Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I had a similar experience with Judge Riblet, at least with respect to the
result.
On Oct 5, 2012 3:43 PM, "Shannon Doyle" wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have tried to break ground in this area in Central District CA but did
> not get far with Judge Bason. I argued the false/fraudulent assignments of
> the note and the violations of the trust, etc.. but Judge Basons position
> is that a debtor owes someone and just because the bank may not have
> properly recorded assignments doesnt mean debtor gets a free house (which
> was not the goal - I was trying for a positive ruling that would enable
> debtors to negotiate a loan modification one with the party who actually
> owned the loan). The Judge also found debtor did not have standing to
> challenge violations of the trust. I argued that the trust violations are
> relevant in showing the note could have never made it to the trust (the
> supposed note holder) but he disagreed. He did not require the creditor
> provide the original note but he did require that creditor file a
> declaration from a custodian of records that creditor held the note. You
> have to overcome Cal Com Code 3301 which says the person who holds the note
> can enforce the note.****
>
> ** **
>
> I think you can be successful with these arguments if you can show clear
> damages to your client (i.e. debtor paying one lender when another lender
> is claiming an interest in the note). Otherwise, an ugly chain of title
> itself is not tantamount to the kind of damages that warrant disallowing a
> secured claim...at least not with Judge Bason.****
>
> ** **
>
> I will say Judge Bason is very fair and he will listen and consider your
> arguments carefully. He did take several weeks to do his own research
> before he issued a ruling on this issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> Shannon A. Doyle****
>
> Attorney at Law****
>
> [image: small logo]****
>
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250****
>
> West Covina, CA 91791-1600****
>
> Tel: (626) 646-2555****
>
> Fax: (626) 332-8644****
>
> www.blclaw.com ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Jay Fleischman
> *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2012 12:30 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> That's what I'm hoping for ****
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Hale Andrew Antico
> wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> It's to our benefit that new member Jay Fleischman (formerly of NY)
> represented the debtor in both those cases. Perhaps he can duplicate his
> magic in our district.****
>
> ****
>
> And from Attorney Koebel's other post:****
>
> ****
>
> > Short sale is one of the stupidest concepts of all time - an invention
> of out-of-work realtors that serves no purpose except to delay the sale of
> a property****
>
> ****
>
> Concur.****
>
> ****
>
> Hale****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *PHiLiP E. KOeBeL, Esq.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:33 PM
> *To:* CDCBAA Listserv
> *Subject:* Fwd: [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?****
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Does it occur to no one on this list that there is a cause and effect
> driving emergency filings by pro se Debtors?****
>
> ** **
>
> Apply your considerable skills to that which Mr. Anderson (the UST for
> Region 16) completely ignores - pursuing the banks who have practiced
> robo-signing and other fraudclosure practices.****
>
> ** **
>
> Debtors will stop choosing to be prey when they see some action from
> Central District attorneys like the attached cases... ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... &as_sdt2,5
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... &as_sdt2,5
