3/8/2011 11:28 AM (PST)

Don't do it. Certain attorneys have been blanketing mailboxes/phone lines with pitches for "mass joinder lawsuit" schemes. Our Facebook links to an article about this (“like” our page while you’re there!).
http://www.facebook.com/TrustLink

3/14/2011 10:57 AM (PST)

A MESSAGE FROM VITO TORCHIA,JR. MANAGING ATTORNEY OF BROOKSTONE LAW PC

Please be aware that people are using anonymous negative postings on the Internet to defame Brookstone Law, PC, and its attorneys and staff. They are posing as alleged clients or alleged potential clients and these claims are wholly untrue fabrications intended only to harm the public and impair our ability to serve our current and potential clientele. They are also allege that either I or Brookstone Law is somehow responsible for the actions of attorneys that use to work for a former client called United Law Group, Inc. Neither I nor anyone who works for Brookstone Law have anything to do with those actions.

Due to the posting of Cease and Desist letters on the Philip Kramer, Esq. website, and the posting of similar warnings to consumers by attorney Mitchell J. Stein on his website, we believe individuals associated with the affiliates and Non-Attorney “Ambassadors” of Kramer & Kaslow, K2 Law, Matt Davis, Esq., or Mass Litigation Associates, are posting the defamatory comments on the Internet, where anonymous false accusations and defamatory slanders may be published without verification, proof or consequence.

The posted accusations are false statements created to try to prohibit Brookstone Law from helping homeowners. Brookstone Law is not affiliated in any way with Kramer & Kaslow, K2 Law, Matt Davis, Esq., or Mass Litigation Associates, or their affiliates, associates and Ambassadors. Please also note these posts are not from clients of Brookstone Law, PC, and in fact, positive unsolicited endorsements of our services from our clients may be found on this website by clicking on the Real Estate/EED sidebar tab on the home page. We are dedicated to fighting for our clients and their rights and adhering to the highest ethical and legal standards in our work; we welcome any legitimate comments or inquiries about Brookstone Law, PC, its attorneys, staff or services and will gladly and personally respond to them. For immediate information, please contact our Consumer Protection Department at (800) 489-0734 or at ConsumerAlert@Brookstone-Law.com.

3/30/2011 11:58 AM (PST)

ATTN: Receive a Mailer for a Mass Joinder case against your lender, or been solicited in any way about Mass Joinder suit versus your lender? Please Contact the California Bar Association "We are interested in anyone who has been solicited to join the mass joinder cases. Even better, would be people who actually paid money to these organizations." - California Bar Association Brookstone Law Complaint Hotline: 1-800-843-9053 or 1-213-765-1200 (outside California) http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Conta... http://getoutofdebt.org/26821/... http://www.dre.ca.gov/pdf_docs... Once people give Kuztner their money they will never see it again, just like ULG all over. The regulators know this. That's why they are all over him and Crookstone Law now. I'm thankful that they are being proactive in countering Kutzner's fraud. It will help save thousands of dollars for people who can ill afford to lose their hard earn money. Mr. Wrong if you disagree contact the Department of Real Estate and the California Bar direct, don't waste your time on this site. If you are really so high and mighty justify your position to them. As soon as Crookstone gets shut down you will have that opportunity. In the meantime people aren't just going to sit by and watch you help steal money from innocent homeowners. That's a crock! And, you're a crock! Flag

3/30/2011 1:52 PM (PST)

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the above inquiry.

On February 9, 2011, Brookstone Law filed Wright, et al v. Bank of America, et al. a mass joinder case in California Superior Court in Orange County on behalf of 128 plaintiffs. Among the causes of action in the Wright case are numerous causes of action for fraud, regarding loan origination, and violations of California Civil Code Section 2923.5, regarding violations in the foreclosure process.

In addition, in the soon to be filed First Amended Complaint, we intend to include a cause of action for breach of contract regarding the lenders’ so called Trial Modification Agreements. This lawsuit and lawsuits we anticipate filing against other lenders, seek to help homeowners protect their rights and hold the banks accountable for misdeeds. We allege that such misdeeds involve unlawful and predatory lending practices, unlawful securitization of the note and unlawful transfer and assignment of Deed of Trust/mortgage.

Brookstone Law has recently joined forces with the attorneys of Apex Law Group, PC, who initiated the Ronald v. Bank of America case in Los Angeles, and Kenin M. Spivak of SML LLP, one of the co-lead attorneys on the Ronald case, and who will associate in as co-lead counsel in the Wright case and in other lawsuits we are considering.

Depending upon the lender and each individual’s circumstance, these lawsuits may be suitable for homeowners who originated or refinanced their loans from as early as 2001 through as late as 2008. These lawsuits may be suitable for homeowners who are current on their mortgage but have lost equity, as well as homeowners who are facing foreclosure or who have already been wrongfully foreclosed upon (though these lawsuits do not, of themselves, prevent foreclosures and such efforts require a separate proceeding that may or may not be successful).

As attorneys, we understand the realities of litigation. We cannot guarantee any particular results – and we do not.

Without question, we might lose some or all of these lawsuits. Further, without question, some of our clients might win and others might lose. It is noteworthy that most class members generally receive very small recoveries in a successful class action. Our goal (but not our promise) is that many of our plaintiffs will receive much larger recoveries through joinder actions than would typically occur with a class action.

