Court Says Credibility of Mitchell Stein of Mass Joinder Fame, Compromised
By on October 24, 2011
Mitchell Stein, one of the attorneys that was raid in California in August for related mass joinder marketing, just received a very unfavorable court ruling in his attempt to wiggle something out from under the seizure of his law practice.
I’ve even heard rumblings from some that Stein was returning to practice, got his client files back and was ready to proceed with his pay to join mass lawsuits against mortgage companies and banks.
If you call 213-765-1639 you hear the following message.
The court saw it otherwise.
“In addition, Stein contends he did not participate in the prohibited conduct, arguing that he was a victim. However, the evidence submitted belies that contention and compromises his credibility.
As more fully set forth in the Tentative Ruling on the People’s Petition, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Matthew Davis’ declaration demonstrates that Stein was working with Kramer and the non-attorney defendants. Clarence Butt and Thomas Phanco in their declarations attached to the Receiver’s Report, recount a meeting led by Kramer and Stein about the mass joinder lawsuits. Glen Reneau admits he met with Stein on three occasions. Even emails from Defendant Kramer confirm his involvement and receipt of payment from the Kramer offices.
It is simply not believable that Stein did not participate in the mass joinder lawsuit marketing scheme.”
The Scheme
Stein’s Victim Claim
You can read the rest of Stein’s claim and more of the ruling by reading the full court order here.
Related Posts
49 Comments
Share a Comment / Leave a Reply
Ask for Debt Help
Steve Rhode
January 7, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Mitchell J. Stein was ordered inactive to not eligible to practice law in California on January 1, 2012.
Dn
October 29, 2011 at 12:33 am
Mr Rodes,
Mr wright gives a compelling argument, I doesn’t seem like you and Krista do your homework. I can see going after Philip Kramer for the debacle and the rest of those scum bags involved in the mailer scam. I could be wrong but it seems like you and Krista have some unknown motive for making up and repeating these half truths about Mitchell Stein.
Ask any one in the legal feild and they will tell tell you Stein is a brilliant litigator and has the goods on these banks. Stein has not been convicted of anything and he hasn’t even had his chance to answer any of the allegations. ALLEGATIONS…….. Any person who has a half a mind can see this was a political play. Even a laymen like myself. So what gives with the 2 of you. John Wright has seemed to do his homework in this case. Yet you and Krista seem to have a personal motivation.
People like me come to your sites for real, truthful information. Can you stop with these HIT PIECES Just report the facts
Steve Rhode
October 29, 2011 at 12:39 am
So what facts are you saying are wrong? I’m happy to correct any fact which is wrong.
I have no personal bone to pick against Stein.
If you have information on Kramer you feel is relevant and I should publish, please send it in.
Piggybankblog
November 2, 2011 at 2:56 am
It is
the cut and past reporting Steve. It is the “using a little bit of the
truth to sell the lie” kind of thing. For example, I still do not see that
you have corrected the confusion in this article that might insinuate that
Stein cannot practice law. I know that you removed the word
“but”……but what is the big deal about posting the bar recording
that I have? That is if you want to report it correctly in this article? Not
using it might suggest you have an agenda with this article.
With
that being said, you stated that you would post it in the new one………but
why is it not in this one or the new? Is there is a reason? What reason could
there be other than it would end up discrediting this article which I am
thinking that you are trying to save face.
Also,
you said you post the recording in the other article and I accepted your offer.
Are you a man of your word? Are you going to post it? Why haven’t you yet?
Respectfully,
John
Wright
piggybankblog.com
Steve Rhode
November 2, 2011 at 3:19 am
John,
You are free to add any comment you want to either article to clear up any confusion you think exists or fact which is incorrect.
You asked me to take out the “But” and I did as a favor to you. But I’m done with your edits now.
I never said I would post it on the other article, I asked if I could. I decided not to since after reviewing the other article, it made the point. You gain no credibility with me by making accusations that are simply not true.
Please fee free to rant and rage on without me.
Piggybankblog
November 2, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Yah I re-read that…and you are right you did not say that. I misunderstood. But what is the big deal Steve? Why don’t you want people to hear the State Bar saying that Mitch can practice law, instead of letting this article lead them to maybe accidently imply he cannot by your cut and paste reporting?
Here is the State Bar SO POST IT SO PEOPLE KNOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-3R7lzD8M&feature=player_embedded
However, I would be careful about telling me to feel free to rant an rave……because I have not even started yet. Is that what you would like me to do Mr. Rhodes? Rant and Rave? I could do that if you would like…….but I am not so sure you would like that. You certainly did not seem to like it the last time I did a “rant and rave”. – I thought I was being friendly
Listen, if you would have gotten the story right off the bat correct…….you would not have to edit it at all (wink) I see that you are not interested in being clear though. Is that why you will not post it?
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Piggybankblog
November 2, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Yah I re-read that…and you are right you did not say that. I misunderstood. But what is the big deal Steve? Why don’t you want people to hear the State Bar saying that Mitch can practice law, instead of letting this article lead them to maybe accidently imply he cannot by your cut and paste reporting?
Here is the State Bar SO POST IT SO PEOPLE KNOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-3R7lzD8M&feature=player_embedded
However, I would be careful about telling me to feel free to rant an rave……because I have not even started yet. Is that what you would like me to do Mr. Rhodes? Rant and Rave? I could do that if you would like…….but I am not so sure you would like that. You certainly did not seem to like it the last time I did a “rant and rave”. – I thought I was being friendly
Listen, if you would have gotten the story right off the bat correct…….you would not have to edit it at all (wink) I see that you are not interested in being clear though. Is that why you will not post it?
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Steve Rhode
November 2, 2011 at 8:59 pm
John,
The story I was talking being published was this one. It already says that.
There is no need to add it to that story when it’s already there.
And for accuracy, I said rant and rage, not rant and rave.
Piggybankblog
November 3, 2011 at 12:45 am
Well maybe you meant to say rave 🙂
Piggybankblog
November 3, 2011 at 12:49 am
Rave ……….rage same thing. Stein can practice….Stein cannot practice….”rumblings” about Stein practicing but………………….AND STEIN PRACTICING……………two different things. (wink)
I would think that correction would be more important don’t you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-3R7lzD8M&feature=player_embedded
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
Mel Content
December 22, 2011 at 10:34 pm
That’s very interesting, DN. So…..clearly we have a brilliant and experienced litigator with the access and means to not only hire the best advocates but to work hand in hand with them in his own defense. So what does he do? He pleads guilty. Hmmmm. I wonder if any reasonable conclusions can possibly be inferred from this?