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> with peace and respect,****
>
> ** **
>
> PHiLiP KOeBeL****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
>
I had a similar experience with Judge Riblet, at least with respect to the result.
On Oct 5, 2012 3:43 PM, "Shannon Doyle" <sdoyle@blclaw.com> wrote:
I have tried to break ground in this area in Central District CA but did not get far with Judge Bason. I argued the false/fraudulent assignments of the note and the violations of the trust, etc.. but Judge Basonank may not have properly recorded assignments doesnt mean debtor gets a free house (which was not the goal - I was trying for a positive ruling that would enable debtors to negotiate a loan modification one with the party who actually owned the loan). The Judge also found debtor did not have standing to challenge violations of the trust. I argued that the trust violations are relevant in showing the note could have never made it to the trust (the supposed note holder) but he disagreed. He did not require the creditor provide the original note but he did require that creditor file a declaration from a custodian of records that creditor held the note. You have to overcome Cal Com Code 3301 which says the person who holds the note can enforce the note.
I think you can be successful with these arguments if you can show clear damages to your client (i.e. debtor paying one lender when another lender is claiming an interest in the note). Otherwise, an ugly chain of title itself is not tantamount to the kind of damages that warrant disallowing a secured claim...at least not with Judge Bason.
I will say Judge Bason is very fair and he will listen and consider your arguments carefully. He did take several weeks to do his own research before he issued a ruling on this issue.
Shannon A. DoyleAttorney at Law
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791-1600Tel: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644www.blclaw.com
From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Fleischman
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 12:30 PMTo: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have tried to break ground in this area in Central District CA but
did not get far with Judge Bason. I argued the false/fraudulent
assignments of the note and the violations of the trust, etc.. but Judge
Bason's position is that a debtor owes "someone" and just because the
bank may not have properly recorded assignments doesn't mean debtor gets
a free house (which was not the goal - I was trying for a positive
ruling that would enable debtors to negotiate a loan modification - one
with the party who actually owned the loan). The Judge also found debtor
did not have standing to challenge violations of the trust. I argued
that the trust violations are relevant in showing the note could have
never made it to the trust (the supposed note holder) but he disagreed.
He did not require the creditor provide the original note but he did
require that creditor file a declaration from a custodian of records
that creditor held the note. You have to overcome Cal Com Code 3301
which says the person who holds the note can enforce the note.
I think you can be successful with these arguments if you can show clear
damages to your client (i.e. debtor paying one lender when another
lender is claiming an interest in the note). Otherwise, an ugly chain
of title itself is not tantamount to the kind of damages that warrant
disallowing a secured claim...at least not with Judge Bason.
I will say Judge Bason is very fair and he will listen and consider your
arguments carefully. He did take several weeks to do his own research
before he issued a ruling on this issue.
Shannon A. Doyle
Attorney at Law
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791-1600
Tel: (626) 646-2555
Fax: (626) 332-8644
www.blclaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

