and funds collected, and asserted that he believed there were about 90 clients that signed up through Brookstone (unsure whether that was for Ronald or Wright).

    I don’t have it out for Stein. I am trying to get to the truth. In regard to knowing all the facts, I am still researching, and hoped that Stein would post his response to shed some light.

    The reality is that I found a plethora of Kramer & Kaslow and K2 Law websites, affiliates, marketing materials, and even training videos. After bringing this to light on Martin Andelman’s website, Kramer posted Cease & Desist letters and banned websites. The Kramer-Kaslow website showed that Mass Litigation Alliance and Hartford Dunn were approved intake. Shortly thereafter, I found at least 23 Mass Litigation Alliance websites that showed some of the banned affiliates were doing business under Mass Litigation Alliance. Then recently, co-counsel on Ronald vs. B of A filed a motion to remove Stein as co-counsel. At the same time as the Ronald motion, Brookstone files suit against Mass Litigation Alliance and APC. Then there was the response to the Stein’s opposition to the motion, and the Orange County lawsuit against APC, MLA, Davis, Kramer, Fox, and DiGirolamo was filed. From what I can tell from my research, the individual who filed the case is a disbarred attorney.

    So please explain to me how I am the bad guy in this? I don’t hide behind screen names and have even contacted Stein directly.

    As a concerned citizen, I do not think that it is wrong for me, as a California citizen, to be concerned for my fellow citizens. Not all people can read the case and understand it, and yes, some homeowners are easy prey to non-attorney affiliates that are not qualified to give legal advice.

    For the record, I do not have any issue with the advance fee model, but moreover, the affiliate arrangements and materials that suggest that affiliates were allowed to charge whatever the wanted on top of attorney fees. I do think that the advance fee model is an excellent way to cover the high legal costs of the mass joinders and make legal representation affordable.

    Reply

  27. I’m not sure what folks are most upset with, the title or the content. The title is simply a grateful acknowledgement that on that day, thanks to Torchia’s declaration, the history of the mass joinder movement was laid out as it had not been before that day.

    Reply

  28. Good point Steve! Keep up the GREAT WORK!!!

    If I get a list of the Brookstone clients I will be able to sell a ton of pet rocks.

    Reply

  29. Anybody want to buy a pet rock?

    This one’s special. It’ll cost you like $5,000 (but it’ll save your home), and I’ll charge you like oh say, right around $895 to see if you’re good enough to buy it.

    Any takers?

    Reply

  31. No, but Vito and Damian Kutzner have unconscionably displaced more innocent Americans from their homes than Bin Laden. I think that maybe To clarify’s point was that you should know better than to call a villain a hero. And, assuredly Vito and Damian Kutzner are sociopaths and villains. They do not care how many more people they displace from their homes. They just want to steal money from innocent homeowners.

    Reply

  32. “It is unknown how many thousands of homeowners have been sold on the mass joinders, but considering the high volume of mailers that are being sent around the country and large number of affiliates marketing the cases, in addition to other forms of marketing, it is likely that a large volume of consumers have been sold. Things will definitely heat up if large numbers of homeowners waiting for something to happen actually end up losing their homes and/or want refunds and the firms can’t claw back the money paid to affiliates.”—by Krista Railey

    “The real hero in this in my opinion is Spivak and co-counsel that filed the motion to remove Stein as co-lead counsel.”—by Krista Railey