I’ll tell you one thing. If anyone knows if that cheesy Doberman painting is part of the auction, let me know. I will bid size on that singularly revealing piece of crap. It’s freakin beeeeyooooteeeefoool. If it was velvet it would be a masterpiece. I simply must have it for my collection . I’m really getting into post-Enron corporate criminal bohunk art.
Darrell
December 23, 2011 at 9:38 am
Dear Mel,
Are you on prescription medication? I didnt see any other attorneys coming out to fight the banks.. It was Stein who brought all this out. It was groundbreaking at the time and now you can see attorneys in every state filing AG’s all over the country investigating the banks Federal goverment ramping up investigations against the banks. I dont know if what your writing is true or you have an ax to grind with Stein. Did Stein steal your girlfriend or something? Did he give you a wedgy in gym class? Sound like your really obsessed with Mitchell Stein. Do you Love HIm? Do you secretly WANT him Mel. You know when people are atracted to other people they lash out sometimes at the ones the really love. Dont drag us into your obsession with Mitchell Stein.
Darrell
December 23, 2011 at 9:38 am
Dear Mel,
Are you on prescription medication? I didnt see any other attorneys coming out to fight the banks.. It was Stein who brought all this out. It was groundbreaking at the time and now you can see attorneys in every state filing AG’s all over the country investigating the banks Federal goverment ramping up investigations against the banks. I dont know if what your writing is true or you have an ax to grind with Stein. Did Stein steal your girlfriend or something? Did he give you a wedgy in gym class? Sound like your really obsessed with Mitchell Stein. Do you Love HIm? Do you secretly WANT him Mel. You know when people are atracted to other people they lash out sometimes at the ones the really love. Dont drag us into your obsession with Mitchell Stein.
Mel Content
December 27, 2011 at 10:13 am
” I dont know if what your writing is true or you have an ax to grind with Stein.”
What? That I would bid on that cheesy doberman painting at auction? Yes, that is completely true. The rest of this flumdiddle you’ve posted? Not so much.
I’m a big fan of Karma. I’m not a big fan of Stein, going waaaaaaay back to his days with Lidak, Avanir, Healthmed, NCFE etc.
Hey, at least I have a sense of humor. I know the folks who are working this case aren’t nearly as jocular.
Darrell
December 27, 2011 at 10:33 am
Happy New Year Mel. Who knows were this will go now.
Mel Content
December 27, 2011 at 11:15 am
I do.
Mel Content
December 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Nope. No medication. Although Eileen and Bill Perman are both on medication and when the Bronstein family found out what they were tangled up with, they needed meds too. Oh man, you have no idea.
Then we showed them a picture of 24600 John Colter and they really went nuttso. The only thing that can flip a patsy faster than me are the relatives of said patsy. We call these things Taco Bell cases because when they are so well made, someone always makes a run for the border.
Krista Railey
October 27, 2011 at 8:00 pm
John, I am confused as to why you are so adamant regarding Stein being active and authorized to practice law? He doesn’t have possession of his files and his accounts are frozen. I can’t imagine him taking on paying clients given the circumstances, and if he is willing to take on clients pro bono, I don’t think they would care what Steve wrote. Steve put out the Court Orders and Transcripts, and potential clients can make a decision from there.
Again, why is this such a bone of contention?
Piggybankblog
October 27, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I the first hearing the judge said that he could have his files back. The clients are able to get their own files and give them to Mr. Stein.
For the record, the files Mitch is talking about are the “litigation files” that help him fight the case. The judge ordered those back to him so he could “practice law.” Why else would the judge give them back to him?
This is exactly what I mean when I say you do not present the big picture while taking things out of context. It is also what I mean when I say a little bit of knowledge is dangerous in both of your caes. You take bits and pieces without doing “due diligence.”
.
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
.
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
Piggybankblog
October 27, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Well you yourself have said it Krista. You “revised” it after you had other information. However, before that, it could have been considered malicious and cruel judgments before the person had a chance to defend themselves in court, such as you are doing with Stein and emails. I think they call it “jumping to conclusions” before Mr. Stein has been afforded the opportunity to dispute the evidence in a court of law. In other words, the damage was already done before you corrected it. The point is that it is just unfortunate that it had taken them suing you for it to be revised. Before it was revised, you were creating a victim…………. and that is fact. Please do not make that same mistake with Stein.Krista, you are trying to have a trial on a case based on emails that Mr. Stein has yet had the opportunity to represent himself against in a “real trial.” That is not fair that you are holding the trial you seem to be creating online. Exactly what the court system complains about the press doing in high profile case. You are trying the case in the press Krista, and that is not responsible. Now if you find it okay to consider a man guilty before proven innocent and before he has had a chance to tell his side………then okay! However, that says nothing about my character or style of reporting as you suggested. It says everything about your unfair style of reporting that has been documented as not being the right thing to do before. Considering, your claim of “You” or “Andleman” is clearly unsubstantiated by the fact.Yes, we are entitled to our opinions. However, let the record show that you have been sued for your opinion in the past for being inaccurate. I have not. Therefore, I think my credibility in this area speaks for itself. Therefore, I not sure you are the person qualified or creditable enough to make these kind of judgments. Your statements were MEAN! You were bluntly attacking me! However, we will remain friends as long as you do not attack my character or blog in and unfair and malicious way as you did when you know I am a public person. This is because with friends like that I do not need enemies.In the end, I think you make a great detective. However, I just think you make a lousy attorney or judge because you apparently do not understand the process enough to decipher the transcripts and how it applies to the law. I happen to have a little more experience in this area.My name is John Wright AND I JUST FOUGHT BACK!John WrightPiggybankblog.com
Mel Content
December 22, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Oh for christ’s sake. People, this guy IS Mitch Stein. There’s never been an internet board or discussion forum about him or any of his companies that he didn’t post on as a regular member.
There. Cat’s out of the bag.
Have a wonderful Festivus, Mitch. The airing of the grievances is coming…… and its coming real hard.
Piggybankblog
October 28, 2011 at 4:14 am
Krista:
Yes. That is what I said. I said you caused damage using the same method you
are using here. Correcting it after the damage is done does not make the
victims whole Krista. That only makes you feel better. What would have made
them feel better is if you did not do it in the first place. Either way, it sounds like you “did not do
the math right.”
Once again, there is evidence, such as you stated, but it could have perfect
explanations. The question here Krista is not if he is guilty based on our
emotional feeling about the evidence. The issue is if once in court the
evidence will hold up. There is many times where a jury emotionally thinks the
person did it, but at the same, it would end up that they would have to come
back with an acquittal. Perfect example of this would be in the O.J. Simpson
case.
