Vanessa Kachadurian Armenian Victory

http://wwww.VanessaKachadurianArmenianVictory.com

Read the truth here.

Vanessa Kachadurian- Arrest of 41 Kurdish Lawyers

ELDH - European Lawyers for Democracy condem the arrest of 41 Kurdish Lawyers. Bennet Kelley helps to enable the arrest of Kurdish Lawyers and censorship of 170 Turkish Journalists that are in jail.
http://kurdishrights.org/2011/12/01/european-lawyers-federation-urge-turkey-to-release-kurdish-lawyers/


http://open.salon.com/blog/vanessakachadurian

Vanessa Kachadurian - Freedom of speech and truth remain- FALSE VICTORY

Mr. Bennet Kelley a self-professed "Internet Attorney" is claiming "victory" in a case he won NO award in and didn't succeed in squashing the truth or Freedom of Speech. Do we need to remind Mr. Kelley about the lies and mistruths in his flimsy Complaint that didn't make it past mediation? Or how you had to amend the complaint many times, because it had no legal theory. In the end you had no where to go with it and your client errors in thinking that anyone in the Republic of Armenia would side with Plaintiff over me, or any other of our citizens. Labeling me a "Cyber Attacker" is libelous and I have challenged you to debate me on Truth vs. Cyber Attacks any time, I will even grace your internet radio show with my perspective and that of an average citizen.

As the mediation report said.......anyone can sue for anything if they want to, or if Plaintiff has the money to spend on an ambulance chaser like you. The other fact is, your case was past over by many attorneys in Fresno before a law firm that is NOW closed after 50 years accepted it. "Small Victory" no not at all, you don't control the law in Armenia and the other countries, that is where the truth is being exposed. Even your client's money won't change the truth, all $1.3 million that has been earned the last 4 years from buying and selling children.

Perhaps we should also remind everyone how you wrongfully accused me of trying to harm you. All I ever did was tell you to leave my family alone (a reasonable request)that you turned into a bad circus, it isn't my fault your client lied to you about the facts and you were embarassed. You also leave out the part how you stole the federal court seal and my photo and ran it on a blog together. Your ethics is laughable and your a.m. radio show and Huffington blog (neither are paid venues) are stupid and self-promoting. As the other attorney's call you "a deceptive cheeky little monkey" I have also reported you to the Armenian Law Association in California and they are not happy with your ethnic slurs and as you put it "Tweeking on a Lark". Your antics are unethical and it's too bad your client doesn't file legal malpractice charges against you for destroying her case and abusing her reputation. Not to mention stealing over $100K in legal fees from your client and promising to destroy people who have an opinion or truthful substantiated proof of wrong doing. Surely, your client understands that everyone doesn't believe she is a savior of some sort.

Your client wins nothing and you win nothing in damages because you failed to prove this and failed to distinguish the multitude of reports from Brandeis University to Radio free Europe regarding irregular practices in adoption. One should ask why Mr. Kelley doesn't file flimsy lawsuits against the journalists or news companies? Why? Because he can't attack the truth, so he creates straw man arguments that amount to no more than fantasy writing by Kelley. So lets see here, $100K spent on legal fees and $85K reimbursed for legal fees by the insurance company. At the end of the day, you didn't squash the truth and never will.

Mr. Kelley also proceeded to attack my community with Ethnic Slurs and harass my family which precipitated a police report. All of which is sitting on the DA's office in Santa Monica, California. if you think you will win Mr. Kelley you are sadly mistaken, you only win with making a complete fool out of yourself especially when it was found that your complaint had errors and misinformation in it.
Remember Kelley you didn't do your due diligence and verify your client's remarks about "so called" clients and THE REAL reason they stopped their contract to adopt. Which if you recall had nothing to do with me or any other journalist, this was verified by a 3rd party who interviewed the 4 couples who cited "bad customer service" and other "inconsistancies" in the horrible and laughable written complaint that is being laughed at by every law professor on the west coast. Your embarassment after finding these facts were true were evident in your behavior toward me and resorting to personal attacks because you COULD NOT WIN A JUDGMENT.

Keep up the attacking Bennet, you are a low life sleeze only after attorney fees. Which your client paid you handsomely for. What was it that you were paid? Estimates by legal friends say it was $85-100K for legal fees? and what did I have to pay? .......ZERO. Kelley didn't succeed in doing what he set out to do, harm me financially and emotionally. So how much more did the Plaintiff pay you to straighten up her business reputation? You are a paid agitator and have done this for the Democratic party by attacking former President Bush (Bushlies.net) But attacking a solo citizen is unacceptable for your wealthy client. Your client is not a small business as you would have people believe, their IRS revenue reported is $1.3 million for the last 4 years. Adoption Agencies are not exactly without critics these days, as such they have dropped off by 52% the last 4 years for good reasons.

Here is the lie Kelley posted. If he wants to call it a “victory”, he can. Of course, you’re free to categorize it however you want. Plaintiffs easily incurred legal fees and costs in excess of $100k. The mediation alone probably cost them ten grand between attorneys’ fees, the mediator’s fee, hotels, and flights. Surely, Bennet walked away with more money to support his lackluster writing and speaking career. Do you really think bashing private citizens and aligning yourself with a group that is currently under FBI investigation is good for your reputation?

Mr. Kelley you will never stop freedom of speech and the truth, as this was explained to you by Judge Westerfield. Admittedly, your own client admits the arrest and the DISMISSAL BY the former employer, all known and substantiated facts. Again you misled everyone and your communication sucks, I think your own quote "do anything for a buck" suits you well. Your professors from back east would be very ashamed of your lousy tactics and infantile actions. You lose and you have to resort to personal attacks on children and 80 year olds.