    Krista, as a homeowner myself, I have talked to several “ambassadors” or “account executives,” “consultants,” from all the law firms, including Brookstone Law. Some affiliates might try a little harder then the next, but I was not “sold.” You make it sound like most homeowners are dumb as sheep and cannot make their own decisions without being “sold.” All people have to do is read the actual complaints and transcripts and they can make their own decision. You talk about the fact that you are worried that people will lost their homes if they join the lawsuit. This doesn’t make sense. None of the affiliates I talked to told me to stop making my payments. The Brookstone Law guy was a little aggressive, but I never heard that I could stop making my payments and not have to worry about foreclosure. I do however know a couple of people who were about to lose their homes, and now they have new hope they didn’t have before. One person made like 16 Trial Payments to Bank of America, before they told her her HAMP loan mod was approved. Then it turned out that her Permanent Loan Mod ended up being much higher then her trial payments, and was only about $150 less then her original mortgage payment. Then BofA said they she owed like an extra $8k since the Permanent loan mod ended up being a higher payment. So, she got 16 months of late payments and then the bank only wanted to lower her interest rate by only .125% (saving only $150 per month) from her original payment. This lady had no other option and was looking into doing a Short Sale. Now, that she joined the lawsuit, she has new hope. That’s just one scenario. Another person tried for over a year (different bank) to qualify for a loan mod, and kept getting turned down. He was in the process of doing a short sale, but now he is a named plaintiff and has hope. That’s only two people I personally know who were about to lose their homes to Foreclosure or Short-Sale. Now they have hope they didn’t have before and will most likely get to keep their homes.

    You also say you are concerned about the homeowners who might want a refund and get their money back after they have already been added to the lawsuit. I read several of the contracts, and it says in BOLD there is no refund (I think). It’s really simple. If a homeowner thinks the lawsuits have Merit, then they might want to get a seat at the table. If they have no other option and have been beat up by the banks, they might want to join. If they don’t think the lawsuits have any merit, then they should not join and sit out.

    And why are you saying that Spivak and Brookstone Law are your “heros” when you do not know all the facts yet? I personally think you have a grudge with Mitchell J. Stein, because it appears he blocked you from his Facebook Page. It’s probably, because you were emailing everybody who posted on his page trying to get “inside” info. I know this, because one of my friends forwarded me a message you sent her trying to get information so you could do a news story…Just like I told Steve Rhode, I think you are an informant for the Big Banks…just sayin’

    Reply

  33. I don’t think you understood my comment, and are somehow mistaking it as an endorsement. The real hero in this in my opinion is Spivak and co-counsel that filed the motion to remove Stein as co-lead counsel.

    I have no idea how you can compare Vito to Bin Laden. Is Vito responsible for mass deaths and terrorist activities that I don’t know about?

    Reply

  34. So would it be safe to say that if Bin Laden had provided this information that, in your mind, he would be a “hero” also?

    Reply

  36. I can’t speak for Steve, but I agreed with the “hero” title based on the fact that Vito set forth information that blows the whistle on Kramer, Stein, et al. Additionally, he revealed that he did use mailer (though the facts suggest that Brookstone is not the only firm using it).

    Steve did not fail to notice that Vito admitted to using the mailer, and from my perspective it appears that Steve is giving credit to the fact that Vito’s declaration sheds light on the marketing and relationships involved in the mass joinder scandal, and not per se as any type of endorsement.

    Reply

  37. If you read the full motion you’ll find another reference to him as well. Look for the part that says non-lawyer Chief Operating Officer.

    Reply

    • I can’t speak for Steve, but I agreed with the “hero” title based on the fact that Vito set forth information that blows the whistle on Kramer, Stein, et al. Additionally, he revealed that he did use mailer (though the facts suggest that Brookstone is not the only firm using it).

      Steve did not fail to notice that Vito admitted to using the mailer, and from my perspective it appears that Steve is giving credit to the fact that Vito’s declaration sheds light on the marketing and relationships involved in the mass joinder scandal, and not per se as any type of endorsement.

      Reply

      • So would it be safe to say that if Bin Laden had provided this information that, in your mind, he would be a “hero” also?

        Reply

        • I don’t think you understood my comment, and are somehow mistaking it as an endorsement. The real hero in this in my opinion is Spivak and co-counsel that filed the motion to remove Stein as co-lead counsel.

          I have no idea how you can compare Vito to Bin Laden. Is Vito responsible for mass deaths and terrorist activities that I don’t know about?