You are taking very little pieces of evidence, such as the email from Vito, and
then you are making the conclusion that once in court Mr. Stein will be found
guilty based on evidence that he had dealings with APC. That is not how it
works in court. Like it or not, Mr. Stein can have dealings with APC and not be
affiliated with the mailer scheme. There are plenty of businesses that people
have dealt with in the past that ended up being potentially guilty of fraud,
and yet, it does not mean they are a part of that fraud. A good example would
Bank of America. (wink)
Now, emotionally you can rule that he was involved no matter what he says. You
can conclude that it is bullshit what he is saying. However, unless you have
evidence that him being affiliated with APC makes him directly involved with
the mailer scheme…………………you have nothing in a court of law but YOUR theory. The
jury cannot say “Well I think that makes him guilty,” but has to see something
that makes them “know he is guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt.
As I understand it, APC was used for several different things, but that is not
the issue either. What if Stein was interested and then backed off and was not
interested anymore? Then what? What if Mr. Stein threatened to kill someone but
then changed his mind? Does that make him guilty of murder?
My point is that you are insinuating that he is guilty before he has given his
response, which can only be based in a biased conclusion, because that is not
how our system works. That is how you work and probably why you were sued for
it before. You say you do not have anything personal against Stein, and that
the same time, you are convicting him before he has even had his day in court.
I cannot think of anything more personal than that.
It is not helping homeowners to have Mr. Stein not be able to practice law
Krista. You are hurting homeowners by doing that. Have you read what the
homeowners have been saying here? THEY DON’T WANT YOUR HELP! You are like Mrs.
Kravitz on Bewitched or something, BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO MAKE IT TO
WHERE STIEN CAN NOT PRACTICE! NOT ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT STEIN HAS VICTIMIZED
THEM WITH A MAILER! So leave them alone and mind your own business. If they are
saying they are not victims…………….why are you telling them they are? You are
just nosey.
Now, as far you saying that you would have “put more stock” if I had reported
on the transcripts……Well, let the record show that I used testimony based on
people who were there in the court room and was right. You used the court order
and you were both wrong! Then you got the context of the transcript wrong too.
So I am not sure how you qualify your statement that people should look to you
and Rhodes if they want a true and accurate reporting BECAUSE YOU WERE WRONG
EVEN WITH THE COURT ORDER AND TRANSCRIPT AND I WAS RIGHT!
Your insinuation or dig that I am somehow reporting in Stein’s favor because I
am represented pro bono is slanderous really. First of all, there has been no
such deal, even though I know that you are going to say that you did not say
that. You did not have to, because I noticed that you did not say that I would
have an interest if I was not being represented pro bono. Mr. Stein has
represented a lot of people pro bono………..SO FUCKING WHAT? This is exactly what
I mean when I say that you and Rhodes draw conclusion while you try to bait the
audience with a little bit of a truth to sell your lie. It is tricky and not
integrity based. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Also, I am not basing my opinion on if Stein is part of the mailer scheme. I am
basing my opinion upon the court proceedings and the TRUE LEGAL MEANINGS of
what was said and happened. In the end, your meaning said that a preliminary
injunction meant he could not practice law. However, mine said that he could,
and guess what? I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG! Therefore, it is not my
opinion, but it is the facts that I report on. You report on your opinion by
leading people to a wrong conclusion with bread crumbs in itemized fashion. You
use words like “Mountain of evidence” as your basis. It could end up that it
was a “Mountain of bogus evidence” in the trial. It does mean he is guilty,
even though you are trying to make it appear that he is by misleading people
with what the court process was about. This is because due process does not
seem to matter to you because the Honorable Judge Krista Railey has ruled he is
guilty on her past evidence she has investigated.
What should you say to Stein clients? NOTHING! Nobody wants your help! However,
if you are insisting…………I guess you should tell them that the truth is that he
is still practicing law. You should tell them that they could give him their
files if they want to. They have paid him, so why should they not go back to
him? He was representing them in court, so why wouldn’t they want you to tell
them that? None of them have complained about being a victim of a mailer
scheme, so why wouldn’t you tell them he is a practicing attorney? You know
why? Maybe because you do not want them to think he is innocent. ONCE AGAIN!
THE JURIDICTION OVER THE FIRM IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDER! Not this wide
open control for other things that you seem to be under the opinion of. It
simply substantiated that the Bar could do what they did, and it did not say
that they could do more than they did. I do not know what part of that you do
not understand. What should they be afraid of Krista? That they are going to
take their files again? Freeze his money again?
In regards to if he charges or does not charge……………..call his office yourself.
I do not work for Stein. I am not Stein’s spokesman. Use “due diligence” and
call 411 because I am not 411. I just reported the court proceeding. I am just
a high profile client and that’s all. How would I know what he charges……. I AM
PRO BONO REMEMBER? You talk to me like I work for him something. I was just
reporting on the court case on my attorney because it affects myself and other
people in the lawsuit. You on the other hand say you do not have an interest in
it like me…………so buzz off and mind your own business! The clients do not want
your help Krista. It is all in your head that you are helping them. They do not
want you to protect them. They are not saying they are victim………..YOU ARE
SAYING THEY ARE VICTIMS!
I think my record of being right that the court order did not mean that Mr.
Stein could not practice law speaks for itself, Mrs. Railey. This means if they
want the right information they should come to me. If they want the wrong
information they should go to you and Steve Rhodes. That is why your statement
that implied that people are not going to get the true story from me is even
unsubstantiated.
I will be writing a blog on this whole event tonight. So you can see more
information of what I see as fact tomorrow. We will let the people decide who
is right and who is wrong. However, people need to know that you have been
wrong before and have been sued. This is as important as you seem to think it
is that people know that I am represented pro bono. This also needs to be done
so they can at least realize that you have been sued for thinking you were
right before, so they can at least understand you have a record of being wrong,
before you imply that you and Steve are where people should go to get the
truth. People need to know that your statement that they cannot depend on my
page for an accurate account is FALSE and is proof that you are using Steve
Rhodes as a puppet to get your spin and propaganda out there without putting
your name on it. At least I use my name and take credit for all my stories
(wink)
My name is John Wright AND I FOUGHT BACK AGAINST YOUR MEAN, RUDE,
SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND SELF-SERVING COMMENTS ABOUT ME AND MY BLOG ON STEVE RHODES
PAGE!
