Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Index numbers are available for purchase from the New York court system. If this case were filed, it would have a case number attached. Can you provide a case number?
And it's hilarious that you link to a blog that is an extended diatribe against the lawyers that you are trying to defend.
I think it very strange you think you speak for everybody, if you want to claim just for those who have voiced an opinion, I find that just as odd.
I list 3 examples you give, each w/ 2 sides. CDusr says:
You seem to be spinning. One minute somebody is a dupe, another a liar. Another they are an unwitting scam participator and another on the payroll. One minute defending another not.
Index numbers are available for purchase from the New York court system. If this case were filed, it would have a case number attached. Can you provide a case number?
And it's hilarious that you link to a blog that is an extended diatribe against the lawyers that you are trying to defend.
There appears to be no case number. That link discusses this. Which is why I included it multiple times. Why is that hilarious?
I am not defending any lawyers. Where did I state such? Do you really believe I am "defending" the alleged lawyers in the case?
There appears to be no case number. That link discusses this. Which is why I included it multiple times. Why is that hilarious.
I am not defending any lawyers. Where did I state such? Do you really believe I am "defending" the alleged lawyers in the case?
Yeah, I think you are defending the "alleged" lawyers in this case.
You introduced a thread about a supposed lawsuit. Your thread was based on the press release that the lawyers (who are not alleged, they are real people) planted on the internet.
The press release's credibility doesn't depend on where it was planted, those websites can be credible news sites, but the news sites weren't reporting on the lawsuit, they simply allowed the lawfirm to put out its press release. The press release's credibility depends on the lawyers, whether they are trustworthy, and the press release depends on its accuracy.
The lawyers are not shown to be trustworthy. One, at least, is currently under indictment for one crime, and his offices have recently been raided in an investigation of another crime. His license has been revoked. The other lawyers are not trustworthy because they have merely renamed the lawfirm and have not distanced themselves from the actions of the discredited lawyer. Indeed, they seem to have embraced the actions of the discredited lawyer. Why do I say this, because they are asserting that this lawsuit has been filed, but the NY Court system says otherwise. They are asserting it in the press release whose credibility depends on its accuracy. And the accuracy of the press release is not supported by the NY Court system.
You started the thread because you evidently believed such a lawsuit has been filed. But given the problems with the press release and the lawyers involved, your continued attempts to validate the press release (by "linking" it to the Wall Street Journal, by trying to provide proof that the lawsuit has been filed) can be construed as a defense of the lawyers and the press release. Your position certainly isn't one attacking the lawyers and the press release. And your position up to this point isn't neutral, though I could certainly understand wanting to adopt a neutral position at this point.
Yeah, I think you are defending the "alleged" lawyers in this case.
You introduced a thread about a supposed lawsuit. Your thread was based on the press release that the lawyers (who are not alleged, they are real people) planted on the internet.
The press release's credibility doesn't depend on where it was planted, those websites can be credible news sites, but the news sites weren't reporting on the lawsuit, they simply allowed the lawfirm to put out its press release. The press release's credibility depends on the lawyers, whether they are trustworthy, and the press release depends on its accuracy.
The lawyers are not shown to be trustworthy. One, at least, is currently under indictment for one crime, and his offices have recently been raided in an investigation of another crime. His license has been revoked. The other lawyers are not trustworthy because they have merely renamed the lawfirm and have not distanced themselves from the actions of the discredited lawyer. Indeed, they seem to have embraced the actions of the discredited lawyer. Why do I say this, because they are asserting that this lawsuit has been filed, but the NY Court system says otherwise. They are asserting it in the press release whose credibility depends on its accuracy. And the accuracy of the press release is not supported by the NY Court system.
You started the thread because you evidently believed such a lawsuit has been filed. But given the problems with the press release and the lawyers involved, your continued attempts to validate the press release (by "linking" it to the Wall Street Journal, by trying to provide proof that the lawsuit has been filed) can be construed as a defense of the lawyers and the press release. Your position certainly isn't one attacking the lawyers and the press release. And your position up to this point isn't neutral, though I could certainly understand wanting to adopt a neutral position at this point.
This is my original OP. I agree, this law firm, has some question marks. So does this case. Never said otherwise. You seem to be fluctuating; I am providing proof or credibility? Which is it?
My view has been stated. Put it up and ask questions. The only way you get any answers. Certainly, when I see such a PR and accompanying summons I would assume this needs looking into.
I state alleged, because somebody claimed one attorney has lost his lic in CA. Same guy apparently has a trial set for other accusations.
Why would I attack anyone? Is that how it is? Are we the Hattfields and McCoys now?
CDusr says: Guess we will see if there is something to this.
Had you looked you would see the article has links to wsj. Seriously that's all you can add? MarketWatch.com
That site seems to have some good information on it.
50 State Foreclosure Abuse Settlment (http://piggybankblog.com/category/5-50-state-foreclosure-abuse-settlment/ - broken link)
Yeah, such facts that you began the thread with, has been shattered since and you're stilling clinging onto it.
So this isn't a PR about an alleged case?
I presented a link to a PR, and a posted summons. Seeing what could be found.
CDusr says: Guess we will see if there is something to this.
Had you looked you would see the article has links to wsj. Seriously that's all you can add? MarketWatch.com
So very shattered. Um yeah.
So not sure what you think has been shattered. Hopefully, there really is such a case or plenty of HO's and this attorney will be in hot water I would think.
So this isn't a PR about an alleged case?
I presented a link to a PR, and a posted summons. Seeing what could be found.
It is alleged, and a PR, but not an article, and by a questionable source that you feel can be trusted. And if you haven't figured this out yet... the desired audience has been met.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