That's what I'm hoping for
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
> **
>
>
> **
> It's to our benefit that new member Jay Fleischman (formerly of NY)
> represented the debtor in both those cases. Perhaps he can duplicate his
> magic in our district.
>
> And from Attorney Koebel's other post:
>
> > Short sale is one of the stupidest concepts of all time - an invention
> of out-of-work realtors that serves no purpose except to delay the sale of
> a property
>
> Concur.
>
> Hale
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *PHiLiP E. KOeBeL, Esq.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:33 PM
> *To:* CDCBAA Listserv
> *Subject:* Fwd: [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?
>
>
>
>
> Does it occur to no one on this list that there is a cause and effect
> driving emergency filings by pro se Debtors?
>
> Apply your considerable skills to that which Mr. Anderson (the UST for
> Region 16) completely ignores - pursuing the banks who have practiced
> robo-signing and other fraudclosure practices.
>
> Debtors will stop choosing to be prey when they see some action from
> Central District attorneys like the attached cases...
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... &as_sdt2,5
>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... &as_sdt2,5
>
>
>
>
>
> with peace and respect,
>
> PHiLiP KOeBeL
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Leventhal Law Group, P.C. wrote:
>
>> **
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Wonder how many they're "helping."
On Sep 26, 2012 12:12 PM, "Christine Wilton"
wrote:
> **
>
>
> Legal Zoom charges $1,900.00 for a chapter 7 bankruptcy case too!
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM, wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> **
>> Look at Legal Zoom. They practice law in my opinion too. The practice is
>> being cannabulized.
>>
>> In a message dated 9/25/2012 3:01:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>> bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. A huge BPP problem,
>> consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad
>> situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with
>> the law. Some left, some stayed.
>>
>> My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are
>> helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice.
>> People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it but can't do
>> much sua sponte. From what I gather, trustees don't dive into the issue
>> much either.
>>
>> As consumer advocates, part of our job is to protect the consumer. With
>> resources such as Public Counsel and the self-help desk, consumers who
>> cannot afford private representation can be helped effectively.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James T. King wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> The Central District of California has ALWAYS had the highest rate of
>>> self represented debtors since I went into practice a few years ago.
>>> Everything has been tried, Judges have special programs, Public Counsel has
>>> attempted to assist them and avoid the BPP (Bankruptcy Petition Preparers),
>>> we even started a Self Help Desk for the self represented debtor and
>>> avoid the BPP. The OUST goes after the bad ones and is usually
>>> successful. BUT, we still have the highest rate in the nation and probably
>>> always will. But if you think you have designed a better wheel. Go for it.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Jay Fleischman
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:16 PM
>>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
>>> what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this for
>>> a few minutes.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I scoured the ECF
>>> system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay of the land, as it
>>> were. I found that there are a ton of people filing their cases without
>>> the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part, these non-attorney petition
>>> preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or during the 341 meeting.*
>>> ***
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> The US Trustee has not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against
>>> the non-attorney petition preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a
>>> large sum of money to the non-attorney.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> This amounts to not only a logjam in the court system, but harms
>>> consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal advice. In the context of
>>> a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> If a debtor were to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it
>>> would be possible for fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as
>>> under section 330. Sanctions could be awarded against the petition
>>> preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The
>>> amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor
>>> under section 522 (b).****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> I'm actively looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a
>>> non-attorney so that I may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against
>>> the petition preparer. I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and
>>> efforts, but it seems to me that an injustice is being done to our
>>> consumers without anyone else taking action.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate it if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed
>>> for bankruptcy without a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If
>>> they're interested in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that
>>> other don't get taken advantage of in the future, let me know.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> In the alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
>>> know.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> -------------****
>>>
>>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.****
>>>
>>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP****
>>>
>>> Smart Solutions To Bill Problems****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> T: 626-808-4343 x704****
>>>
>>> E: jay@sflawca.com****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com ****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152****
>>>
>>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
>>> by email, you understand that it's not confidential.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
>
> *Office:*
> 5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> *Mailing:*
> 4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
> Lakewood, CA 90712
>
> Office: 877-631-2220
> Cell: 562-824-7563
> Fax: 1-636-212-7078
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Web: www.attorneychristine.com
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
> ***************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
> is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
> PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
> communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
> in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
> be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
> be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
> to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>
>
Wonder how many they're "helping."
On Sep 26, 2012 12:12 PM, "Christine Wilton" <attorneychristine@gmail.com> wrote:
Legal Zoom charges $1,900.00 for a chapter 7 bankruptcy case too!On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM, <robert90701@aol.com> wrote:
Look at Legal Zoom.is being cannabulized.
In a message dated 9/25/2012 3:01:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. A huge BPP problem,
consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad
situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with the law. Some left, some stayed.