John Wright
Piggybankblog.com
Krista Railey
October 27, 2011 at 7:19 pm
John, I chided you for writing an article about what happened at the hearing without having been to the hearing, read the transcript, or reviewed the order. Furthermore, your comments referring to the Honorable Judge Jane Johnson as the Elderly Judge Jane Johnson and implying that she is senile are out of line and disrespectful. Just because you have an interest in Stein due to your case is no reason for you to attack her acumen or character. Shame on you, John Wright.
I read the transcript and the ruling, and I can say four things definitively:
1. The court does not find Mitchell J. Stein credible.
2. The court issued an Injunction and made the order permanent.
3. The court made the interim orders re: Jurisdiction over Stein’s law practice Permanent.
4. The court denied Stein’s ex-parte motion re: asset freeze.
As to the LLP, the court cited that Mitchell J. Stein did not submit proper evidence to the court regarding the existence of the LLP. In reading the orders and the transcript, the Judge acted appropriately. The LLP cannot be found in a search of the CA Secretary of State’s website, and document submitted was not a certified document and did not come from the CA Secretary of State. The fact that Stein thought it was more important to blow up an uncertified, inadmissible document from the State Bar to hold up for the peanut gallery rather than properly submit certified documents from the Secretary of State to the proper filing with the CA SOS under the B & P Code (and discloses the identities of all the partners) demonstrates a lack of judgment and possible disrespect for the court.
But, the issue goes further than the mere existence of the LLP in that even if the LLP exists (which the court did not have evidence of at the hearing), the court observed that Stein was the only partner as Davis had assumed private practice and Riley is not a member of the CA Bar (which makes him ineligible to practice law in the State of California). Hence, the Judge rejected Stein’s argument.
As to the overwhelming evidence, the Honorable Judge Jane Johnson stated in the hearing:
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND WITH RESPECT TO THE TENTATIVE RULING ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. WHILE I DIDN’T QUOTE ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE TENTATIVE, IT’S AN 18-PAGE TENTATIVE. IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A 65-PAGE TENTATIVE HAD I QUOTED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.
If you don’t understand the evidence, I suggest you obtain a copy and read through all of it. While you claim that some of the individuals are criminals and not credible, then why Stein do business with them? You, yourself, have had dealings with Damien Kutcher, and Brookstone Law is representing you in your case. Is Vito Torchia not credible? Is that what you are saying?
What about all the emails? Emails from Stein, to Stein, and/or copied to Stein? What about the checks payable to Stein that were processed by APC? What about the Kramer clients that were added to the Ronald vs. B of A case? BTW, there was an email from Kramer to Stein re: Stein rolling over on him.
I don’t hate Stein; I just don’t buy spin or propaganda. Steve did not say that Stein is not allowed to practice law, but moreover commented that he had heard rumblings that Stein was returning to practice, got his client’s file back, and was ready to resume the pay to join mass lawsuits. There have indeed been rumblings on the internet, and Stein stated he intends to continue to practice. However, the order giving the CA Bar Jurisdiction over Stein’s practice is permanent. The files are not being returned, and his accounts are still frozen. Furthermore, no member of the LLP has stepped up to assume the practice, so posting the CA Bar’s recording is reasonable.
Really John, if Steve doesn’t post the court orders and transcripts and report the facts, who will? You? Andelman? I don’t think so. Andelman is silent, and most of what you do is mock government officials and take potshots at respectable judges while ignoring salient information.
Piggybankblog
October 27, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Krista:
There are many reporters that interview people in the
courtroom before there are transcripts because they are not readily available
right away. It is preposterous for you
to suggest that my method is irregular.
I realize that you are trying to make it the world you want it to be all
the time, but for now; you need to live in the world we are in Krista. With that being said, there was nothing
irregular in me writing an article based on five court room observers, who incidentally,
did not know one another and a reporter.
I am sorry that you feel that my reference to the elderly
Jude Johnson offends you; however, I think her rolling her eyes as Mr. Stein
while he speaks offended many in the court room, as well as making personal
comments that made it appear that she was biased. I also find it disrespectful that she might
make biased decisions that create victims.
She is a public figure Krista, which make her fair game. The press using colorful words and a picture
to describe public figures has been used since the beginning of freedom of the
press. For example, there was at one
time a picture where a newspaper has George Washington ride a donkey into
Washington. Though some might have found
it disrespectful, it is the right of the writer to use dramatic license if they
want to. She already knew that she would
become under the scrutiny of the press and the public the day she decided she
wanted to become a public figure. I
suggest you write your own blog if you want to present her in a different
way. However, until then, it is the “John
Wright’s Daily Blog,” which implies that it is through the eyes of John Wright
and not Krista Railey. I will say it
again, which I that I am not the New York Times or Steve Rhodes Blog. I AM A PROTEST SITE! What does that mean? IT MEANS I PROTEST! You simply should not go to my site if it
offends you. You should also read my
disclaimer.
1.
The court
does not find Mitchell J. Stein credible – Answer: This is what she said. However, she does really substantiate her
claims for why either. It seems as if
she began to treat it like a trial based on the evidence in front of her from
the bar, but without allowing Mr. Stein to opportunity to dispute the
evidence. In retrospect, that would
imply that she might not be credible.
Once again, the man is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law
in a trial. You are using that statement
to imply he is guilty. This is
irresponsible of you.
2.
The court issued and injunction and made the
order permanent – Answer: Now the other
day you were insisting that the injunction was to mean he could not practice law.
Here you do a hit and run statement but
without saying what the injunction granted.
It was nothing Krista! It simply
stated that he could not mislead mortgage clients. BFD! You
make it sound like the injunction was something that implies he is guilty. It does not mean that. It means that the judge simply felt there was
enough evidence to grant the order until it is heard in a trial. So please stop being silly.
3.
The court made the interim order re:
Jurisdiction over Stein’s law practice permanent – Answer – Yes!
But only regarding the things outlined in the order, such as taking his
files. It does not imply that they can
tell him what to do on every issue. If
this were true, I would venture to guess that the AG would not be seeking to “super
intend” over Mr. Stein, because she would simply have the power to do so
already. The order only suggests that
they have the right to NOT GIVE HIM THE FILES BACK. You are exaggerating its meaning.
4.
The court denied Stein’s expert motion re: asset
freeze – Answer- Until she reads the Florida decision Krista. Either
way, it does not mean that he will not have that un-frozen after the
trial. THIS WAS NOT THE TRIAL
KRISTA! Stop implying that it makes him
guilty.