Mr. Kelley professes to stand up for Freedom of Speech and applauds "Occupy Wall Street Movement". Unfortunately when it comes to lawyers and mercenaries, they will always side with the paying client as they are a paid mouthpiece puppet. No lawyer can be trusted, so we have to ask Mr. Kelley does he stand on the side of moral virtues or big business and greed? I think we know the answer. Also you profess to defend Spam, yet claim you added a website attacking me for spam filters (whatever that is suppose to mean- Everyone should realize Bennet has a magical way with word salads- after all he is a wanna be writer) Then fail to mention you were paid unsuccessfully by Spam Lobbyists, not to mention your former job as in house counsel for Value Click who have since "parted ways" with you. I understand your late father was an honorable DA in Rhode Island, too bad you have not filled his shoes.

P.S. THIS LATEST BLOG YOU POSTED ABOUT ME IS PROOF, OF YOUR VICIOUS PROSECUTION ATTEMPT AND VEXATOUS MALICIOUS LITIGATION. YOU LOSE AND ARE A LOSER.


Internet Law Center Announces Victory against Serial Cyber Defamer; Calls for Legislative Action
Internet Law Center Announces Victory against Serial Cyber Defamer;

Calls for Legislative Action

SANTA MONICA, CA–Nov. 15, 2011—The Internet Law Center, a law firm based in Santa Monica, California, announced today it had achieved a significant victory for its client Hopscotch Adoptions, Inc. (www.hopscotchadoptions.org) of High Point, North Carolina in a federal defamation action against Vanessa Kachadurian of Fresno, California, with an $85,000 settlement.

Hopscotch and its founder Robin Sizemore, filed suit against Kachadurian in federal court in Fresno in December 2009 in response to a vicious cyber-smear campaign that began in 2006. The plaintiffs were merely one of several adoption and educational institutions to be targeted for abuse by Kachadurian under multiple identities.

“It is a gutsy move for a small non-profit like Hopscotch to say ‘enough’ and take on someone like Kachadurian who can devastate a small business,” said Internet Law Center founder Bennet Kelley. This is especially true when, Kelley added, “cyber abuse often escalates online and leads to offline threats of violence in over one in four cases according to data compiled by WHO@ (www.haltabuse.org).”

“Small victories like these collectively send an important message that the internet is no longer the ‘Wild, Wild West’ and that you can and will be held accountable for your actions.”

Kelley noted, however, that “Kachadurian is part of a growing class of internet serial defamers who cause substantial economic and emotional harm to their victims and who have forced companies to spend millions on online reputation management to block and/or respond to such attacks.”

Kelley, who helped draft a primer on internet law for California policymakers, argued that lawmakers across the country should seriously assess whether their state’s defamation laws need to be updated to address these worst offenders.

Kelley added that, this may be a topic he explores in more depth in a future edition of Cyber Law and Business Report, a radio show he hosts that airs weekly on WebmasterRadio.fm.
About The Internet Law Center

The Internet Law Center (www.internetlawcenter.net) helps clients navigate and influence the evolving legal standards for the changing digital economy. The firm publishes the newsletter, Cyber Report, which won top prize at the Los Angeles Press Club’s 2011 Southern California Journalism Awards.

The firm was founded by Bennet Kelley, the former co-chair of the California Bar Cyberspace Committee, where he led the effort to publish Cyberspace Law and Policy: A Primer for State Policymakers.

Kelley is also Of Counsel to San Diego-based Hull McGuire PC (www.hullmcguire.com) and host of Cyber Law and Business Report which airs every Wednesday at 10AM Pacific/ 1PM Eastern on WebmasterRadio.fm. (www2.webmasterradio.fm/cyberlaw-and-business-report/).



Contact:

Bennet Kelley, (310) 452-0401
bkelley@internetlawcenter.net

Vanessa Kachadurian-Judge Tomar Mason San Francisco Superior Court

My friend and honorable judge of San Francisco Superior Court- Tomar Mason

Attorneys Say Mason Is Sharp, Sweet and Slow

By Rinat Fried
The Recorder
June 18, 2002


Tomar Mason: The judge gets high marks for her courtroom demeanor, but some attorneys complain about short hours and long arguments.
Photo: Jenna Bowles
TOMAR MASON

BIO BOX


COURT: San Francisco Superior

APPOINTED: Dec. 31, 1998, via court consolidation

DATE OF BIRTH: June 1, 1951

LAW SCHOOL: UCLA School of Law, 1977

PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT: S.F. Muni Court judge, 1991-98


Lawyers like appearing before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Tomar Mason. They just wish there was more time to do it.

Since her days at San Francisco's Hall of Justice, Mason has had a reputation for tardiness. That rap has followed her to the civil courthouse, where it continues to color an otherwise respectable judicial reputation.

"She's very sweet, she has a good sense of humor," said one litigator, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The one thing that bothered me is she doesn't start real quick and she takes a long lunch."

Another attorney was more critical.

"She keeps incredibly short hours," said a civil litigator, a partner in a downtown San Francisco firm. "She actually seems to hold court only a few hours a day."

Mason says her court hours are 9 to 5, with some adjustments depending on the case. "I find it an interesting comment," she said. "I'll certainly talk to counsel about it in individual cases."

Attorneys are divided on Mason's judicial skills. Almost all attorneys praise Mason, 51, for her courtroom demeanor. They say she is patient, polite and pleasant. But several also say she lets attorneys argue too long and allows too much duplication in her trial procedure.

Several attorneys, even her fans, agreed that Mason could cut off arguments sooner.

"She is courteous to lawyers, she reads your papers, she looks up the law. I think she is one of the better judges around," said L. Jay Pedersen, a partner at Bledsoe, Cathcart, Diestel & Pedersen.

But, Pedersen, added, "If anything, she lets attorneys argue until they stop. She probably should stop them before the fifth go around."

Mason takes the feedback in stride.

"Great, I'm glad to hear this," she quips. "I'm going to cut them off from now on."

For one attorney, faced with trying a long prevailing wage case before Judge Mason, her patience was a virtue.

Since few state judges are intimate with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and its terminology, attorneys in the case provided Mason with relevant statutes and commentary. Mason diligently reviewed the binder, which she modestly called "ERISA for dummies," recalled attorney Mark Thierman.

"Sometimes she had trouble with it, but she got back on track," he said.

In fact, a week and a half into the 20-day trial, Mason did something most unusual: She ordered the attorneys to present their opening statement all over again.