          Reply

          • “It is unknown how many thousands of homeowners have been sold on the mass joinders, but considering the high volume of mailers that are being sent around the country and large number of affiliates marketing the cases, in addition to other forms of marketing, it is likely that a large volume of consumers have been sold. Things will definitely heat up if large numbers of homeowners waiting for something to happen actually end up losing their homes and/or want refunds and the firms can’t claw back the money paid to affiliates.”—by Krista Railey

            “The real hero in this in my opinion is Spivak and co-counsel that filed the motion to remove Stein as co-lead counsel.”—by Krista Railey

            Krista, as a homeowner myself, I have talked to several “ambassadors” or “account executives,” “consultants,” from all the law firms, including Brookstone Law. Some affiliates might try a little harder then the next, but I was not “sold.” You make it sound like most homeowners are dumb as sheep and cannot make their own decisions without being “sold.” All people have to do is read the actual complaints and transcripts and they can make their own decision. You talk about the fact that you are worried that people will lost their homes if they join the lawsuit. This doesn’t make sense. None of the affiliates I talked to told me to stop making my payments. The Brookstone Law guy was a little aggressive, but I never heard that I could stop making my payments and not have to worry about foreclosure. I do however know a couple of people who were about to lose their homes, and now they have new hope they didn’t have before. One person made like 16 Trial Payments to Bank of America, before they told her her HAMP loan mod was approved. Then it turned out that her Permanent Loan Mod ended up being much higher then her trial payments, and was only about $150 less then her original mortgage payment. Then BofA said they she owed like an extra $8k since the Permanent loan mod ended up being a higher payment. So, she got 16 months of late payments and then the bank only wanted to lower her interest rate by only .125% (saving only $150 per month) from her original payment. This lady had no other option and was looking into doing a Short Sale. Now, that she joined the lawsuit, she has new hope. That’s just one scenario. Another person tried for over a year (different bank) to qualify for a loan mod, and kept getting turned down. He was in the process of doing a short sale, but now he is a named plaintiff and has hope. That’s only two people I personally know who were about to lose their homes to Foreclosure or Short-Sale. Now they have hope they didn’t have before and will most likely get to keep their homes.

            You also say you are concerned about the homeowners who might want a refund and get their money back after they have already been added to the lawsuit. I read several of the contracts, and it says in BOLD there is no refund (I think). It’s really simple. If a homeowner thinks the lawsuits have Merit, then they might want to get a seat at the table. If they have no other option and have been beat up by the banks, they might want to join. If they don’t think the lawsuits have any merit, then they should not join and sit out.

            And why are you saying that Spivak and Brookstone Law are your “heros” when you do not know all the facts yet? I personally think you have a grudge with Mitchell J. Stein, because it appears he blocked you from his Facebook Page. It’s probably, because you were emailing everybody who posted on his page trying to get “inside” info. I know this, because one of my friends forwarded me a message you sent her trying to get information so you could do a news story…Just like I told Steve Rhode, I think you are an informant for the Big Banks…just sayin’

          • Yes, Krista it seems like you are “upset” with Stein, but Damian and Vito are far bigger crooks.”

          • For the last time, I was not endorsing Vito. I didn’t follow the UGI saga, and concentrated on Green Credit Solutions back when the mod shops were in full force. I really started looking into the mass joinders when a K2 affiliate posted on an old GCS thread. I contacted affiliate and was horrified at what I was told. Then I caught wind that Chris Fox (previously w/GCS) was involved.

            If the affiliates had been shut down after the Kramer-Kaslow.com website had shut down, and inconsistent information was posted on Piggy Bank Blog (not bagging on John), I probably would have stopped paying attention. But with all the posts and comments around the internet claiming that affiliates were marketing the mass joinders, it was hard to ignore.

            Again, Kramer was saying the affiliates were not authorized, so naturally I assumed that the affiliates were scamming homeowners. When I read the 2.3.11 transcript that showed that Kramer wasn’t authorized for Stein which further confused me as to why Stein’s Ronald vs B of A is listed on the Kramer-Kaslow website. And then you have Stein claiming that Mass Litigation Alliance, Attorneys Processing Center (APC), and Brookstone aren’t authorized. Then you have the attorneys on the Ronald vs. B of A case filing a motion to remove Stein as co-lead counsel. Then there is Brookstone Law that is suing APC/MLA. And of course, there is the lawsuit filed in Orange County by a disbarred attorney who was selling the Mass Joinder and hiring affiliates. Did I miss anything?