My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are
helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice.
People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it but can't
do much sua sponte. From what I gather, trustees don't dive into the
issue much either.

As consumer advocates, part of our job is to protect the consumer.
With resources such as Public Counsel and the self-help desk, consumers
who cannot afford private representation can be helped effectively.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James T. King < wrote:
The Central
District of California has ALWAYS had the highest rate of self represented
debtors since I went into practice a few years ago. Everything has
been tried, Judges have special programs, Public Counsel has attempted to
assist them and avoid the BPP (Bankruptcy Petition Preparers), we even started a Self Help Desk for the self represented debtor and avoid the
BPP. The OUST goes after the bad ones and is usually successful. BUT, we still have the highest rate in the nation and probably always
will. But if you think you have designed a better wheel. Go for
it.



From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay
FleischmanSent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:16 PMTo:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: [cdcbaa] Pro Per
Issue In CDCA - A Solution?







Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this
for a few minutes.



In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I
scoured the ECF system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay
of the land, as it were. I found that there are a ton of people filing
their cases without the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part,
these non-attorney petition preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or
during the 341 meeting.



The US Trustee has
not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against the non-attorney petition
preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a large sum of money to the
non-attorney.




This amounts to not only a logjam in
the court system, but harms consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal
advice. In the context of a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.


If a debtor were
to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it would be possible for
fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as under section 330.
Sanctions could be awarded against the petition preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor under section 522
(b).



I'm actively
looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a non-attorney so that I
may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against the petition preparer.
I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and efforts, but it seems
to me that an injustice is being done to our consumers without anyone else
taking action.



I'd appreciate it
if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed for bankruptcy without
a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If they're interested
in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that other don't get taken
advantage of in the future, let me know.



In the
alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
know.




-------------

Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.

Shaev & Fleischman,
LLP

Smart Solutions To Bill
Problems



T: 626-808-4343 x704

E: jay@sflawca.com




The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Legal Zoom charges $1,900.00 for a chapter 7 bankruptcy case too!
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM, wrote:
> **
>
>
> **
> Look at Legal Zoom. They practice law in my opinion too. The practice is
> being cannabulized.
>
> In a message dated 9/25/2012 3:01:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>
> In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. A huge BPP problem,
> consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad
> situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with
> the law. Some left, some stayed.
>
> My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are
> helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice.
> People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it but can't do
> much sua sponte. From what I gather, trustees don't dive into the issue
> much either.
>
> As consumer advocates, part of our job is to protect the consumer. With
> resources such as Public Counsel and the self-help desk, consumers who
> cannot afford private representation can be helped effectively.
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James T. King wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> The Central District of California has ALWAYS had the highest rate of
>> self represented debtors since I went into practice a few years ago.
>> Everything has been tried, Judges have special programs, Public Counsel has
>> attempted to assist them and avoid the BPP (Bankruptcy Petition Preparers),
>> we even started a Self Help Desk for the self represented debtor and
>> avoid the BPP. The OUST goes after the bad ones and is usually
>> successful. BUT, we still have the highest rate in the nation and probably
>> always will. But if you think you have designed a better wheel. Go for it.
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Jay Fleischman
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:16 PM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
>> what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this for
>> a few minutes.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I scoured the ECF
>> system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay of the land, as it
>> were. I found that there are a ton of people filing their cases without
>> the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part, these non-attorney petition
>> preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or during the 341 meeting.**
>> **
>>
>> ****
>>
>> The US Trustee has not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against the
>> non-attorney petition preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a
>> large sum of money to the non-attorney.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> This amounts to not only a logjam in the court system, but harms
>> consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal advice. In the context of
>> a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> If a debtor were to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it
>> would be possible for fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as
>> under section 330. Sanctions could be awarded against the petition
>> preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The
>> amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor
>> under section 522 (b).****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> I'm actively looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a
>> non-attorney so that I may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against
>> the petition preparer. I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and
>> efforts, but it seems to me that an injustice is being done to our
>> consumers without anyone else taking action.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed
>> for bankruptcy without a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If
>> they're interested in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that
>> other don't get taken advantage of in the future, let me know.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> In the alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
>> know.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> -------------****
>>
>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.****
>>
>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP****
>>
>> Smart Solutions To Bill Problems****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> T: 626-808-4343 x704****
>>
>> E: jay@sflawca.com****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152****
>>
>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
>> by email, you understand that it's not confidential.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>
>
Christine A. Wilton, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Wilton
*Office:*
5150 Candlewood Street, Suite 17F
Lakewood, CA 90712
*Mailing:*
4067 Hardwick Street, Suite 335
Lakewood, CA 90712
Office: 877-631-2220
Cell: 562-824-7563
Fax: 1-636-212-7078
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Web: www.attorneychristine.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
***************************
Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments,
is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this
communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained
in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot
be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may
be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant
to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
Legal Zoom charges $1,900.00 for a chapter 7 bankruptcy case too!On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM, <robert90701@aol.com> wrote:
Look at Legal Zoom.is being cannabulized.
In a message dated 9/25/2012 3:01:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad
situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with the law. Some left, some stayed.