"At one point, she said, 'I will now have opening statements again because I finally understand,'" Thierman said.

"One thing that impressed me the most is that she was totally humble," he said. "This is boring stuff. . . . She gets a 110 percent for patience."

Mason has also been known to ask attorneys to preview their cases in chambers before the trial begins -- a habit that elicits mixed responses.

"I'm not a big fan of that procedure," said David Balter, staff counsel for the state's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement who recently tried a wage dispute in Mason's courtroom. "I think there is some duplication there."

But another attorney saw the procedure as a plus. "What I liked about her is she's willing to bring it into chambers and talk seriously about the strengths and weaknesses of the case," said criminal defense attorney V. Roy Lefcourt.

Mason says the previews are helpful to attorneys because, among other things, they are opportunities to hash out procedural issues and stipulations that help the trial move along quicker.

"I find that oftentimes counsel are very eager to talk to the court to alert the court to important issues," she says.

There is a greater consensus about Mason's people and communication skills, which lawyers say are her great asset.

"Unlike a lot of judges who don't have good communication skills, she is very easy to communicate with," says Deputy Public Defender Arcelia Hurtado. "She lets you know how she feels about a case."

Mason can be quite sensitive to the litigants in her courtroom, Hurtado added. For example, Hurtado recalled a client of hers, a veteran of the armed forces, who was sentenced to a diversion program.

"I remember him coming to court after he'd completed his program," Hurtado said. "She told him, 'You're a veteran?' He says yes. She says, 'I want everyone to give him a round of applause for serving this country and completing his program.' " According to Hurtado, the entire courtroom erupted in applause, moving her client to tears.

And when a pair of 90-year-olds appeared in court over a wage dispute, Mason was on the attorneys' case to make sure their clients were not excluded.

"At various times there were some issues in terms of people not being able to hear," said Balter, the labor standards attorney. "She made sure attorneys, including myself, spoke loud enough

Vanessa Kachadurian- 9th Circuit to reconsider Armenian Genocide Case en Banc

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202532050520&slreturn=1#

9th Circuit to Reconsider Armenian Genocide Case En Banc
The 9th Circuit has ordered an en banc rehearing of a challenge to a California statute that has spawned lawsuits against insurance firms on behalf of victims of the Armenian genocide. Earlier, a three-judge panel had upheld the statute, reversing its own initial decision dismissing the case.
Amanda Bronstad
11-11-2011
A federal appeals court has ordered an en banc rehearing of a challenge to a California statute that has spawned lawsuits against insurance firms on behalf of victims of the Armenian genocide.
The case, against two German insurers and their parent company, Munchener Ruckverischerungs Gesellschaft A.G., or Munich Re, will be reheard in oral arguments during the week of Dec. 12 in San Francisco, according to a Nov. 7 order by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Earlier, a three-judge panel had upheld the statute, reversing its own initial decision dismissing the case.
"We're delighted that the court has agreed to rehear the decision," said Neil Soltman, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Mayer Brown who represents Munich Re. "We think reversal of the initial decision was obviously incorrect and we're glad to have the opportunity to present it to the full en banc court."
Brian Kabateck, a partner at Kabateck Brown Kellner in Los Angeles, and one of the lead plaintiffs attorneys in the case, said he wasn't surprised by the decision.
"Obviously, we would have preferred they denied it," he said. "But I do think in one respect it's important, because this is an important issue with respect to the Armenian genocide and it's important that possibly this case reach the Supreme Court to deal with the question of the recognition of the Armenian genocide."
Between 1915 and 1923, more than 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. The government of modern Turkey, an important member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has strenuously denied that any genocide occurred, and the U.S. does not recognize the episode as genocide.
Kabateck and Mark Geragos have taken the lead in filing cases against insurance firms and banks on behalf of Armenian descendants of genocide victims, often obtaining big settlements. In 2004, New York Life Insurance Co. agreed to pay $20 million, and in 2005 AXA S.A. agreed to a $17 million settlement.
The latest case was filed in 2003 by Vazken Movsesian, a priest in the Armenian Apostolic Church, as a class action. Munich Re moved to dismiss, arguing that the foreign-affairs doctrine pre-empted the statute, which also violated the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Munich Re cited failed legislative efforts in the United States to formally recognize the Armenian genocide.
In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder in Los Angeles rejected the company's motion, prompting Munich Re's appeal to the 9th Circuit.
The en banc hearing will be the third go-round for the case before the appellate court. In 2009, a three-judge panel initially upheld dismissal for Munich Re in a 2-1 decision, concluding that the California statute -- Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, approved in 2000 to extend the statute of limitations for Armenians to file insurance claims -- was unconstitutional. The court also found that U.S. foreign policy pre-empted the California law, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in American Insurance Associates v. Garamendi, which concluded that U.S. foreign policy pre-empted a California law granting insurance relief for Holocaust victims.
The 9th Circuit used the same reasoning in another case heard at the same time, striking down a 2002 California law meant to help plaintiffs recover artwork allegedly looted by the Nazis in Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum.
In the Munich Re case, the majority opinion came from Dorothy Nelson and the late David Thompson, with Harry Pregerson dissenting.
But on Dec. 10, 2010, in a rehearing by the same panel, Nelson reversed course and sided with Pregerson. In that 2-1 decision, the panel found that there was no "express federal policy forbidding states to use the term 'Armenian Genocide'" and that, unlike the Holocaust, no executive agreements existed to resolve victim claims.
"The panel's holding is both incorrect and a danger to U.S. interests," wrote Soltman, Munich Re's attorney, in a Jan. 3 petition to rehear the decision en banc. "The panel consequently misapplied the law governing an area of national importance and international sensitivity, allowing California to interfere with the President's authority to determine foreign policy and threatening vital U.S. interests," he wrote.
Joining Munich Re was the Republic of Turkey, which filed an amicus brief.
In their response, filed on Feb. 1, Kabateck and Geragos of the Law Offices of Geragos & Geragos, said a few "carefully selected remarks" from government officials did not constitute a foreign policy position on the Armenian genocide.
The Armenian Bar Association; the Center for the Study of Law & Genocide at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and various human rights organizations filed briefs supporting the claims.
In several notices filed with the court, Soltman noted the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27 refusal to hear a petition to overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling in Norton Simon, the case over alleged Nazi looting of artwork. Also in that case, the U.S. solicitor general filed a brief to deny review.
Soltman said that decision meant the Munich Re case was ripe for en banc review.
"The two cases in our view are indistinguishable from one another, yet after the panel changed its decision, the two decisions didn't make any sense," he said. "The art case and our case were no longer consistent with each other, and the whole purpose of the en banc procedure is to eliminate inconsistencies with the circuit's cases. This is a perfect example."
Kabateck disagreed that there was a conflict in the circuit.
"They're politically completely different events. Our position is the United States government has never taken a position on the genocide. It's not in conflict," he said. "We've got an issue where we're not running contrary to, not afoul of, a particular policy of the United States."

