Does anybody know anything about this law firm: http://www.k2-law.com

Their web site doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. It's very generic and somewhat annoying. I talked to a consultant from the firm and he told me it doesn't matter what state I'm from even though the cases filed to date were filed in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles. The testimonial page only has testimonials for successful loan modifications. Which leads me to believe the firm is mainly interested in loan mods. I'll get some answers when I talk to their rep on Tuesday or Wednesday.

If you click the scrolling widget, you can find out more about the joinder suits.

I can say that I am familiar with this one: http://www.k2-law.com/Litigation.php

Karl has Tickered this particular lawsuit.

http://www.k2-law.com/editor/user_files/....

With regards to it, I can also say that the relief being sought has nothing to do with 'modifications' - they are demanding no less than the unsecuritized property be reverted to the homeowner -- a complete release of the property.

Mitchell Stein is the lead attorney. He's not one that normally loses. He spent years working FOR the banks. He knows what they did.

This case in particular, if the Plaintiffs are to prevail, will change everything. Read the Complaint.

BAC tried everything it could for the past year not to have to address the merits of this case. I mean, every dirty trick you've ever heard put forth in a court of law. The Judge has apparently now reached the breaking point and has issued an order rescinding 9 NODs and he has now ordered BAC to submit to discovery. It is this latter order that has the possibility of exposing the entire, giant fraud to the world.

That all being said, it is my understanding that it will cost a potential Plaintiff $5,000 to join the suit. This is because of the fact that they are closer now than ever to realizing full restitution for everyone that has been defrauded by Countrywide/BAC. Basically, you're putting your chips in on a gamble (which has much better than 50/50 odds, IMHO) that you will end up with a free house. To be clear, the damages sought are NOT any sort of cash settlement, or modification. The relief requested is that each person in the suit be granted full release of their property. So, unlike other 'class actions' (which this is not, it is a CA joinder suit), whereby the more plaintiffs there are, the smaller the individual settlement, each person would be granted relief, not based upon a specific monetary amount, but relief in the form of unencumbrence of their property.

IMHO though, if this suit prevails, regardless of whether you were actually part of the suit itself, everyone with a mortgage originated by CFC, serviced by BAC now, will have a hell of a precedent to fight back on their own. The question for each person is: can they last that long (not lose their home to foreclosure) before the suit provides relief? The advantage of joining is that you are guaranteed that you are immune from foreclosure until resolution of the lawsuit. It's basically an immediate injunction.

In addition, it appears that on December 30, 2010, the law firm filed five (5) more lawsuits based upon this original complaint against BAC/CFC. Almost all the same allegations in the original complaint are repeated against: Citibank, One West, Wells Fargo, Ally and JPMorgan. This tells me that Stein's firm expects their chances are getting better they prevail in the original suit. This would have these other suits ready for discovery as the ruling in the original suit is made -- setting a nearly impossible precedent to overcome.

This is why I say, this lawsuit has the capability of changing everything -- by exposing the entire fraud: the values of ALL our homes were fraudulently inflated. We've all overpaid due to a giant conspiracy between and amongst the banks, ratings agencies and securitizers. Essentially, we were all defrauded and restitution should be that we all get our homes free and clear.

Teddy, I also thought of joining this. I am unsure how a Cali suit can help me here in SC. I am quite sure that Taylor-Bean-Whitaker did my refi with Colonial Bank in a screwy way. My county records only show TBW on the deed. I was thinking about joining this, but I think that I might just get a lawyer here that knows SC law and have them try to track everything down to see if I have a case. If you get an answer about how this ruling would effect deeds and mortgages in other states, please let me know. PS, I am current and not in any danger of default.

Radcondive - I think I explained the advantage to people (whether in CA or not) in my post above.

Quote:

Basically, you're putting your chips in on a gamble

I think if you bought 5000 power ball tickets the chance of some return would be better.

I have spoke with a representative and have viewed some of the research.

Better yet keep your chips your going to need them.



I have informed DTM of this thread. I think she may chime in.

Care to share that information?

Pika, you did, I just have reservations how much weight a cali court would have telling a business to do something that is based out of NC for a client in SC. It's a jurisdictional thing, not the fact that my mortgage is voided and title released.