My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are
helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice.
People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it but can't
do much sua sponte. From what I gather, trustees don't dive into the
issue much either.

As consumer advocates, part of our job is to protect the consumer.
With resources such as Public Counsel and the self-help desk, consumers
who cannot afford private representation can be helped effectively.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James T. King <king@kingobk.com> wrote:
The Central
District of California has ALWAYS had the highest rate of self represented
debtors since I went into practice a few years ago. Everything has
been tried, Judges have special programs, Public Counsel has attempted to
assist them and avoid the BPP (Bankruptcy Petition Preparers), we even started a Self Help Desk for the self represented debtor and avoid the
BPP. The OUST goes after the bad ones and is usually successful. BUT, we still have the highest rate in the nation and probably always
will. But if you think you have designed a better wheel. Go for
it.



From: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay
FleischmanSent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:16 PMTo:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSubject: [cdcbaa] Pro Per
Issue In CDCA - A Solution?







Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this
for a few minutes.



In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I
scoured the ECF system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay
of the land, as it were. I found that there are a ton of people filing
their cases without the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part,
these non-attorney petition preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or
during the 341 meeting.



The US Trustee has
not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against the non-attorney petition
preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a large sum of money to the
non-attorney.




This amounts to not only a logjam in
the court system, but harms consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal
advice. In the context of a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.


If a debtor were
to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it would be possible for
fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as under section 330.
Sanctions could be awarded against the petition preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor under section 522
(b).



I'm actively
looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a non-attorney so that I
may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against the petition preparer.
I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and efforts, but it seems
to me that an injustice is being done to our consumers without anyone else
taking action.



I'd appreciate it
if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed for bankruptcy without
a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If they're interested
in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that other don't get taken
advantage of in the future, let me know.



In the
alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
know.




-------------

Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.