As to the LLP: I
might not entirely disagree with you on this matter. I think the judge was right. That is why in my blog today I referenced that
very statement, while pointing out that it should be the same in the case of
MERS. I do not know why Mr. Stein did
not bring the original Krista. Maybe
they had taken his copies in the raid and this was all he had left. Maybe there was not enough time for him to
get what he needed from the CA Secretary of State. I can already tell you from experience that
the response of the Secretary of State IS SLOW!
I have a cooperation, so I should know.
I also know that they did not post that I was an LLP. when I was THREE
TIMES. They corrected it later. But that is neither here or there, because
what is interesting is that you only want to talk about the judges statements
regarding what you listed she said, without telling the rest of the story. The
judge said that she never said that he was not an LLP. Therefore, why are you saying he is not? Are you smarter than the judge? It simply said that he did not bring her sufficient
and acceptable evidence. She never ruled
that it was not an LLP. Therefore, your
bread crumbs of cut and paste statements are suspect, because you only tell the
story that will fit what you want people to think in the world of Krista. SHE NEVER RULED THAT IT WAS NOT AN LLP. So why are you going beyond the court and
ruling that it is not? You can rule this
but the judge cannot? Huh? That seems a little self-righteous to say the
least!
Your argument about the partners: Yes she did mention this Krista, based on the
evidence at hand. However, ONCE AGAIN,
she goes on the record with saying that SHE NEVER SAID THAT THEY WERE NOT AN
LLP. Why? Because she only said that the evidence she
had before her said otherwise. This does
imply that Mr. Stein does not have that evidence at the trial. This is a simple
case where the Judge Krista Railey has made this ruling…………..but not the
elderly Judge Johnson.
“THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I HAVE NOT
HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND WITH RESPECT TO THE TENTATIVE RULING
ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. WHILE I DIDN’T QUOTE ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE
TENTATIVE, IT’S AN 18-PAGE TENTATIVE. IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A 65-PAGE
TENTATIVE HAD I QUOTED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.”
– Answer – It only suggests that there is enough evidence to suggest
that it should stand UNTIL THE TRIAL. It
does not mean he is guilty.
The checks and emails: This will be brought out AT THE TRIAL! Checks in Stein’s name going into APC mean
nothing. I can have people write a check
to Krista Railey and put it my corporate account, but does that mean you are part
of the scam? Phillip Kramer might have wanted
the people to believe that Stein was involved (obviously by the evidence of the
mailer) so that they could continue the scam.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT STEIN WAS A
PART OF IT! Who is in control of APC
Krista? PHILLIP KRAMER! The question is if the money then made its
way to Stein after that, in which I have neither seen you or the Bar produce
any substantial evidence to validate this false allegation. Once again, you are taking things out of
context to fit your version, whereas, I am speaking in a way that a court and
jury would view it.
You say: “I don’t hate Stein; I just
don’t buy spin or propaganda. Steve did not say that Stein is not allowed to
practice law, but moreover commented that he had heard rumblings that Stein was
returning to practice, got his client’s file back, and was ready to resume the
pay to join mass lawsuits. There have indeed been rumblings on the internet,
and Stein stated he intends to continue to practice. However, the order giving
the CA Bar Jurisdiction over Stein’s practice is permanent. The files are not
being returned, and his accounts are still frozen. Furthermore, no member of
the LLP has stepped up to assume the practice, so posting the CA Bar’s
recording is reasonable.”
Answer to your statement above: This is a lack of understanding of what that
means legally Krista. This is what I mean
when I say “cognitive thinking issues.”
The order did not say that the Bar could do whatever they wanted, but
simply stated that they had jurisdiction in the objections they submitted to
the court, such as in the freezing of his assets. The bar cannot rule that Mr. Stein cannot
practice without giving him a hearing…….PERIOD!
Your assumption that they can IS SIMPLY FALSE! And I am propaganda huh? Please!
Answer about Rhodes never saying he
could not practice law: Well I already
answered to Steve on this claim that he did not say that Stein could not
practice law. I stated that he did not
say that, but insinuates it with his tenor when he uses the word “but” to
follow what he said. That is called a “sleight
of hand trick” to condition the person to think there is doubt. THERE IS NO DOUBT! STEIN CAN PRACTICE LAW!
Answer:
What? What was your implication
about me and Damian? Well, okay, does
that mean because I retained Brookstone as my attorney that “I am in business
with them”? Should I also be responsible
for if anyone I “do business with” does not pay their taxes? Now I can see why you were sued Krista. At any rate, to suggest that Mr. Stein is
responsible for a scam because he has done previous business with Mr. Kramer is
POPOSTEROUS! Therefore, I guess we
should impeach Obama too, because he has done business with people that went to
prison for crying out loud. The world of
Krista is such strange rule based in delusions and self-righteous judgments
made from a internal warm fuzzy feeling you get. This why you were probably sued before
Krista, because you very close to slander.
Who the “F” are you to close your
response with this comment of who will report it…me or Andleman?…. “I don’t
think so” bullshit? Well, since you are
so good at attacking other people’s character and bringing shit out about them,
how about we talk about YOUR CHARACTER and bring out YOUR SHIT for a change?
Krista, have you ever been sued for
posting inaccurate information about a company or anything of that nature? YES YOU HAVE!
This means you tend to say things THAT ARE NOT TRUE while you
potentially slander others names and companies potential cognitive thinking
issues. Were you found guilty? Did you settle? So why should we believe that you are
credible? This is especially since you
might have a history OF NOT DOING THE MATH RIGHT! What respect should I have for you hiding behind
Steve Rhodes as a “incredible tipster,” after I have concluded that it is only because
you are afraid that you are going to get sued again. You do this because you lack balls baby! No pun intended! This is probably because you might be scared YOU
ARE GOING TO GET SUED AGAIN. So you
simply submit information to Steve Rhodes as a puppet to post your
bullshit. Then you leave him statements
that I make to my dog……… “Good boy Steve!
Good work!” Shut up Krista!
The only credible evidence that might
have been submitted on Steve Rhodes page is that you have been maybe SUED FOR
NOT DOING THE MATH RIGHT BEFORE!
You are bringing a knife to a gunfight
Krista. (wink)
Bring it!
My name is John Wright AND I AM
FIGHTING BACK!
Steve Rhode
October 27, 2011 at 9:24 pm
John,
Are you saying the transcript forwarded to me was not correct? What’s in error?
And John, if you have any documents you want to forward to me, please feel free to.
Steve
Piggybankblog
October 27, 2011 at 10:40 pm
I am implying that you are not understanding the legal tenor of what you are reading. This is why I said your “little bit of knowledge is dangerous.”