Pika, I've been doing research on the law firm and various individuals and companies that are marketing the Mass Joinder. Even spoke to one of the individuals marketing the lawsuit myself. Non-attorney. Did not like what I heard.

Martin Andelman of Mandelman Matters recently did a few articles. He retracted his original scam alert, and here is his follow up story:

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/02/....

Scroll down and check out the comments in response to his story. Here are some of the sites I found marketing the law firm and suit that I easily found on the web:

http://www.k2-law.com/

http://www.myk2law.com/

http://kramerkaslow.com/litigationvideos....

http://www.AdvocatesAlliance.com/

http://mpoweredfinancial.com/k2-law-buil....

http://www.sueyourlenders.com/mass-joind....

http://www.suemybank.us/Step5.htm

http://www.keepusinourhome.com/K-2.html

http://massjoinderaction.com/

http://twcpn.com/join.htm

http://lossmitigationsllc.com/

http://pakramerlaw.com/index.php?option=....

http://brianpcrowley.com/massjoinderlaws....

http://homeownerlitigationservices.org/t....

http://www.homelifesolution.com/Litigati....

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-s....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIb9qDar7....

It may be an actual lawsuit, but the marketing is questionable as is the use of "ambassadors" (non-attorneys) to make the sale. As with any type of legal matter, a person should meet with the attorney (or one of the attorneys that work for the law firm), and discuss the case prior to signing a contract or paying money. Those that meet with non-attorney "ambassadors" and sign contracts and pay money based on the advice of non-attorneys seriously risk being ripped off.

It is unclear at this point whether the law firm is attempting to shut down the many individuals and companies that are mass marketing the Mass Joinder. Some of the individuals and companies have been linked to the loan modification business.

Just for fun, go to the first link for K-2 Law and click on Ambassador Support, the site will request a NHR Affiliate log in ID and password. Unfortunately, I do not have a log in ID, and can't access that section of the website.

But thanks to the power of the internet, I did find a few examples of "Ambassadors" such as this one:

http://www.suemybank.us/Step1.htm

I don't see an attorney listing for Matt Silverman in Massachusetts. But I did find a link to the Mass Joinder Lawsuit on EZ Financial's affiliate opportunity page (scroll down to bottom of page):

http://www.igroops.com/members/frankaleo

Be sure and click on the presentation at the top.

Oh, and here is a link to request information from K2 Law to be an ambassador/affiliate:

http://sandiego.k2-law.com/New_Affiliate....

Ambassador (affiliate) updates are also easy to find:

http://www.k2-law.com/editor/user_files/....

I'm just sayin'

I like the suit.

I don't like the marketing. At all.

You shouldn't need to market a lawsuit like this. You definitely shouldn't need to pay to be part of a lawsuit like this.

I'll leave it there.

Yeah - I agree with what Gen said. Marketing = bull****.

That being said, the suit is sound, IMHO (from a legal perspective) and I have spoken personally, multiple times, to the lead attorney, Mitch Stein. I concede that most people aren't going to be able to speak with him directly and these 'ambassadors' aren't doing his firm any favors....and neither is whomever was put in charge of marketing this lawsuit. Unfortunate really, because on the merits, I stick by what I said above.

So on one hand you endorse.. do it wrong pay a price. On the other hand obtaining that out come while doing it wrong and profiting is ok.

This deal is dirty and you know it. You can't have it both ways!


Gen Said:

You shouldn't need to market a lawsuit like this. You definitely shouldn't need to pay to be part of a lawsuit like this.

There's your answer

Did you not read what I said? The lawsuit is sound. The marketing is bull****. I was not even aware of the marketing until DTM provided the information. All my dealings have been directly with the prosecuting lawfirm. The ones doing the actual legal work.

Pika, next time you speak with the law firm, please bring up these issues. I did send an email to Mitchell Stein's office, but have not received a response.

Either unethical persons and companies are impersonating the law firm(s) and/or engaging in unauthorized acts. Or the firm is engaging in running and capping, and splitting fees with non-attorneys.

See California Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1-300 Unauthorized Practice of Law

Rule 1-320 Financial Arrangements With Non- Lawyers

Rule 1-400 Advertising and Solicitation

http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.asp....

See also California Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 6150-6156:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displa....