Shaev & Fleischman,
LLP

Smart Solutions To Bill
Problems



T: 626-808-4343 x704

E: jay@sflawca.com




The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Agreed; lots of folks who own homes and have cars and are as broke as they
come.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Leventhal Law Group, P.C. wrote:
> **
>
>
> That is not always the case!
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
> for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
> California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
> business hours.
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential,
> and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto)
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original
> and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a
> written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been
> paid.
>
> On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:37 PM, "robert90701@aol.com"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> People with debts for medical expenses deserve help, people with debts
> for automobiles
> and credit cards, and sometimes houses can afford a lawyer.
>
> In a message dated 9/25/2012 4:17:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>
> It's not so much a question of cannibalization, in my opinion; some people
> can't afford a lawyer, and that's fine. They deserve proper representation
> in a self-help venue; at the very least, they deserve to not be exploited
> by those who would prey on the unsophisticated. Much as we battle
> creditors, we need to battle BPPs.
>
> I'm taking up the fight. All I need is a good client.
>
> Tighe is on the case, huh? Good; now all we need are the rest of the
> judges and the case trustees.
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM, wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> **
>> Look at Legal Zoom. They practice law in my opinion too. The practice is
>> being cannabulized.
>>
>> In a message dated 9/25/2012 3:01:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>> bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. A huge BPP problem,
>> consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad
>> situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with
>> the law. Some left, some stayed.
>>
>> My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are
>> helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice.
>> People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it but can't do
>> much sua sponte. From what I gather, trustees don't dive into the issue
>> much either.
>>
>> As consumer advocates, part of our job is to protect the consumer.
>> With resources such as Public Counsel and the self-help desk, consumers
>> who cannot afford private representation can be helped effectively.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James T. King wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> The Central District of California has ALWAYS had the highest rate of
>>> self represented debtors since I went into practice a few years ago.
>>> Everything has been tried, Judges have special programs, Public Counsel has
>>> attempted to assist them and avoid the BPP (Bankruptcy Petition Preparers),
>>> we even started a Self Help Desk for the self represented debtor and
>>> avoid the BPP. The OUST goes after the bad ones and is usually
>>> successful. BUT, we still have the highest rate in the nation and probably
>>> always will. But if you think you have designed a better wheel. Go for it.
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>>> Behalf Of *Jay Fleischman
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:16 PM
>>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
>>> what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this for
>>> a few minutes.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I scoured the ECF
>>> system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay of the land, as it
>>> were. I found that there are a ton of people filing their cases without
>>> the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part, these non-attorney petition
>>> preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or during the 341 meeting.*
>>> ***
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> The US Trustee has not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against
>>> the non-attorney petition preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a
>>> large sum of money to the non-attorney.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> This amounts to not only a logjam in the court system, but harms
>>> consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal advice. In the context of
>>> a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> If a debtor were to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it
>>> would be possible for fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as
>>> under section 330. Sanctions could be awarded against the petition
>>> preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The
>>> amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor
>>> under section 522 (b).****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> I'm actively looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a
>>> non-attorney so that I may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against
>>> the petition preparer. I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and
>>> efforts, but it seems to me that an injustice is being done to our
>>> consumers without anyone else taking action.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate it if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed
>>> for bankruptcy without a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If
>>> they're interested in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that
>>> other don't get taken advantage of in the future, let me know.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> In the alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
>>> know.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> -------------****
>>>
>>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.****
>>>
>>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP****
>>>
>>> Smart Solutions To Bill Problems****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> T: 626-808-4343 x704 ****
>>>
>>> E: jay@sflawca.com****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com ****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152****
>>>
>>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
>>> by email, you understand that it's not confidential.****
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Agreed; lots of folks who own homes and have cars and are as broke as they come.On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Leventhal Law Group, P.C. <law@3yl.com> wrote:
That is not always the case!Jonathan Leventhal, esq.Leventhal Law Group, P.C.818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not represent you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:37 PM, "robert90701@aol.com" <robert90701@aol.com> wrote:
People with debts for medical expenses deserve help, people with debts for
automobiles
and credit cards, and sometimes houses can afford a lawyer.
In a message dated 9/25/2012 4:17:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
It's not so much a question of cannibalization, in my opinion; some people