Regarding our fees, the fact is that no individual who cannot afford the loss of his or her retainer should retain Brookstone, because that could be the result. We hope not, we will work zealously for that not to occur. But there are no guarantees in litigation except that the outcome is uncertain. I should also observe that if a homeowner were to, instead, consider an individual action, the odds are very high that the fees and costs would vastly exceed what that client would pay to Brookstone. Again, however, there might be exceptions.

In some of these la

3/30/2011 1:55 PM (PST)

Vito Continues

In some of these lawsuits, some plaintiffs might seek to be released entirely from their debt. It is possible we may be able to obtain this relief by proving that through the process of mortgage back securities these banks have already been paid the full amount of consideration of the note many times over. However, as both a matter of fact and law, our effort might not succeed.

While all litigation is expensive, mass joinder actions are particularly so because there are large number of individual clients, and very large well-entrenched defendants. The large number of clients creates a need for sophisticated systems and teams of client relationship managers. Discovery can occur at the individual level and require considerable interaction and huge paperwork. This, in turn, increases the need for paralegals and lawyers. By comparison, class action litigation is much less expensive. Though clients may receive mass emails, few individual clients interact with the legal team, there is seldom discovery at the individual client level and it is almost as if the law firm is its own client.

While it is unfortunate that we cannot afford to undertake the costs of working with our clients, litigating the case and discovery without a source of funds to reimburse our costs, it is nonetheless true. Further, seeking investors to cover these costs creates a range of ethical, legal and financial problems – not the least of which is that it likely would lead to far higher contingency fees.

Both our retainer fees and our contingency fees are well below what others charge. Clearly, our retainer fees do not create the incentive for us to litigate these cases and at best cover our out-of-pocket costs and overhead (if the retainers did not cover our out of pocket costs and overhead, our firm would fail and our clients would be unable to pursue their claims).

As I mentioned above, I will be working side by side with Kenin M. Spivak and a team of very talented attorneys and staff to file additional cases. Currently we anticipate filing actions against JP Morgan Chase/Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo/Wachovia, Ally Bank/GMAC, Aurora/Lehman Bros., Citibank, One West/IndyMac, and HSBC. However, that list might change based on the results of our investigations and discussions with prospective co-counsel and prospective plaintiffs.

While we will consider filing class actions, for which there would be no upfront cost to any plaintiff, I can’t be certain that will occur and I cannot give the writer advice on whether he would be a member of any particular class.
One benefit of the mass joinder approach is that if the bank offers a mortgage modification that is acceptable to the client, it is well within the client’s right to choose to take the modification/settlement. Doing so might, or might not, require the client to drop out of the lawsuit. It might, or might not, reduce the client’s damage claims. A joinder case involves individual plaintiffs and

3/30/2011 2:05 PM (PST)

Vito concludes:

We welcome any legitimate comments or inquiries about Brookstone Law, PC, its attorneys, staff or services and will gladly and personally respond to them. For immediate assistance or information, please contact our Consumer Protection Department at (800) 489-0734 or at ConsumerAlert@Brookstone-Law.com.

Vito Torchia, Jr.

4/5/2011 4:59 PM (PST)

TAKE THE LATEST DRE WARNING WITH A GRAIN OF SALT!

Just When the Tide Was Turning Against the Banks… the California Department of Real Estate Comes to Their Rescue!


If you found this essay during your Internet travels or other research, you likely have a basic understanding of, and an interest in, the mortgage meltdown, the collapse of the real estate market, the foreclosure crisis, the billions of dollars in bailout money given directly to banks and indirectly to their CEOs, the tribulations suffered by families who begged for loan modifications, the farce of giving bogus trial loan modifications to borrowers with one hundred and fifty percent (or more ) loan to value ratios, and the reasonless denials for permanent modification after successful completion of a trial modification plan foisted upon borrowers who were ignorant enough to believe that their mortgage lenders would give them a permanent loan modification if they just passed the three-month test known as a trial loan modification.


At law firm of Fransen & Molinaro, LLP, we have represented borrowers in California State and Federal litigation matters against national mortgage lenders and banking institutions for about five years. We know, first hand, that the lenders hire extremely competent and fiercely aggressive counsel for every case brought against them. There are almost no limits to what these well-heeled defense law firms will do to win a case, whether that case is brought by a crackpot plaintiff who downloaded and filed a rambling and incoherent two hundred and seventy-eight page complaint (not counting attachments) drafted by people who believe that the United States Constitution prohibits the payment of income tax or whether that case is brought by a skilled consumer attorney representing an elderly couple about to be evicted as a result of failing to repay a predatory loan which was made in flagrant violation of every state and federal lending law on the books. Lawsuits against lenders are met scorn and ridicule by lenders’ lawyers. These zealous advocates of lenders’ rights file motion after motion, refuse to provide adequate responses to even the most basic of discovery requests, continue foreclosure and eviction attempts during the lawsuit, practice delay tactics, and make overt threats of countersuit against not only the plaintiffs but personally against the plaintiffs’ attorneys.


Those consumer attorneys courageous enough to represent sympathetic plaintiffs who have solid cases find themselves embroiled in time-consuming and expensive lawsuits. The convoluted state and federal statutes governing the mortgage industry constantly change. The State and Federal Court rulings which should act as guide to proper interpretation of these ambiguous statutes more often than not do no more than provide conflicting statutory interpretations based on the personal opinions and whims of appellate judges.


Until recently, the majority of th