Vanessa Kachadurian- Lawyer makes hurtful and ethnic slur on Twitter

As most of you know, this Attorney has hassled me and my family for some time.

Please take note this is what he tweeted on July 20:

bennetkelley Bennet Kelley
Pres Candidaets: There is Sofia the Logos who was crucified in 2003 by "the Armenian mafia" and is the reincarnation of St. Mary Magdalene.
20 Jul Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

Bennet Kelley has a AM Web Radio show in Los Angeles, every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.
All the Armenians in Southern California, give him a call. Tell Bennet how much business he will have in Los Angeles.
http://www2.webmasterradio.fm/cyberlaw-and-business-report/about.html

P.S. it is a self promoting radio show with no salary. The oversize photo is so funny, that is about 10 years old and 20 lbs. lighter.

Vanessa Kachadurian- Garabedian Law Firm the best!!!

Mitchell Garabedian, A Champion for human rights
The Brave "Garabedian" that took on the Catholic Church and helped over 100 victims of sexual abuse.

MITCHELL GARABEDIAN
Read the entire bio here:
http://www.garabedianlaw.com/docs/garabedian.pdf

Mitchell Garabedian is a Boston Massachusetts attorney specializing in sexual abuse cases.1 He has become an internationally recognized advocate on the topic.2 He began practicing law in 1979 as a lawyer who represented individuals including victims of injury cases.3 Attorney Garabedian became widely known for his representation of victims or survivors of Roman Catholic Church clergy sexual abuse in the 1990’s and 2000’s.4 Over his career he has so far represented more than 600 victims or survivors of clergy sexual abuse.5 On the A&E TV program Sins of a Priest: The John J. Geoghan Story, Mitchell Garabedian’s efforts to expose the secrets of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston were
1 Stern, Gary, Salesians Settle Sex-Abuse Claim With 3 Men,(8/9/2009), LoHud.com, http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908090331; Berfanger, Rebecca J., Lawyer of the Year 2002 Mitchell Garabedian. Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly (2002); Aucoin, Don. Victims of alleged sexual abuse by priests turn to Mitchell Garabedian, The Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation: Abuse in the Catholic Church, 2002 Globe Newspaper Company (2/14/2002), http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/021402_garabedian.htm.
2 How America's Catholic Church Crucified Itself, The Sunday Times, Times Online, London, Englaond (3/13/2005) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article422790.ece?print=yes&randnum= 1151003209000; Paedophile Priest Killed In Jail, BBC News (8/24/2003) http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3177021.stm;Owen, Richard, Sex-Scandal Cardinal Set For Senior Vatican Job, The Times, London (12/16/2002); Boston church offers $US55m abuse settlement, Australian Broadcasting Corp. News (8/9/2003); A Series of Sexual Abuse Cases, 2000 Law-Breaking Priests, The Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan (4/24/2002); Church in Court, Breakfast, Australian Broadcasting Corp. (12/30/2002); La Archidiócesis de Boston Pagará 10 Millones de Dólares a 86 Víctimas de un Cura Pederasta, Reuters, El Mundo, Madrid, Spain (9/4/2002) http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2002/09/04/sociedad/1031110794. html.
3 Aucoin, Don. Victims of alleged sexual abuse by priests turn to Mitchell Garabedian, The Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation: Abuse in the Catholic Church, 2002 Globe Newspaper Co. (2/14/2002), http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/021402_garabedian.htm.
4 Face the Nation (CBS 4/28/2002), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/29/ftn/ main507501.shtml; Nightline: Sins of the Fathers (ABC 3/14/2002), http://tvnews.vanderbilt. edu/siteindex/2002-Specials/special-2002-03-14-ABC-1.html; Aucoin, Don. Victims of alleged sexual abuse by priests turn to Mitchell Garabedian, The Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation: Abuse in the Catholic Church, 2002 Globe Newspaper Co. (2/14/2002), http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/ abuse/stories/021402_garabedian.htm.
5Stern, Gary, Salesians Settle Sex-Abuse Claim With 3 Men,(8/9/2009), LoHud.com, http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908090331.

Vanessa Kachadurian- Violence between Lawyers and Lekhpals 35 detained

Lakhimpur-Kehri, Uttar Pradesh: Two lawyers have been killed and six injured when lekhpals, or land record officials, opened fire during a violent clash between lawyers and lekhpals. The incident happened in the Mohomm-Aadi tehsil of the Lakhimpur-Kehri district in Uttar Pradesh.

This tension between lekhpals and lawyers was because of the two fraternities accusing each other of corrupt practices. At the district headquarters in Lakhimpur-Kheri, lawyers have also vandalised vehicles and ransacked the office of the district magistrate .

The Mayawati government has ordered a magisterial probe and the Divisional Commissioner and the IG of Lucknow range rushed to the spot.

33 lekhpals and two others have also been detained by the Lakhimpur police


The situation in the area continues to remain tense.



Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/35-detained-after-violent-clashes-between-lekhpals-and-lawyers-131146&cp

Early Victory against Turkish Banks in Genocide Lawsuit | Hetq online

Early Victory against Turkish Banks in Genocide Lawsuit | Hetq online

Vanessa Kachadurian-Ara Jan Congratulations! $46.5 M Verdict in Fresno Ponzi Scheme,

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/08/05/v-print/2490056/465m-verdict-in-alleged-fresno.html

$46.5m verdict in alleged Fresno Ponzi scheme
Posted at 03:10 PM on Friday, Aug. 05, 2011
By Pablo Lopez / The Fresno Bee
A Fresno County Superior Court jury today announced a civil verdict of $46.5 million against the two senior officers of a defunct northwest Fresno business for their involvement in an alleged Ponzi scheme.
Jurors deliberated two days before finding Dan Ramirez, president of HL Leasing Inc., and Andy Fernandez, the company's chief financial officer, liable for the damages.
The verdict in the class-action suit came three days after Judge Donald Black found HL Leasing Inc., Heritage Pacific Leasing and Air Fred, LLC also liable for damages in which more than 1,200 victims lost about $137 million, said attorney Ara Jabagchourian, who represented the plaintiffs.
The two verdicts total about $114.5 million, Jabagchourian said.
"This sends a strong message that fraud won't be tolerated," Jabagchourian said.
He conceded the victims likely won't ever get full restitution. "They will get something back," he said. "But it will be pennies on the dollar."
The alleged scheme bilked more than 800 people from the Fresno area, many of them Armenian Americans.
The jury found Ramirez guilty of fraudulent concealment and aiding and abetting the fraud. Fernandez was found guilty of aiding and abetting the fraud.
A third defendant, Kathleen Otto, was found not liable. Her husband, John W. Otto, was the alleged mastermind of the scheme, but he committed suicide in 2009, leaving Ramirez, Fernandez and his widow to defend themselves in a three-week trial.
HL Leasing opened shop at Shaw and Valentine avenues in 2001. The office closed when John Otto died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head on May 11, 2009, in the parking lot of the Palm Desert Visitors Center -- just a few miles from his $2 million home.
http://www.cpmlegal.com/lawyerprofile.php?n=jabagchourian

Congrats Ara Jan!!!!Ara R. Jabagchourian is a principal at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP where he practices civil litigation in numerous areas. He received a dual B.A. in Philosophy and Economics from the California State University, Fresno. Upon graduation, he was awarded the Dean’s Medal from both the School of Arts and Humanities and the School of Social Science.
Jabagchourian received his J.D. from the University of California Hastings College of Law. While attending Hastings, he was a judicial extern for Presiding Justice James Ardaiz of the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District and Justice Marvin Baxter of the California Supreme Court.
Following law school, he worked for the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition in Washington, D.C., in investigations dealing with conspiracies, monopolization and mergers. In 2001, he joined private practice, working on antitrust matters with an emphasis in antitrust/intellectual property overlap issues.
The American Trial Lawyers Association has selected Jabagchourian as one of the "Top 100 Trial Lawyers" in California for years. He was also selected as a Rising Star in Northern California, an honor bestowed on the top 2.5% of attorneys under the age of 40. For its centennial celebration, California State University, Fresno's College of Arts & Humanities had selected Jabagchourian as one of its Distinguished Alumni.
Jabagchourian has litigation and trial experience in numerous areas, including product defects, medical negligence, catastrophic personal injury, antitrust, construction fraud, corporate dissolution, contract disputes, securities litigation and complex business litigation. Examples of his cases include:
Recently, Jabagchourian recovered the largest individual wrongful death verdict in San Diego County history, when a jury awarded $17.4 million to the wife and three children of a high ranking U.S. Naval Officer, who was killed while riding his bike in a collision with an American Medical Response transport van. Mazurek, et al. v. American Medical Response, et al., San Diego Superior Court Action No. 10-83975 May 20, 2011.
In the case of Davis v. Hope Life Foundation, et al., he obtained a unanimous jury decision related to an out-of-state financial organization that defrauded its customers through sham trusts and promissory notes.
In Siller v. Siller Brothers, Inc., Frank M. Pitre and Jabagchourian obtained a multi-million dollar trial judgment related to a corporate dissolution action filed on behalf of a minority shareholder.
In Murillo v. National Passenger Railroad Corporation, et al., he settled an action against Union Pacific and the State of California Department of Transportation related to the wrongful death of an elderly couple because of an allegedly defectively-designed railroad crossing. The case was brought on behalf of the children and grandchildren of the victims.
Jabagchourian represented Arthur Mkoyan, a Fresno high school valedictorian, and his family, who were facing imminent deportation after seeking asylum from the former Soviet Union in 1992. Arthur and his family were allowed to stay, with Arthur now attending college in California.
Jabagchourian was also appointed as liaison counsel in the matter of In re: Crown Princess Listing Incident, a case involving the substantial tipping of a Princess Cruise Line ship off the coast of Florida. The action involved more than 200 injured plaintiffs. The action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Jabagchourian also has lectured on numerous legal topics before practicing attorneys and academics, including antitrust litigation, intellectual property, personal injury, trial techniques, evidence, discovery skills and federal government antitrust actions. He has also published several articles on various legal subjects, including including “Establishing ‘Alter Ego’ Liability,” Plaintiff, Vol. 3 No. 12, December 2009; “The Threat of Intervention in Your State Court Class Action,” Forum, Vol. 40 No. 1, January/February 2010; “Getting Your Injury Case Out Of Bankruptcy,” Plaintiff, Vol. 4 No. 3, March 2010, republished in Advocate, Vol. 37 No. 5, May 2010; “The Law On Predatory Pricing In California,” Competition: The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 19 No. 1, Spring 2010; "Conflicts of Interest Arising from Successive Matters," California Litigation, Vol. 23 No.1, 2010; and "Evaluating Ponzi Schemes," Advocate, Vol. 38, No.2, February 2011. Jabagchourian also actively serves as a judicial arbitrator in San Mateo County.
Jabagchourian is a member of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the San Mateo Bar Association, the San Francisco Bar Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, and a former board member of the San Mateo Trial Lawyers Association.