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

It's not so much a question of cannibalization, in my opinion; some people
can't afford a lawyer, and that's fine. They deserve proper representation
in a self-help venue; at the very least, they deserve to not be exploited
by those who would prey on the unsophisticated. Much as we battle
creditors, we need to battle BPPs.
I'm taking up the fight. All I need is a good client.
Tighe is on the case, huh? Good; now all we need are the rest of the
judges and the case trustees.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:08 PM, wrote:
> **
>
>
> **
> Look at Legal Zoom. They practice law in my opinion too. The practice is
> being cannabulized.
>
> In a message dated 9/25/2012 3:01:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> bankruptcy@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>
> In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. A huge BPP problem,
> consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad
> situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with
> the law. Some left, some stayed.
>
> My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are
> helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice.
> People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it but can't do
> much sua sponte. From what I gather, trustees don't dive into the issue
> much either.
>
> As consumer advocates, part of our job is to protect the consumer. With
> resources such as Public Counsel and the self-help desk, consumers who
> cannot afford private representation can be helped effectively.
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James T. King wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> The Central District of California has ALWAYS had the highest rate of
>> self represented debtors since I went into practice a few years ago.
>> Everything has been tried, Judges have special programs, Public Counsel has
>> attempted to assist them and avoid the BPP (Bankruptcy Petition Preparers),
>> we even started a Self Help Desk for the self represented debtor and
>> avoid the BPP. The OUST goes after the bad ones and is usually
>> successful. BUT, we still have the highest rate in the nation and probably
>> always will. But if you think you have designed a better wheel. Go for it.
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Jay Fleischman
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:16 PM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
>> what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this for
>> a few minutes.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I scoured the ECF
>> system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay of the land, as it
>> were. I found that there are a ton of people filing their cases without
>> the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part, these non-attorney petition
>> preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or during the 341 meeting.**
>> **
>>
>> ****
>>
>> The US Trustee has not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against the
>> non-attorney petition preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a
>> large sum of money to the non-attorney.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> This amounts to not only a logjam in the court system, but harms
>> consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal advice. In the context of
>> a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> If a debtor were to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it
>> would be possible for fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as
>> under section 330. Sanctions could be awarded against the petition
>> preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The
>> amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor
>> under section 522 (b).****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> I'm actively looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a
>> non-attorney so that I may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against
>> the petition preparer. I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and
>> efforts, but it seems to me that an injustice is being done to our
>> consumers without anyone else taking action.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed
>> for bankruptcy without a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If
>> they're interested in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that
>> other don't get taken advantage of in the future, let me know.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> In the alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
>> know.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> -------------****
>>
>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.****
>>
>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP****
>>
>> Smart Solutions To Bill Problems****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> T: 626-808-4343 x704****
>>
>> E: jay@sflawca.com****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152****
>>
>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
>> by email, you understand that it's not confidential.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>
>
It's not so much a question of cannibalization, in my opinion; some peo
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Take a look at Judge Tighe's calendar for yesterday. She is taking the lead in this area and would be glad to have help.
>
> Kirk, I'll look forward to it. I think that if the debtor attorneys in the
> area band together this can create an enormous benefit to our clients and
> to consumers in general.
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Jay,
> >
> > It's a major issue in the CDCA, so you're definitely on the right track.
> > I will email you off list with a referral.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
> >> what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this for
> >> a few minutes.
> >>
> >> In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I scoured the ECF
> >> system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay of the land, as it
> >> were. I found that there are a ton of people filing their cases without
> >> the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part, these non-attorney petition
> >> preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or during the 341 meeting.
> >>
> >> The US Trustee has not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against the
> >> non-attorney petition preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a
> >> large sum of money to the non-attorney.
> >>
> >> This amounts to not only a logjam in the court system, but harms
> >> consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal advice. In the context of
> >> a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.
> >>
> >> If a debtor were to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it
> >> would be possible for fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as
> >> under section 330. Sanctions could be awarded against the petition
> >> preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The
> >> amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor
> >> under section 522 (b).
> >>
> >> I'm actively looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a
> >> non-attorney so that I may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against
> >> the petition preparer. I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and
> >> efforts, but it seems to me that an injustice is being done to our
> >> consumers without anyone else taking action.
> >>
> >> I'd appreciate it if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed
> >> for bankruptcy without a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If
> >> they're interested in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that
> >> other don't get taken advantage of in the future, let me know.
> >>
> >> In the alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
> >> know.
> >>
> >> -------------
> >> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> >> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
> >> Smart Solutions To Bill Problems
> >>
> >> T: 626-808-4343 x704
> >> E: jay@...
> >>
> >> www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
> >>
> >> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
> >> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
> >>
> >> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
> >> by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kirk Brennan, esq.
> > California Law Office, P.C.
> > www.calibankruptcysite.com
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> > exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> > the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> > reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> > please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> > message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> > attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> > message.
> > TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> > constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> > be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> > purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> > Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> > letters containing the signature of a director.
> >
> >
> >
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Of the 134,711 cases filed in the Central District in 2011 almost 40,000 were self represented. I dent would mean you would have about 5-10,000 clients!