.
I tend to have more experience in this area.
.
Your friend,
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
Krista
October 31, 2011 at 11:33 pm
John: First off, I apologized for the tone of my previous comment. I am glad to see that you have posted the transcript. I also spoke to Andelman, and he said he hasn’t read all the documents and so he can’t comment right now. I agree that you do deserve dignity and respect, and introducing such a negative tone only detracts from the issues and creates hard feelings.
I did, however, talk to the CA DOC today and was informed that LLP’s should show up in the Secretary of State’s records, and tested it again by checking on another LLP that I know is registered. Of course, Stein could make things easier by simply providing documentation from the Secretary of State/Department of Corporations.
After reviewing his website, I did note that his website states:
“This is the Official Website of Mitchell J. Stein & Associates LLP. For avoidance of doubt, this law Firm has never been sued by the State of California or the California State Bar. This firm has never been disciplined, nor have any of its members.”http://www.dobielaw.org/default.html
Obviously, it would be easier if Stein would provide evidence of his LLP once and for all. But regardless of the existence of the LLP, the fact still remains that the AG is suing Mitchell J. Stein, and I do believe that he is a person that is also an attorney practicing law. I am also looking at a court transcript and orders naming Mitchell J. Stein as a Defendant.
As to the evidence, it is not just the Declarations of Damian and Vito, there are also Declarations of other affiliates, co-counsel, and the CA Bar investigator. In addition to the declarations, there are emails which demonstrate that a business relationship did exist including an email from APC to Vito that copied Stein regarding the processing a checks and retainers. As to the checks, I am still at a loss to figure out how third party checks were deposited. The Honorable Judge Jane Johnson did state in court that the tentative would have been much longer if she had cited all the evidence. However, I agree that it is important to see what transpires throughout the legal proceedings.
You are well within your right to interpret the information and exhibits in the filings as you see fit. However, it is also my right to take the documents seriously and form my own opinion. Nonetheless, I will give Mr. Stein the opportunity to present his case and refute the facts. Until he has done so, I only have the documents that are filed in which to form a opinion right now.
As to my lawsuit, this is no secret, and in fact, I have publicly commented on ML Implode that I think the article should be taken down or revised. As soon as the lawsuit is over, I will issue a public apology and update the article for whoever is willing to publish it. The reason for the corrections is because the data and testimony were not reliable. Unless you were well versed in FHA underwriting, delinquency reporting, the Credit Watch Termination Initiative, OIG reports and testimony of HUD officials, Annual Actuarial Reviews of the MMI Fund, FHA Outlook Reports, history of FHA rule making on the subject, or the history of FHA delinquency rates and correlating changes (read: loosening) of FHA underwriting guidelines, I do not think you would understand why or how I came to believe that FHA data regarding Seller Funded Down Payment Grants should be deemed unreliable. And unless you knew who actually gave testimony as “Mr. House” and that person’s history with the Plaintiff, you would not have the necessary information to be able to comment on the lawsuit intelligently. That is not meant as a knock, but moreover, to point out that the matter is simply to complex for most to understand, and again, only detracts from the discussion regarding the mass joinders.
I will say, however, that I highly doubt that I am the only person in the history of man who has ever made a mistake and taken action to rectify the mistake. I suspect that I am not alone, and perhaps there is a reason why pencils generally have erasers on the end.
The important thing here is that we do not let our opinions get erode our decorum or friendship. I do hope that you are able to resolve your issues with Bank of America, and keep your home.
Mel Content
December 21, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Now would be a good time for you to be very careful.
Piggybankblog
December 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Why should I be careful Mel? I did not do anything?
Why do people think I have done something wrong? (lol) Am I going to be
arrested for having an opinion? Am I considered armed and dangerous with
keyboard! (lol) You and I don’t live in the same county, because apparently
live in Nazi Germany in fear, but I live in The United States of America where the
press does not go to jail for writing a story. (lol)
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
John Wright
Piggybankblog.com
Mel Content
December 22, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Slow your roll there Norma Rae. I’m just trying to help you out. The guy has gone radioactive. He was ostensibly a consumer advocate who turns around and pleads guilty to criminal charges of securities fraud. That’s some king size cognitive dissonance.If you see that and still feel the need to shill for the ludicrous idea of paying retainer on a mass joinder then you need to be careful about one of the following:
A) Information about relationships and understandings that comes out while plea bargaining with guys facing 30 years or,
B) Revolving doors and shiny object while driving your Honda.
People will get to the bottom of this. All the way to the bottom. I’d be running, not walking away from all things Mitch Stein.
***except for that groovy doberman painting. That would look so good next to my velvet Elvis and my “Proud to be Amerkin” t-shirt signed by Lee Greenwood and Jeff Skilling.
Piggybankblog
December 23, 2011 at 2:20 am
Well first of all I am not a “Shill” Mel. “A Shill is typically referred
to as someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an
enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) that he or
she is secretly working for. The person
or group that hires the shill is using crowd
psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase
the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by confidence
artists.
Mel, I have not
received any compensation from Mr. Stein to promote him. Neither have there been any discussions
between myself and Mr. Stein about promoting him. My “enthusiasm” was not fake, but was
actually how I felt about having an attorney on my team that was even described
by his enemies as “a very good attorney”.
Nevertheless, please tell me Mel
where I have told people to go to Mr. Stein?
Then please tell me why I would promote people going to Mr. Stein when I
actually have my own lawsuit with another law firm? Does that make sense to you Mel? And neither do you!
Also, you might
want to check your facts because Mr. Stein has not pleaded guilty to any charges. That was a misprint that was later
retracted. Retraction:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/21/42428.htm
Now, please do me
a favor Mel. Please stop trying to “do
me a favor”. Spreading rumors about me
that are not true might not be “being careful”.
Mind your own business please, because I don’t need some guy from some potentially
washed up blog talking about something he has no idea what he is talking
about.
Respectfully,
Norma Rae
Piggybankblog
December 23, 2011 at 2:26 am
P.S. I was not talking about your blog Steve. I was talking aout Mel’s.
Peace out!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Piggybankblog
December 23, 2011 at 3:55 am
Hey, I am sorry I responded with fire Mel. When I thougt about it, I thought the Norma Rae thing was pretty funny actually. I just do not like it when someone implies to people that I am shill when I am not. However, I have to admit, I can see why people would think that.
Nevertheless, Stein is not my attorney anymore. I only protect my attorneys representing me in my BofA case because I have been a victim of BofAs attorneys potentially unethical ways of getting my lawsuit dismissed before, in which this time I was not going to allow it. That is why I began protecting my lawsuit from these kind of things.