Vanessa Kachadurian-Lawsuit abuse bill passes House committee

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/233242-lawsuit-abuse-bill-passes-house-committee

Lawsuit abuse bill passes House committee
BY JESSICA M. KARMASEK


WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) - The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved legislation aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits and improving attorney accountability.

The committee passed HR 966, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act or LARA, by a vote of 20-13.

According to the bill's text, the legislation amends the sanctions provisions in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to require the court to impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm or party that has violated, or is responsible for the violation of, the rule with regard to representations to the court. It also requires any sanction to compensate parties injured by the conduct in question.

The measure also removes a provision that prohibits filing a motion for sanctions if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.

HR 966 also authorizes the court to impose additional sanctions, including striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, nonmonetary directives or penalty payments if warranted for effective deterrence.

In 1993, federal rules mandating sanctions for frivolous suits were watered down, resulting in the current crisis of widespread lawsuit abuse, the judicial committee explained.

LARA restores accountability for attorneys by reinstating monetary sanctions against lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits, House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith said in a statement.

"Lawsuit abuse has become too common in American society partly because the lawyers who bring these cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose," said Smith, who filed the bill.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers can file frivolous suits, no matter how absurd the claims, without any penalty. Meanwhile defendants are faced with the choice of years of litigation, high court costs and attorneys' fees or a settlement. Many of these cases have cost innocent people and business owners their reputations and hundreds of thousands of dollars."

The Texas Republican added, "The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act restores accountability to our legal system by reinstating mandatory sanctions for attorneys who file meritless suits. Though LARA will not stop all lawsuit abuse, it encourages attorneys to think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit."

The American Association for Justice, a trial lawyers lobbying group, argues that the measure is a favor to big corporations and undermines the rights of American workers and consumers.

"This bill imposes rules that were in place from 1983 to 1993, which judges and legal scholars ruled a complete failure," AAJ President Gibson Vance said in a statement.

"With this legislation, Congress forces our courts to turn back the clock to a rule that did not work and that judges themselves have found to be unnecessary and ineffective."

The AAJ says Rule 11, as it is currently written, gives judges the flexibility to determine when to enforce sanctions against attorneys who file lawsuits containing errors or for improper purposes.

It contends HR 966 would take away that flexibility, replacing the discretion of federal court judges with congressionally-mandated rules that were previously tested and found to be "a complete failure."

The American Bar Association, Judicial Conference of the United States and a coalition of consumer groups all have written letters to Congress opposing the legislation.

From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by e-mail at jessica@legalnewsline.com.

Vanessa Kachadurian, Recent California Disbarments

http://www.calbarjournal.com/July2011/AttorneyDiscipline/Disbarments.aspx#12

They shortly will be adding one for Elder Abuse. Shame Shame, you getting your eyes full my cheeky deceptive little monkey?

MARK STEVEN WILLIAMS [#177754], 58, of Menlo Park was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Williams violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. Although he filed a declaration of compliance three months late, failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.
The underlying discipline, imposed in 2008, followed misdemeanor convictions for trespassing and fleeing from a park ranger. The bar court’s review department found that neither conviction involved moral turpitude and reduced a disbarment recommendation to a suspension.
Williams, who is both a lawyer and a doctor, was disciplined again in 2010 for three acts of misconduct — he committed acts of moral turpitude by make false and misleading statements on applications for hospital privileges, did not notify the State Bar of disciplinary action taken against him by the medical board, and he failed to uphold the law. His medical license was revoked in 1999 and he was subsequently employed by a law firm, where he represented himself as a doctor, without notifying his employer that his license had been revoked.
In recommending disbarment, Judge Richard Honn wrote that Williams “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
STEVE SEHAENG KWON [#222338], 47, of Diamond Bar was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Kwon stipulated that he violated an earlier rule 9.20 order by failing to submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. He filed a declaration of compliance about five weeks late. He also did not meet with the probation department by the required deadline.
He was disciplined in 2009 for failing to perform legal services competently and committing acts of moral turpitude, and again in 2010 for failing to comply with probation conditions.
In mitigation, he cooperated with the bar’s investigation and demonstrated remorse.
STEPHEN LEE BURNS [#113371], 60, of Burbank was disbarred May 13, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
Burns stipulated to 16 counts of misconduct in five matters, including three instances of misappropriating client funds.
In one matter, for example, he settled a personal injury case for his minor client for $15,000. He was sanctioned twice for not obeying court orders and the court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice for Burns’ failure to prosecute. Although the court set aside the dismissal, it warned Burns that the case would be dismissed again if he failed to resolve his client’s compromise. When that did not happen, the court sanctioned Burns again and took over jurisdiction of the case.
The court issued a series of orders, but Burns did not follow through on obtaining settlement funds. He therefore never deposited any funds in an interest-bearing account for the minor’s benefit. He allowed the balance in his trust account to fall below the required amount and stipulated that he misappropriated $3,123.59. He also admitted that he failed to obey court orders, disburse client funds promptly or perform legal services competently.
Burns misappropriated $15,000 from a couple who were injured in an automobile accident, and $4,725 from another client without telling her that he’d settled her claim.
He stipulated that his misconduct “was surrounded by dishonesty, concealment and an inability to account to his clients.” Burns also was disciplined in 2005 for misconduct in five personal injury cases, most involving misusing his client trust account and/or failing to perform legal services competently.
RICHARD ALLAN WHITE [#78566], 64, of Palmdale was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
White stipulated to eight counts of misconduct in four cases, including two misappropriations totaling $20,967. He deposited the proceeds of a sale of a community residence, totaling $18,510, in his client trust account, but a levy by the California Tax Franchise Board reduced the balance to $10,829. White then wrote a check for $10,000 that he deposited in his personal bank account.
In a second matter, he misappropriated almost $2,500 he should have used to pay his client’s doctors.
He used his client trust account to pay business and personal expenses and instead of withdrawing attorney’s fees from 15 settlements, he left those fees in the account.
In mitigation, White cooperated with the bar’s investigation.
DANIEL SCOTT BROWN [#158025], 48, of Danville was disbarred May 14, 2011, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Brown practiced law while not entitled and he failed to comply with the requirements of a previous disciplinary order.
Brown was placed on inactive status in 2009 for failing to respond to disciplinary charges filed against him. He appeared in court on behalf of two clients and otherwise participated by phone when he was not entitled to practice. By holding himself out as eligible to practice, he also committed acts of moral turpitude.
Brown also failed to comply with rule 9.20, a requirement of a suspension imposed for his failure to comply with probation conditions attached to a 2008 public reproval. The reproval was imposed for his failures to comply with court orders. Failure to comply with 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.
In recommending his disbarment, Judge Lucy Armendariz said Brown “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given opportunities to do so.”
BRIAN IRVING GLICKER [#165866], 52, of Sherman Oaks was disbarred May 21, 2011, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.
The State Bar Court found that Glicker committed seven counts of misconduct in two matters, including misappropriating $185,000 from a trust. In that matter, he represented a client who was the trustee for a family trust in an action against her son. As part of a settlement, the son was to pay the trust $235,000.
Glicker received a check from the son for $50,000 that he deposited in his client trust account, which had a balance of $195.64. He subsequently transferred $20,000 to his general office account and wrote a $30,000 check to a client whose case was unrelated to the trust matter.
The son later made a wire transfer of $172,850.38 to Glicker’s trust account; he transferred $50,000 to his bank account, and later made two more transfers of $20,000 and $25,000. When the son made his final payment, Glicker was holding $185,000 belonging to the trust. When he was asked to distribute the funds and provide an accounting, Glicker wrote a check against his office account, but when the son tried to cash the check, he found that Glicker had stopped payment.
Judge Donald Miles found that Glicker failed to maintain client funds in trust or account for funds and he misappropriated client funds.
In a second matter, Glicker received a $35,000 settlement check on behalf of a client and after distributing $15,809 to the client, indicated he was withholding the remainder to pay two medical liens. He made no further distributions for more than three years, but when the client threatened to complain to the bar, Glicker said he’d settled the liens and the client could come to his office to receive the remaining funds. In fact, the liens were never paid and Glicker continued to hold $3,880.60 that was still owed to the client.
Miles found that Glicker misappropriated that amount and his misrepresentations about the medical liens amounted to moral turpitude. He also failed to cooperate with the bar’s investigation of either case.
In recommending disbarment, Miles wrote that Glicker “intentionally misappropriated substantial funds from two clients. He continues to withhold those funds and has demonstrated absolutely no remorse for his conduct. Instead he continues to make up stories and arguments to seek to justify his misconduct. The protection of both the public and the profession dictate that an order of disbarment be imposed.”
COLLEEN MARIE QUINN [#87608], 58, of San J