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hopefully you can make a dent in the problem.
One of the issues is that BPPs often work in immigrant and poor communities
and prey on people who have limited legal knowledge. Their clients trust
that someone who speaks their language and is charming will lead them down
the right path. They are often promised help with loan modifications and
other negotiations with lenders. When they prove unable to help, they file
a pro se bk on behalf of their clients.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
> **
>
>
> In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. A huge BPP problem,
> consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad
> situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with
> the law. Some left, some stayed.
>
> My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are
> helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice.
> People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it but can't do
> much sua sponte. From what I gather, trustees don't dive into the issue
> much either.
>
> As consumer advocates, part of our job is to protect the consumer. With
> resources such as Public Counsel and the self-help desk, consumers who
> cannot afford private representation can be helped effectively.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James T. King wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> The Central District of California has ALWAYS had the highest rate of
>> self represented debtors since I went into practice a few years ago.
>> Everything has been tried, Judges have special programs, Public Counsel has
>> attempted to assist them and avoid the BPP (Bankruptcy Petition Preparers),
>> we even started a Self Help Desk for the self represented debtor and
>> avoid the BPP. The OUST goes after the bad ones and is usually
>> successful. BUT, we still have the highest rate in the nation and probably
>> always will. But if you think you have designed a better wheel. Go for it.
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Jay Fleischman
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:16 PM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Pro Per Issue In CDCA - A Solution?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Folks, I'm new and naive around these parts so forgive me in advance if
>> what I'm proposing is a bit Polyanna. But please stick with me on this for
>> a few minutes.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> In preparation for my admission and move to the area, I scoured the ECF
>> system for Los Angeles matters. Trying to get the lay of the land, as it
>> were. I found that there are a ton of people filing their cases without
>> the assistance of a lawyer. For the most part, these non-attorney petition
>> preparers are not disclosed on the schedules or during the 341 meeting.**
>> **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The US Trustee has not, to my knowledge, brought any actions against the
>> non-attorney petition preparers ....even though the debtor often pays a
>> large sum of money to the non-attorney.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> This amounts to not only a logjam in the court system, but harms
>> consumers who rely upon non-attorneys for legal advice. In the context of
>> a Chapter 13, 99% of cases filed without a lawyer are dismissed.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> If a debtor were to turn on a non-attorney petitioner preparer then it
>> would be possible for fees to be disgorged under Section 110 as well as
>> under section 330. Sanctions could be awarded against the petition
>> preparer for failure to adhere to the requirements of section 528. The
>> amount paid by the debtor pre-petition could be exempted by the debtor
>> under section 522 (b).****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I'm actively looking for consumer debtors who have filed with a
>> non-attorney so that I may bring an action on behalf of the debtor against
>> the petition preparer. I know I'll likely not get paid for my time and
>> efforts, but it seems to me that an injustice is being done to our
>> consumers without anyone else taking action.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if everyone would ask their clients if they've filed
>> for bankruptcy without a lawyer in the past and had the case dismissed. If
>> they're interested in possibly recovering their fees and making sure that
>> other don't get taken advantage of in the future, let me know.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> In the alternative, if someone thinks I'm off my rocker please let me
>> know.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> -------------****
>>
>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.****
>>
>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP****
>>
>> Smart Solutions To Bill Problems****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> T: 626-808-4343 x704****
>>
>> E: jay@sflawca.com****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152****
>>
>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
>> by email, you understand that it's not confidential.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Hopefully you can make a dent in the problem.One of the issues is that BPPs often work in immigrant and poor communities and prey on people who have limited legal knowledge. Their clients trust that someone who speaks their language and is charming will lead them down the right path. They are often promised help with loan modifications and other negotiations with lenders. When they prove unable to help, they file a pro se bk on behalf of their clients.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Jay Fleischman <bankruptcy@gmail.com> wrote:
In 2003 we had the same issue in SDNY and EDNY. A huge BPP problem, consumers who ended up with the short end of the stick, and an overall bad situation. EOUST took severe action to bring the BPP industry in line with the law. Some left, some stayed.
My problem is that looking at the schedules it's clear that the BPPs are helping debtors choose exemptions and, as such, giving legal advice. People are getting screwed and the courts seem to realize it
The post was migrated from Yahoo.