            Oh yeah, I missed that Mass Litigation Alliance is no longer of counsel for Kramer according to the Kramer-Kaslow.com website, Consolidated Litigation Group, PC is now the only firm authorized by Kramer. Here is a link to the Consolidated Litigation Group website:

            http://www.consolidatedlitigation.com/

            The website looks just like the Mass Litigation Alliance website, and surprisingly, all these MLA affiliate sites have converted to Consolidated Litigation Group:

            http://masslitalliance.org/

            http://www.lenderlit.com/

            http://www.masslitigationpc.org/

            http://mass-litigation.com/index.php

            http://masslitalliance.net/

            http://justmtgloans.com/contact-us.php

            http://www.legalfreeandclear.com/

            http://bank77.com/faqlog.php

            http://joindercase.com/faqs.php

            http://defendyourdeed.com/faqs.php

            http://tomboldt.masslitalliance.org/Index.html

            http://litigationintake.com/faqs.php

            http://www.kandklitigation.com

            And get this, the Consolidated Litigation Group shows the same address as Mass Litigation Alliance and has a link to MLA’s Facebook page. Of course, the different websites have different intake office address. Isn’t that special?

            It is also interesting to note that the Consolidated Litigation Group website is registered to J. Robert Berrellez. Mr. Berrellez is (or was) in the modification business, and his website: http://www.247247inc.com shows that it is a website for Christopher J. Van Son, the new attorney listed on the Consolidated Litigation Group website.

            File this under things that make you go hmmmm…..

            Yeah, and I’m the one with the problem. I’m just sayin’…

          • Anybody want to buy a pet rock?

            This one’s special. It’ll cost you like $5,000 (but it’ll save your home), and I’ll charge you like oh say, right around $895 to see if you’re good enough to buy it.

            Any takers?

          • I am not an “informant” for the big banks. I am a concerned California citizen who has found many non-attorneys marketing the suits, and did my own secret shopping with an “ambassador”. With so many intake shops set up and various websites marketing the mass joinders, I am concerned for homeowners- especially when I see posts from panicked homeowners that claim they paid and are facing imminent foreclosure.

            My message is that homeowners should consult with attorneys and know all the facts before they pay money for legal services. If they join the case based on representations made by affiliates (and the DRE and CA Bar have already warned about some of the representation made on websites and advertising), and pay money to an affiliate, how do they know that the money is going to the attorney firms and/or that they will be ultimately added to the suit?

            On one hand, there is finger pointing blaming individuals and businesses for using the some of the firms name’s without authorization, on the other hand there were Cease & Desist letters and a list of banned sites posted to the Kramer-Kaslow website, yet on still another hand, a crop of Mass Litigation Alliance websites soon emerged- some of which were from banned Kramer & Kaslow affiliates.

            Then you have Brookstone Law, and I asked Stein directly if Brookstone was authorized. I also pointed out to Stein an affiliate pay schedule that was posted by an affiliate and claimed to pay commission on the B of A case. At the time, Brookstone was openly claiming to represent the Stein case, and since Stein’s website did not claim that Brookstone was or was not authorized, I think it was a fair question. Please note that according to Stein’s email to Brookstone, Stein wanted an accounting of all retainers and funds collected, and asserted that he believed there were about 90 clients that signed up through Brookstone (unsure whether that was for Ronald or Wright).

            I don’t have it out for Stein. I am trying to get to the truth. In regard to knowing all the facts, I am still researching, and hoped that Stein would post his response to shed some light.

            The reality is that I found a plethora of Kramer & Kaslow and K2 Law websites, affiliates, marketing materials, and even training videos. After bringing this to light on Martin Andelman’s website, Kramer posted Cease & Desist letters and banned websites. The Kramer-Kaslow website showed that Mass Litigation Alliance and Hartford Dunn were approved intake. Shortly thereafter, I found at least 23 Mass Litigation Alliance websites that showed some of the banned affiliates were doing business under Mass Litigation Alliance. Then recently, co-counsel on Ronald vs. B of A filed a motion to remove Stein as co-counsel. At the same time as the Ronald motion, Brookstone files suit against Mass Litigation Alliance and APC. Then there was the response to the Stein’s opposition to the motion, and the Orange County lawsuit against APC, MLA, Davis, Kramer, Fox, and DiGirolamo was filed. From what I can tell from my research, the individual who filed the case is a disbarred attorney.