CA Bar Ethics Alert:

http://ethics.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.as....

The Ethics Alert is regarding foreclosure consultants, however, the services of the "Ambassador" seem to be similar to a "Foreclosure Consultant". The marketing is also very similar.

The point is, I'd like to know which it is.

I agree that the underlying premises of the suit are sound. I am less optimistic about any outcome that offers "free houses". Other similar suits have been filed and decisions have rarely yielded "free houses". I think any judge will be very reluctant to order the same due to the implications. Even if they do, the banks have LOTS of money for legal fees. It will be appealed, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. That means years before a final decision. I would definitely ask if more money is required for any appeals process, and if so, how much.

If Stein thought he had a strong case, he'd do it on a contingency basis. 30% of outstanding mortgages owed is a hell of a lot more than $5000. It doesn't matter to him if he wins or loses from what I am gathering. If he isn't going to have any skin in the game with a large suit like this, to me that is telling. I don't know the players but something smells wrong in Denmark with this whole thing.

If I wanted to pursue this, I'd gather as much info as possible from my lender and get a consult with whoever has the most experience litigating these cases in MY state. He/She will be familiar with governing laws in YOUR state and know how the judges have been ruling where you live. (As a litigation attorney once half-joked to me, the judges in the state all meet clandestinely once a year to make sure they are all on the same page with their rulings.) Often the consults are free, but even if not, it shouldn't be out more than $300 or so (depending on where you live). From there, I'd feel in a better position to know where I stood and I'd be out a whole lot less money. While suits in other states can be used as precedents, laws DO vary from state to state, and there is nothing that obliges a judge to follow the precedent set by a judge from another state. The existence of conflicting case law is COMMONPLACE, and already exists in this area.

If they get enough folks to fork over 5K up front, the law firm wins, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. I agree with Gen, if these guys are big enough to take on the banks, they are big enough to finance the effort themselves. That being said, I'd like to be involved in something similar, but really must decline to shell our cash in return for a promise.

I'll keep all posted, I just heard from my 1st and 2nd lien holders on my primary residence (I'm 60-90 days late) and submitted my "hardship package" for loan modification - we'll see. I told them exactly the truth.

The following is an excerpt from the most recent hearing over their case being heard in California Superior Court, Paul et al. v. BankofAmerica, et al.

This is the judge speaking and note what he considers a more realistic outcome of case:

Quote:

A PRACTICAL QUESTION THAT CONTINUES TO BE
21 IMPORTANT FOR CASE MANAGEMENT AND POSSIBLE CASE
22 RESOLUTION IS WHAT IS REALLY INTENDED BY PLAINTIFFS AND
23 THEIR COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? SOME OF THE CLAIMS AS
24 PRESSED, IF ACTUALLY SUCCESSFUL, AND TRIED TO A JURY
25 WITH A REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES COULD,
26 THEORETICALLY, IF THE PLAINTIFFS GET THINGS TO GO THE
27 WAY THEY SAY THEY WANT THEM TO GO, TO LEAD TO SUCH --
28 CAN POTENTIALLY, I'M NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE
4
1 IMAGINATION GUARANTEEING THIS OR SAYING IT WILL BE THE
2 MORE LIKELY OR REASONABLE OUTCOME, BUT IF PLAINTIFFS GET
3 THIS CASE WHERE THEY THINK THEY WANT TO PUT THIS CASE
4 THEY ARE PRESUMABLY GOING TO GET A JUDGMENT FOR BILLIONS
5 OF DOLLARS AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA, POTENTIALLY CREATING
6 A PROBLEM OF SUCH GRAVITY THAT ACTION BY THE CENTRAL
7 BANK OR A STATE OR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE BODY MIGHT
8 THEORETICALLY BE NEEDED.
9 BUT I HAVE A SNEAKY SUSPICION THAT THE REAL
10 AMBITIONS OF WHAT THE CASE IS TO ACCOMPLISH MAY NOT BE
11 TO PUT BANK OF AMERICA INTO RECEIVERSHIP, BUT RATHER, TO
12 ACCOMPLISH SOME MORE MODEST AND PRACTICAL SOLUTION FOR
13 MANY PLAINTIFFS, IN A WAY THAT'S COST EFFECTIVE TO THE
14 PLAINTIFFS, WHICH IS TO SAY SUCH THAT THEY CAN AFFORD
15 THEIR COUNSEL.