Vanessa Kachadurian- Assemblywoman Halderman introduces bill to eliminate frivilous lawsuits

Aide Christine Bedoyan-Caprielian, State Assemblywoman Linda Halderman M.D. and Vanessa Kachadurian

I am very proud that Halderman has introduced this bill, I have known her to be a fantastic physician and advocate for women with breast cancer. Now, Linda is ridding us of a cancer called "frivilous lawsuits"

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/06/10/2422260/advocates-in-fresno-criticize.html
Advocates in Fresno criticize frivolous lawsuits
Posted at 11:13 PM on Friday, Jun. 10, 2011
By Victoria Guida / The Fresno Bee
Frivolous lawsuits are hindering job growth and driving up home prices in the Central Valley, an advocacy group said Friday morning in Fresno.
At a news conference, members of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse accused lawyers of churning out lawsuits that harass companies and hinder businesses, all for the sake of generating legal fees.
The organization examined recent legal cases involving building projects in the area and estimated how many new jobs were not added as a result of costs and delays associated with those lawsuits. The tally: More than 2,000 jobs in the Valley were affected, according to a report the organization released Friday.
CALA joined others in support of a bill proposed by Assembly Member Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, that would require attorneys consulting with homeowners on a possible lawsuit against their homebuilder to disclose that, for instance, there is no guarantee of financial recovery from a lawsuit and that a lawsuit could affect the property's value.
"There are some bad apples who approach homeowners and tell them they can be guaranteed a quick recovery by suing their homebuilder, regardless of whether they have defects in construction or not," Halderman said. "This takes away potential jobs because construction cannot happen in this litigious environment."
Paul Olson, a Tulare homeowner, said a law firm has been "bombarding" his neighborhood with notices asking him and his neighbors whether they would participate in a class-action lawsuit alleging faulty workmanship by the homebuilder.
"This is complete and utter nonsense," Olson said. "None of the neighbors, including myself, have experienced any of the problems alleged by this out-of-town law firm."
Mike Prandini, CEO of Building Industry Association of Fresno and Madera counties, said such lawsuits also increase the price of homes because homebuilders must factor their insurance premiums into the cost of construction.
The bill failed to pass committee March 15. The committee unanimously granted reconsideration, and Halderman said she is optimistic but noted that it's "going to be an uphill battle."
Before the vote, Consumer Attorneys of California wrote an opposition statement, saying the bill put litigation in an unfairly negative light and arbitrarily singled out construction-defect lawsuits.
Mark Milstein, a member of CAOC, said notices sent out are meant to inform about litigation happening in case other homeowners have similar problems. He said each home is evaluated individually.
As for frivolous lawsuits, Milstein said he has never handled a case in which there weren't at least some defects.
"If they're not able to recover, it doesn't make financial sense to sue," Milstein said. "The intent of [the bill] was to scare people off from pursuing their legal rights."
He also referred to the claim that these lawsuits drive up the price of homes or decrease property value as "ridiculous," given the state of the economy.

Vanessa Kachadurian, Truth or defamation?

