Metairie Louisiana V. Guillot's Fraud Case

COUNSEL: For Plaintiff: Mona C. Engel, Esq., Law Offices of Robert F. Danzi, Westbury, New York.

Procedural posture: The case is before the Northern District of New York after the plaintiff, Howard I. Ginsburg, filed an amended petition as the administrator of the estate of his deceased son, Bradley Marc Ginsburg, asking that the City of Ithaca and Cornell University be held negligent for Bradley’s wrongful death as well as personal injuries and conscious pain and suffering.

A representative of the court system must solemnly represent fact, and I am very disturbed when an Attorney engaged in incivility by presenting a fact or statement that is inaccurate and false. The above account was paid in full while we were still together.

This correspondence shall confirm that the undersigned appeared at applicant’s attorney’s office in Stockton, California on April 18, 2017, to complete the applicant’s deposition. The handling attorney, Mr. Rod McClelland, was unable to attend the applicant’s deposition due to an unavoidable calendar conflict. This file will be returned to Mr. McClellan for further defense handling.

On May 2, 2014, Edilson Menezes retained Sandra Bloomenthal “in connection with: post conviction relief of conviction SUCR2010-10275 Suffolk Superior Court.” As part of the “Fixed Fee Agreement,” Menezes paid a total of $10,000 to Bloomenthal to begin work on his appeal.

On 11/9/2015 received voicemail from other attorney Jake Aldridge, stating he doesn’t represent Ruth but just prepared and filed the revocation of POA, and that he has called adult protective services in Oklahoma and Cleveland County based on his concern of Ruth’s financial management.

Ocwen, the borrowers David and Linda Beach built a house in Florida in 1986 by securing an $85,000 construction loan from Fidelity Savings Bank of Florida. Later that same year, they refinanced their house through Great Western Bank. Five years later, in 1991, they stopped making payments on their mortgage, and the next year the bank initiated a foreclosing proceeding. At that time, the Beaches raised the defenses found in §§ 1635 and 1640. The Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida rejected the Beaches’s defense of rescission because their right to rescission expired in 1989, when the three-year period of § 1635(f) had lapsed. The appellate court affirmed this decision, as well as the Supreme Court of Florida. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine “whether under federal law the statutory right of rescission provided by § 1635 may be revived as an affirmative defense after its expiration under

The case of Demoulas v. Demoulas, 1996 Mass. Super LEXIS 735 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug 20, 1996) involved the request on the part of the plaintiffs, Evanthea, George Demoulas’ wife, Evan, Diana, Fotene and Arthur Demoulas, their children, who comprise the surviving family of the deceased, George Demoulas, brother of the defendant, Telemachus Demoulas, to have the court take action in light of a verdict returned in 1994 finding the defendant in breach of his fiduciary duty to handle the finances of his deceased brother’s Estate and see to it the deceased’s surviving children benefit from the Estate of George Demoulas. The Middlesex County jury found Telemachus additionally guilty of fraudulently transferring funds to himself, his family, as well

This request for review is in reference to a grievance received on September 16, 2014. M. Denise Rockett filed a request for investigation against the respondent, Eugene A. Nigro. The respondent had been named as a co-trustee in J. Hilary Rockett’s Will; J. Hilary Rockett was Denise’s late husband, who passed away on November 26, 2009. Additionally, Nigro was “directed” to assist Denise with the administration of the estate, after Hilary died.

Mardy R. Chaplin is the attorney of record assigned to Miss Jamie Wilson (client) housing eviction case in Cuyahoga County. he Legal Agreement expresses that the customer (Jamie Wilson) will pay an upfront installment of $1500.00 and all court costs, recording charges and fines. The price of the ongoing case is still to be determined. It is at Mardy Chaplin discretion and not determined by law that this Attorney's fee is a set amount but rather is negotiable between the Attorney and the Client. Attorney Chaplin can give every single legitimate support of the customer expect the accompanying (a) Matters that, in the attorney’s opinion, lack merit is excluded, (b) Discount of services, and/or (c) hearsay evidence. Attorney will perform the legal services called for under this agreement, keep Client educated of advance and improvements, and react instantly to Client's request and interchanges.

Vincent clerked at the Orleans District Attorney’s office for approximately two years while in law school and preparing for the Bar examination. During his time as a clerk, I encountered two personal friends who were Assistant District Attorneys on separate occasions. Both Assistant District Attorneys praised Vincent’s work ethic, professionalism and quality of work. One even stated that the Assistant District Attorneys competed for Vincent’s assistance on their cases. Vincent has demonstrated through work experience that he is capable of developing into a competent attorney.

In their cross-appeal, (Case A96A0616), plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s denial of their motion for pre-judgement interest. Plaintiffs rely on Grisset v. Wilson, 181 Ga. App. 727,728 (1) (353 S.E.2d 621) (1987), in which it held that a single notice of demand can cover multiple claims, and the notice covered the spouse’s consortium claim as well as the injured plaintiff’s personal injury claim. In reviewing the full demand letter, it “leads us to conclude that the demand letter encompassed only Jeffrey’s claim and the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for pre-judgement

The victim, Ms. Angelica Latta contacted this Agent Thomas-Alford, in reference to the Subject owing her restitution. Ms. Latta complained she has not received a payment of restitution in the amount $166.00 that was due in January. It was explained, that the Subject will be instructed to pay a make a payment, immediately. Ms. Latta also advised that the Subject makes an income by tattooing.

Bar counsel has requested that Solomon explain where the funds for the cash deposit came from, as well as how his payment benefited the Elmore Desvigne estate. To date Solomon has not provided answers to these questions. Due to Solomon’s lack of response bar counsel has sent a subpoena requesting that he appear at the Office of the Bar Counsel on March 31, 2016. The subpoena was sent via certified mailed on March 8, 2016, to his home, his P.O. Box, and his counsel Arnold Rosenfeld’s office. Based on the evidence already obtained, bar counsel believes there is sufficient evidence to file a Petition for Discipline

My clients Dustin and Paula Bodkin have been working with Chase since January trying to get a loan modification. Chase has lost faxes; and ask for abnormal request. I feel due their stalling and unorganized methods has lead to them saying a short sale is all they will take regarding the loan. my clients loan is guaranteed by Rural development. We have asked for that account number because they guaranteed the loan. Since RHD wants to work with clients to keep them in their home. Chase has no record of my clients account number. Mr. & Mrs. Bodkin want to keep their home and make their payments and they have tried since January and Chase had refused to take payments until now and they want approximately $8,000. Unfortunately it is not possible