            So please explain to me how I am the bad guy in this? I don’t hide behind screen names and have even contacted Stein directly.

            As a concerned citizen, I do not think that it is wrong for me, as a California citizen, to be concerned for my fellow citizens. Not all people can read the case and understand it, and yes, some homeowners are easy prey to non-attorney affiliates that are not qualified to give legal advice.

            For the record, I do not have any issue with the advance fee model, but moreover, the affiliate arrangements and materials that suggest that affiliates were allowed to charge whatever the wanted on top of attorney fees. I do think that the advance fee model is an excellent way to cover the high legal costs of the mass joinders and make legal representation affordable.

          • Well Damian Kutzner, Vito and the folks over at Brookstone will come back with plenty of PROPAGANDA on why this… and that… and this… and that…, but the reality is that without this Mass Joinder shield they will only be left with what are according to the DRE and Cal Bar non-compliant SB-94 loan mods.

          • Is that you Mitch…………just sayin…..we know you trying to save your own house by listing your wife as a plaintiff…….just sayin

          • Sduran165 smells like an insider. Though the person says they are a homeowner who has spoke to a number of affiliates, the post smacks of insider promotion or possibly an affiliate. Why else would they know about what the other affiliates were doing, various contracts, and other homeowners that signed up?

            The comment about me not knowing all the facts also smacks of insider promotion- especially given that I have been clearly following the saga for quite a while including changing websites and intake companies along with Facebook and website comments and blog posts. Just because the stuff gets taken down or changed, doesn’t mean a record doesn’t still exist.

            Now that Mass Litigation Alliance is done, the affiliates have moved over to Consolidated Litigation Group. When you Google them now, there are many more MLA affiliates that have converted over to the new company and website. But, of course, Kramer has already removed Consolidated Litigation Group as an of counsel intake firm from the Kramer-Kaslow.com website.

            But Sduran did point out one really disturbing thing- that the fee is non-refundable. One obvious concern is what happens if the affiliates sell a bunch of people and take their money and then roll up shop and disappear?

          • It wont matter. sduran165 is likely running one of those shops. remember, the “client” isnt paying the affiliate, they’re paying the law group. The law group pays the sales commission & the sales companies bear no responsibility.

          • “Sduran165 smells like an insider.”—by Krista

            Krista, I would bet $1,000 that you are an informant for the Big Banks…If you lived in Orange County, CA you would probably know lots of employees and the people who are educating homeowners about how these suits work. I’ve already Secret Shopped at least 15 different affiliates to see what they are saying, and MANY of the “ambassadors” are exaggerating when they don’t have to. The cases have merit, and sell themselves…I have an idea of what’s being said. If you want to call me an insider, maybe I am by now…LOL

            The lawsuits have been filed, the clients are being informed and taken care of I hope (depending on which firm they work with). The causes of action in the lawsuits are based on CASE LAW and other rulings across the country by other courts. The “ambassadors” need to work on their representation of what this is and what it’s not.

          • No, but Vito and Damian Kutzner have unconscionably displaced more innocent Americans from their homes than Bin Laden. I think that maybe To clarify’s point was that you should know better than to call a villain a hero. And, assuredly Vito and Damian Kutzner are sociopaths and villains. They do not care how many more people they displace from their homes. They just want to steal money from innocent homeowners.

          • I’m not sure what folks are most upset with, the title or the content. The title is simply a grateful acknowledgement that on that day, thanks to Torchia’s declaration, the history of the mass joinder movement was laid out as it had not been before that day.