In regards to the Firm charging for entry, I did not even know that they were going to charge until AFTER the lawsuit was filed. I had to actually update my promotion of lawsuit page AFTER the fact. I found out from another blogger they were charging. So in my mind it was like a class action lawsuit, in which I felt that I needed to bring as many people into it to be an effective fighting back force against Bank of Stealing My American Dream. However, I might not like that they charge, but it does not mean that it is an illegitimate lawsuit Mel. I gave anyone who was claiming to be a victim a chance on my blog to come forward the other day, in which the only person who came forward was someone claiming that they were actually happy with Brookstone.
That is why I don’t always understand why “consumer advocates,” such as my friend Krista Railey (And I do mean friend because i do like her) feel a need to protect people who are not claiming to be victims. That is why I think it is safe to leave the consumer advocacy up to the consumer with this one.
In closing, I actually agree with you Mel, regardless to the fact that he did not plead guilty, that he is “radioactive” right now. However, the comments above from me was when he was my attorney, in which he has not been for some time now. I only protect my attorneys because I have to protect my lawsuit and the people on my school bus. At the end of the day, it does not matter to me if he pleads guilty though, and I have no fears, because there is simply no money or agreement between Stein and me that would suggest that I would promote him for any reason. It is just a dramatic expression of mine to display how I am feeling at that time. Do I regret it? Sometimes I do, but not enough to be afraid that i need to change something because I think I am guilty of something.
All I got to say is this Mel: If I go to jail for something I did not do, and did not make a dime…….I am going to be really pissed off! (lol)
Once again, I am sorry I was a little hard on you in my response. It is a very sensative topic these days.
Norma Rae (Wink)
Piggybankblog
December 23, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I have taken your advice Mel. I have posted the following blog on December 23rd, 2011 at “John’s Daily Blog” at piggybankblog.com
“I have been advised that it might be in my best interest to halt any protest on my blog that might have involved Mitchell J. Stein’s name at the time before he was arrested. This advice comes from several consumer advocates and friends that feel I need to take action with no further delay, basically because I am a high profile blogger, who has an obligation first and foremost to protect the public from any possibility that Mitchell J. Stein might be actually guilty of any of the charges brought against him by the United States Department of Justice. This is even though Mitchell J. Stein is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Therefore, in the spirit of cooperation, I will be adding a disclaimer to all “individual” protest pages involving the California Attorney General, California State Bar Association, Judge Jane Johnson, and removing any and all youtubes that might be perceived as putting Mitchell J. Stein in good light while facing these very serious charges. I will simply add to the blog page the following statement: “This Protest Page Has Been Suspended While Charges Pending Against Mitchell J. Stein By The DOJ Regarding A Seperate Matter.” Please be advised that I will not be removing or adding any entries in “John’s BofA daily blog”. This is because my daily blog is an ongoing journal that documents my perceptions and feelings at the time events happen. It also does not mean that I will not open a new blog page in protest of The California Attorney General and Florida Attorney General regarding their choice to not prosecute the banks……
The following changes will be effective and completed over the next few days.
All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
.
My name is Norma Rae AND I AM FIGHTING BACK! (Wink)
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
Krista Railey
October 31, 2011 at 10:35 pm
John and Martin, I apologize for the comment about not reporting the facts. I did note that John has since posted the transcript. I have also talked to Martin who said he is still weeding through the documentation and is too busy working on other things at this time to attempt to comment.
As I have told John and Martin, I apologize for my tone, and since we are friends, need to keep it friendly and fight nice.
John Wright
October 27, 2011 at 11:01 am
Mr. Rhodes,
.
It might appear that you are once again using a little bit
of the truth to sell a lie. This might
be in hopes of maybe leading your readers to what you think about Mr. Stein,
instead of based on the facts.
.
Facts:
1.
Mitchell J. Stein can indeed practice law. The only ones that might be misleading the
public with deceptive and misleading advertising is the State Bar with this
recording you are talking about. You
state the following: “I’ve even
heard rumblings from some that Stein was returning to practice, got his client
files back and was ready to proceed with his pay to join mass lawsuits against
mortgage companies and banks. But if you call 213-765-1639 you hear the
following message.”
For the record, Mr.
Stein is not returning to practice, but he has never left his practice. However, is this reference to the Bar
recording to give your readers the idea that Mr. Stein received some kind of
unfavorable ruling saying that he cannot practice law?
Mr. Rhodes, had you
used due diligence, you could see in the transcripts from the hearing that even
the judge admits that Mr. Stein can indeed practice law. Now I already know that you are going to refer
to the recording again, however, I submit to you proof that the State Bar readily
admits that Mr. Stein can indeed practice law, while I submit to you the following
recording that I have from the State Bar, which incidentally, you could have
also called and confirmed before misleading your readers to think that Mr.
Stein cannot practice. – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Gm-3R7lzD8M
2. Matthew Davis has never met or even talked to Mr. Stein in his
entire life. Is it possible that Matthew
Davis was being misled to believe that Stein was involved, but only so the
marketers could convince him that it was all legit and he continue being the
potential fall guy? Totally
possible!
3. Every person who gave a declaration was in receipt of money from
the mailer scam, who could be giving their testimony so the authorities will go
light on them.
4. The ones giving the declarations have a questionable past, in which
might render them not credible at the end of the day. One of them has a record for being a felon,
while doing time for fraud. Does that
mean they are capable of lying? You bet
it does!
5. Mr. Stein is the only one who is not in receipt of any money and
has signed no retainers for the mailer scheme.
What would be his interest then?
6. Is it possible that the people who gave the declarations were angry
at Mr. Stein because he would not sign the retainers for their mailer scam? Was this their way of getting him back? Do the math. (wink)
.
With that being said, the hearing was
not a trial Mr. Rhodes. The elderly
Judge Johnson only expressed that she believed that there was enough evidence
to suggest that it should go to trial. Which
I am sure you agree that Mr. Stein is innocent until proven guilty in a court
of law. The elderly Judge Johnson
refused to allow Mr. Stein to submit evidence to un-substantiate what she
called a “mountain of evidence.”
However, it does not suggest that Mr. Stein does not have evidence to
disprove the allegations set forth in this complaint are FALSE.
.
Therefore, the question is why is
Mitchell J. Stein allowed to practice law if there is this “mountain of
evidence” that the judge claims there is?