Thanks Big, it's always important that the attorneys get paid first! (sarc)

The math says the attorneys do not have to prevail for this to be extremely lucrative. I'm seeing this on every forum and finding that members of various forums are encountering this. Consider this, 5000 litigants at $3,500 each equates to $17.5 million. 10,000 equates to $35 M. This numbers are not that outrageous given the saturation.

Here is the fun part- by supporting the suit and posting information about the suit, it gives it an air of legitimacy that makes it easier for marketing firms to bilk desperate homeowners. In fact, I found a link to Gen's Market Ticker on Loansafe that was used to market services.

This is simple. If the firm is legitimate, it will devote time and resources to shut down the rampant marketers in order to preserve the firm's reputation and integrity of the case. If it is a scheme, it will continue unabated.

The conclusion as to why Stein et al. had filed against the other banks that I come to is different from yours. It isn't because the odds of winning have improved but because the complainant attorneys have gained enough additional plaintiffs now to make it financially lucrative to add them. I could be wrong but I have known far too many attorneys in my life, and litigators tend to be the ones that give the rest a bad reputation. This seems to me like another scam to take advantage of those of whom many can least afford to lose their money. Meanwhile the attorneys make out like a bandit no matter what the end result is.

I hate to sound like a wet blanket. I'd love to see these banks nailed. They deserve it. And I do not believe the banks have proof of legal standing to collect on the debts. I'm just not so optimistic it will happen in quite the meaningful way that some hope for. What should happen and what does happen are not the same.

Loan modifications, possible principal reductions, yes. Mortgage cancellations, I wish....... I've got a mortgage, too.

Well, all this marketing and the other 'firms' linked here didn't even exist to my knowledge when I was speaking with Mr. Stein. The reason they are asking for 'full release of property' is because of the comprehensive case he has put together. If you read it, he's making the case for a very large, all-encompassing conspiracy to defraud anyone and everyone who bought a house. I think we here on TF have seen enough evidence over the past few years to say that there's probably more than enough evidence out there (somewhere) to prove that this is actually quite true.

In discussing the case with him a number of months ago, he has more than one 'bombshell' that will come out in discovery. At that point, discovery was not assured. He had no idea if it was going to get that far. Now it appears that it will.

While the judge is obviously expressing skepticism (and IMHO, not a small bit of fear that he would be presiding over a case that could potentially put BAC into receivership), one would have to wonder how his perception might change if evidence was presented that left no doubt certain documents integral to securitization were not just intentionally left 'unfiled', but were purposely 'removed' and destroyed.

I don't think there's anything 'dirty' or underhanded about the case Stein has developed. Actually, from what I've heard, it's the most compelling case I've heard with regards to hard evidence. However, as I said, I had no previous knowledge of their marketing scheme - and that part does appear to be questionable at best. At the time I was discussing this suit with Mr. Stein, the lawsuit was not open to anyone other than CA residents and now that is apparently, not the case. When this changed, I don't have any idea - and I would venture to guess the marketing entered the picture when this happened.

And for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, part of this lawsuit. Mr. Stein had actually contacted ME, unsolicited, to discuss what I might know about BAC and whether or not FedUpUSA had any plans to, in the future, protest against BAC specifically (like we did Bear Stearns).

Thanks for the input everybody. I now have a few more questions to ask when I talk to the sales rep today or tomorrow. Some of my questions are: How much does an "ambassador" make on each client? When is the federal suit scheduled to be filed? And if no federal suit is in the making how does a suit in the state of California have any bearing on somebody in another state?

You might also want to ask point blank: What relationship do they have with the originating law firm? I doubt if they'll answer that, but if they do, it might be quite interesting.

Read it and weep- here is an affiliate agreement for Kramer & Kaslow and Mitchell Stein that shows the commission splits for affiliates:

http://doc-10-94-docsviewer.googleuserco....

Oh ****!!!!!!

Edit

Holy ****!!

Ok, that's disappointing.

I don't know enough about the law, particularly in California, to know if it's legal. But legal or not creating a commissioned sales force for legal work IMHO smells bad.