          • Plaintiff Torchia is looking for money plain and simple same with Apex and SML,,,Stein is already rich ,,,has more hours as attorney,,,won more cases,,and most importantlyyy,,,listen close now,,,, Spivak wants 38% contingency ,,,Stein is asking for the original 30% that all of us signed up for in 09

          • SML,,,Apex trying to recruit plaintiffs from Mass Joinder Ronald Vs Bof A,,,to use a metaphor,,, similiar to the southern states withdraw from the Union,,they are sending out solicitation to us in Email form,,,, the devil is in the fine print,,,,if anyone reads this from SML,,APEX,,,MJS,,,please WE NEED TO STAY UNITED TO WIN MITCH AND KENIN QUIT FIGHTING OVER THE SHINEY RED DUMP TRUCK IN THE SAND BOX AND PLAY NICE

          • I shouldn’t say getting greedy since I don’t know. Maybe there is just a higher demand? I don’t know…

          • Stein is more sincere. Willing to talk to clients. Mr. Stein is right that they are all after money. Stein is the man.

  43. Yes, the two strategies that Vito uses in public forums is to either deny that Damian Kutzner runs Brookstone Law or to ignore it by not making any comment in regards to the matter at all. The fact that Damian Kutzner runs Brookstone Law is a very serious matter (as acknowledged by many former employees “independent contractors” of Brookstone Law – United Law Group). It automatically make everything that happens at Brookstone law illegal because Damian is not allowed to be involved with any type of firm or company that uses telephones to solicit clients. Not to mention the fact that he was the one who ran United Law Group (now referred to as Brookstone Law) which recently got shut down by the FBI for stealing money from homeowners.

    Reply

  44. When you take this in context with the Motion to Remove Stein as Co-Lead Counsel, Declarations that are included in the response to Stein’s opposition, and lawsuit filed in Orange County by John Crawford (Kramer & Kaslow/APC affiliate contractor) against Gary DiGirolamo, Chris Fox, Matthew Davis, and Philip Kramer, a disturbing picture emerges.

    The Declarations and court documents support:

    1. Philip Kramer was behind K2 Law, Kramer & Kaslow affiliates, Mass Litigation Alliance and APC.
    2. Philip Kramer was and (likely still is) Mitchell J. Stein’s partner- even at the time that Stein told the court Kramer was not authorized.
    3. Notorious individuals involved with prior loss mitigation scams, Gary DiGirolamo and Chris Fox, had (or still have) their hands in the marketing.
    4. Non-attorney Affiliates were (and appear to still be) involved in the marketing, and earn high commissions.
    5. The mailers were acknowledged by Vito Torchia of Brookstone.

    Please note that prior K2 Law/Kramer & Kaslow non-attorney affiliates that listed as banned and/or sent a Cease & Desist letter from Kramer, simply converted over to affiliates of Mass Litigation Alliance. Based on the plethora of MLA websites that cropped up involving prior K2 affiliates following the Cease & Desist letters, the Warning on the Kramer-kaslow.com website appear to have been just for show.

    I suspect that this is but the tip of the Iceberg, and that counsel for the banks (as well as the regulators) will keep a close eye on the matter. It is unknown how many thousands of homeowners have been sold on the mass joinders, but considering the high volume of mailers that are being sent around the country and large number of affiliates marketing the cases, in addition to other forms of marketing, it is likely that a large volume of consumers have been sold. Things will definitely heat up if large numbers of homeowners waiting for something to happen actually end up losing their homes and/or want refunds and the firms can’t claw back the money paid to affiliates.

    Reply

  45. When you take this in context with the Motion to Remove Stein as Co-Lead Counsel, Declarations that are included in the response to Stein’s opposition, and lawsuit filed in Orange County by John Crawford (Kramer & Kaslow/APC affiliate contractor) against Gary DiGirolamo, Chris Fox, Matthew Davis, and Philip Kramer, a disturbing picture emerges.

    The Declarations and court documents support:

    1. Philip Kramer was behind K2 Law, Kramer & Kaslow affiliates, Mass Litigation Alliance and APC.
    2. Philip Kramer was and (likely still is) Mitchell J. Stein’s partner- even at the time that Stein told the court Kramer was not authorized.
    3. Notorious individuals involved with prior loss mitigation scams, Gary DiGirolamo and Chris Fox, had (or still have) their hands in the marketing.
    4. Non-attorney Affiliates were (and appear to still be) involved in the marketing, and earn high commissions.
    5. The mailers were acknowledged by Vito Torchia of Brookstone.