I will tell you why, it is because it is a bunch of bullshit, and the
judge appeared to be biased according to every single person that I interviewed
that was in that courtroom. Some
theorize it might be because the judge had or has somewhere two million dollars
invested in the mortgage loan pooling, in which one can draw their own
conclusions to why the elderly judge might be interested in Mr. Stein not being
able to fight the banks.
.
In conclusion, your article once again
seems not only to be biased, but in the end, it ultimately seems
unsubstantiated by the facts.
.
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTIG
BACK!
.
John Wright
Piggybankblog.com
Steve Rhode
October 27, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I never said he couldn’t practice law. It’s made clear in the hearing transcript which I published yesterday here.
piggybankblog
October 27, 2011 at 7:37 pm
It is true you did not bluntly say it Steve. However, you imply when you use the word “but” in the following statement: ” But if you call 213-765-1639 you hear the following message.” It implies that you are insinuating otherwise.
John Wright
piggybankblog.com
Steve Rhode
October 27, 2011 at 7:51 pm
What it implied was readers could listen to the message. What I said was “But if you call 213-765-1639 you hear the following message.”
Piggybankblog
October 27, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Will now post this in your article?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm-3R7lzD8M&feature=player_embedded
Steve Rhode
October 27, 2011 at 11:30 pm
And so you have.
Piggybankblog
October 28, 2011 at 1:41 am
No but I mean post it in your article because not everyone reads the comments. Will you post it in your article at the top where you have the “but” part. This way it will balance it out and not appear that you are leading the reader to think something else. It only seems fair since you now have new information that makes it clear. The comments should not have to make it clear, but the article should be clear.
Piggybankblog
October 28, 2011 at 1:41 am
No but I mean post it in your article because not everyone reads the comments. Will you post it in your article at the top where you have the “but” part. This way it will balance it out and not appear that you are leading the reader to think something else. It only seems fair since you now have new information that makes it clear. The comments should not have to make it clear, but the article should be clear.
Steve Rhode
October 28, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Can I post it over here on this newest story instead? See LA Court Issues Permanent Order Assuming Jurisdiction Over the Law Practice of Mitchell J. Stein.
Mel Content
December 21, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Maybe he should post it next to the story about Mitchell J. Stein pleading GUILTY on Dec. 18 to criminal charges of stock fraud and price manipulation. How about that?
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/21/42428.htm
Or I suppose he could post it inside another story about Mitchell Stein’s role in the failures of EMedsoft, National Century Financial Enterprises, World Commerce Bank, Lidak Pharmaceutical, Recom, Signalife, Chartwell, Avanir Pharmaceutical, etc. etc. etc.
Or howzabout he posts it in a story about Mr. Stein’s dealings with Regis Possino Martin Sumichrast, Sim Farar, Lance Poulsen, Raul Silvestre, Frank Magliochetti, Ken Londoner, Wendy Feldman, Rebbecca Parret, Dennis Hawk, Manny Barling, or the representative operations of Adnan Khashoggi , Amador Pastrana and Rakesh Saxena?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakesh_Saxena
If I were you, I’d be very careful about getting too Hyperbolic and confrontational with anyone critical of Mr. Stein. You have know idea what you’re up against. Really. No idea. You know Mr. Stein, yes? Classic narcissist. he wouldn’t admit fault or give up control under ANY circumstances that were not extremely compelling. And yet…….he plead guilty to some not so insignificant charges.
Figure it out. It doesn’t take a Philadelphia lawyer to know the jig’s up. A Pittsburghian will do just fine.
Mel Content
December 23, 2011 at 12:51 am
Wow, John. You have such a deep and intimate knowledge of Mitchell Stein’s business dealings. You know who he’s seen, who he has never seen, who he has agreements with, who he doesn’t have agreements with, what his strategy is, etc. etc. etc.
Let me ask you 2 questions, uhhh “John”. Two very serious questions.
1. Since you can’t take in any more rubes, what’s the freakin point?
2. Do you really think it’s a good idea at this stage of the game to piss off the people who know everything?
A Ghost From The Past
December 31, 2011 at 12:26 am
Mel Content…you would’ve made a great addition to the Recom/Signalife/Heart Tronics message board. Or perhaps you were there.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_H/messagesview?bn=27040
I’m a victim of the MED stock scam. I recognize so many names you mentioned. Many were among the 40+ names listed on my DOJ Grand Jury subpoena from several years ago.
I suspect there still might be a few people for the Feds to round up. I don’t believe Stein has pled guilty to anything yet…althought IMO he could easily get 15 years if his Heart Tronics case goes to trial. I was told by one Federal Agent that the MED and Signalife/Heart Tronics frauds could make a nice RICO case.
Would love to hear some of your insights on the Yahoo HRTT message board.
Krista Railey
October 25, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Great job Steve. I appreciate all your work in putting out information that the mass joinder cohorts do not want the public to know. Again, great work!
John Wright
October 27, 2011 at 11:25 am
Sorry
Krista, but that is not good work. This
is because it is not true. You have always taught me to use due diligence in
researching the facts. Though I like Steve, I think he did not call the bar for
comment like I did. I am wondering why you are not getting on him about not
using due diligence like you used to with me? Is it because you do not like
Stein, and therefore, you just approve of anything that puts him in bad light? Or
is it how they tried to take down Clinton for a blowjob, but because they could
not get him on all the other things they felt he was guilty for?
With that
being said, do you want Mr. Stein not to be able to practice law so that there
will be victims? None of his clients are
complaining or claiming that they were misled, but in fact, Mr. Stein came in
with something like a 100 affidavits saying the contrary. I do not hear anyone reporting on that?
Krista,
you are trying to create victims by wanting this man to not be able to practice
law. I am not sure you are best
representing the clients in Mr. Stein’s lawsuit on this issue. You want them to
be victims, that is if you want Stein to not be able to practice law. There is something wrong with that kid, and
it would appear to be a selfish self-motivated agenda if you continue to
applaud such terrible work, such as rewarding Steve for making the reach that
the bar was saying Mr. Stein cannot practice law because of the recording.
Krista,
it is not fair that you are putting Mr. Stein on trial here without him being
able to dispute these allegations while he is in litigation. It is a sort of
“put your hands down while I hit you” and it is not fair Krista.
Listen, I
have done much more work on following this lawsuit then Steve, as you already
know. However, I did not see you leaving
a comment on my blog thanking me for my hard work? All I could see was a link on my blog trying
to hijack my readers to the misleading implications on this page that you
wanted them to read.
Please
use due diligence before concluding that Mr. Stein could not practice law. Please “do the math” correctly next time.
Your
friend always,
John
Wright
piggybankblog.com