    Please note that prior K2 Law/Kramer & Kaslow non-attorney affiliates that listed as banned and/or sent a Cease & Desist letter from Kramer, simply converted over to affiliates of Mass Litigation Alliance. Based on the plethora of MLA websites that cropped up involving prior K2 affiliates following the Cease & Desist letters, the Warning on the Kramer-kaslow.com website appear to have been just for show.

    I suspect that this is but the tip of the Iceberg, and that counsel for the banks (as well as the regulators) will keep a close eye on the matter. It is unknown how many thousands of homeowners have been sold on the mass joinders, but considering the high volume of mailers that are being sent around the country and large number of affiliates marketing the cases, in addition to other forms of marketing, it is likely that a large volume of consumers have been sold. Things will definitely heat up if large numbers of homeowners waiting for something to happen actually end up losing their homes and/or want refunds and the firms can’t claw back the money paid to affiliates.

    Reply

  46. So far the case has gone through many hurdles. As far as I know, I think when these attorneys settle done, they have a great chance against the bank. If you read the transcripts for the motion on Dec 2010, the judge says that this would be bad for the banks

    Reply

  47. Hero? Seriously?

    What I get from this is that 3 lawyers got together in 09, hatched a plan to charge homeowners upfront to join their mass joinder lawsuit, now they’re all fighting over the money, publicly. Yeah, they’re all dripping with honor.

    They seem to be so busy with all the infighting, when do they find time to actually work on the mass joinder(s)?

    In my opinion, any remote chance these lawsuits ever had to succeed, will be rolled up and smoked by the idiots at the top.

    Reply

  48. Hero? Seriously?

    What I get from this is that 3 lawyers got together in 09, hatched a plan to charge homeowners upfront to join their mass joinder lawsuit, now they’re all fighting over the money, publicly. Yeah, they’re all dripping with honor.

    They seem to be so busy with all the infighting, when do they find time to actually work on the mass joinder(s)?

    In my opinion, any remote chance these lawsuits ever had to succeed, will be rolled up and smoked by the idiots at the top.

    Reply

    • So far the case has gone through many hurdles. As far as I know, I think when these attorneys settle done, they have a great chance against the bank. If you read the transcripts for the motion on Dec 2010, the judge says that this would be bad for the banks

      Reply

  50. lol what I like about it, is its been said that Kutzner is in no way shape or form involved in any of this.

    and yet… why would “partners” be trying to get a hold of him?

    Reply

  51. I especially like the reference to Damian Kutzner in exhibit E. Gee big surprise that when Damian got caught doing something he shouldn’t have been red handed he didn’t return phone calls. Big surprise.

    Reply

  52. I especially like the reference to Damian Kutzner in exhibit E. Gee big surprise that when Damian got caught doing something he shouldn’t have been red handed he didn’t return phone calls. Big surprise.

    Reply

    • lol what I like about it, is its been said that Kutzner is in no way shape or form involved in any of this.

      and yet… why would “partners” be trying to get a hold of him?

      Reply

      • Yes, the two strategies that Vito uses in public forums is to either deny that Damian Kutzner runs Brookstone Law or to ignore it by not making any comment in regards to the matter at all. The fact that Damian Kutzner runs Brookstone Law is a very serious matter (as acknowledged by many former employees “independent contractors” of Brookstone Law – United Law Group). It automatically make everything that happens at Brookstone law illegal because Damian is not allowed to be involved with any type of firm or company that uses telephones to solicit clients. Not to mention the fact that he was the one who ran United Law Group (now referred to as Brookstone Law) which recently got shut down by the FBI for stealing money from homeowners.

        Reply

      • Good point Steve! Keep up the GREAT WORK!!!

        If I get a list of the Brookstone clients I will be able to sell a ton of pet rocks.

        Reply

Leave a Comment