"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." -Winston Churchill


Truth is a complete defense to a claim of defamation.
It is the great equalizer in any libel or slander suit. It is what the plaintiff's defamation lawyer fears the most; that what his client's accuser says is true. It does not matter that the defendant made the statement out of malice or out of bad faith, so long as the statement is true. Washer v. Bank of America (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 501, 509; Campanelli v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 572, 581; Rest. 2d, Torts § 581A; Francis v. Dun & Bradstreet (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 535, 540 (credit report, even one causing harm, is not defamatory if true); Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 953 (statements as to dentist's misconduct were true given Board of Dental Examiner's determination that dentist had been grossly negligent and in violation of provisions of Business and Professions Code).
So what does it mean to establish truth? Does that mean the defendant must establish the truth of his statements in every particular? Surprisingly, the answer is no.
It is sufficient if the defendant proves that the substance or the "gist" of the statement is true. Heuer v. Kee (1936) 14 Cal.App.2d 710, 714; Gantry Const. Co. v. American Pipe & Const. Co. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 186, 194 ("The concept that it is the gist or sting of the alleged defamatory statements that must be false rather than the specific details of the charge is deeply rooted in our common law."). Weller v. American Broadcasting Cos. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 991, 1009, footnote, 17; See Campanelli, supra (admission that plaintiff basketball coach engaged in tirades so bad that seven players were thinking of quitting established truth of defendant's assertion that players "were in trouble psychologically").
But who bears the burden of proof? The previous rule in California was that the plaintiff needed to plead that the statements were false. This is no longer required. The burden of pleading and proving that the statements are true rests squarely on the shoulders of the defendant. See Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 224, 233.


http://www.defamationlawblog.com/2009/08/articles/defamation-basics/truth-is-a-defense-to-a-claim-of-defamation/

Defamation - New York Court of Appeals Addresses Fact Versus Opinion in Summary Judgment Context
Halstead v. Brokaw (Motion for leave to appeal granted on Dec. 10, 2010) 74 A.D.3d 1283 (2010)
The appeal concerns one of three related actions to recover damages for defamation. The novel issue appears to concern a court’s determination of whether a statement is one of opinion or of fact. The Court of Appeals will likely re-examine its holding in Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146 (1993), which set forth the following relevant factors for a court to determine whether a statement is an opinion or of fact: “(1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to 'signal . . . readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact.' " (Id. [quoting Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 292 [1986]).
A unanimous panel at the Second Department granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second action. The Court held that the plaintiff in action No. 2 failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Congratulations to Dan Balsam - California Lawyer

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Lawyers in the "fight of their life" to stay afloat financially.

Lawyers in the “fight of their life” to stay afloat financially.

In this sagging financial economy, many law firms have had to re think their current business model to simply stay afloat. The larger the law firm the larger the expenses, many are litigating cases or creating cases for billable hours. Naïve and unsuspecting clients that are finding their simple cases are dragged out 2-3 years have “dwindling bank accounts” and are unfortunately following the advice of their attorney who have an economic advantage on their agenda. As a consequence many attorney’s are now being sued by their clients for giving ill-advice, and pursuing no-win cases.

Let’s face it, we can file a complaint for any silly reason, the courts will never turn the fees away from the Plaintiff who wishes to do this. However, make no mistake about it, the legal industry is a business and not about justice for the Plaintiff(s) who continue to pay while the case only further erodes their reputation and future. Many people do NOT want to continue business relations with individuals or companies that are known to file silly unfounded complaints against people that may have opposing or differences of opinion, especially when the complaint is about a controversial subject.

Many lawyers with a one-man operation have recently partnered up with larger law firms that wish to outsource certain types of law that are niche and obscure like: Internet Law, educational law, etc., or these attorneys have tried to create another opportunity by writing for free for some papers like Huffington Post, or they may host a local radio show or TV show while attempting to only promote themselves. Some of the reputable ones have gone into teaching law ,or legal ethic seminars to local law enforcement. Still others travel to give seminars for spam marketers and other questionable speaking engagements that only demean the legal industry further. But hey, a guy has to earn a buck doesn’t he?

Some of the larger law firms have been forced to dismantle, after a 3 year economic downslide. The only attorney’s that are growing are the bankruptcy attorneys and of course the stable Entertainment Lawyers or Insurance lawyers who work on large consistent retainers. Recently in California a large firm that was over 50 years old was forced to dismantle, most of the staff scrambled to find positions at other large firms—some were brave enough to try private practice or outsourcing with other large firms, while others were able to retire.

Meanwhile that client that is strung along in the hopes that there is some golden payout in the end will end up spending $400.00+ per hour plus expenses. An average 2 year case will cost the Plaintiff(s) over $80,000+ with no hope or guarantee of winning much of anything except a slim hope of some paltry settlement – why would anyone want to spend $80-100K to receive nothing but maybe $3,000 and a bad reputation that will follow them forever? Lets see $80,000+ for $3,000 and a bad reputation…doesn’t sound like a winning proposition to anyone with a good business sense. Law firms know when they can latch on to an empty check book and give empty promises. ….it’s called “keeping my law firm afloat”

One recent comment from a local attorney at a large law firm stated “Thank God for sucker clients with money” ……as P.T. Barnum stated “There is a sucker born every minute”
Kimble, McMichael & Upton “has ceased practicing law” (even taking dumb cases didn’t keep them afloat)
Lastly, thank you to those that read my postings and obsess over every word and everything about me and my world. We are so sorry that you have such an empty life, maybe another brand of Chardonnay without so much sulfates would clear your thoughts. Alas the life of another bored dragon lady with too much time and money on their hands. So very sad.
http://kmulaw.com/
http://fresnofiggarden.kmph.com/news/business/long-established-fresno-law-firm-closing-its-doors/44413
http://www.news-journalonline.com/business/local-business/2011/03/01/law-firms-maneuvered-to-get-through-recession.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/business/west-coast-law-firm-closing-after-dot-com-collapse.html
http://www.slashgear.com/magicjack-lose-defamation-case-charged-50000-2375338/
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2011/05/tax-lady-roni-d.html
http://blog.larrybodine.com/2008/11/articles/money/early-warning-signs-of-law-firm-failure/

Vanessa Kachadurian- Homeowners Insurance and legal fees

As a tip to most of you in cyberspace, if you are a homeowner and have homeowners insurance you are generally covered 100% on many types of liability or if you are sued. Depending how involved your case is your homeowners insurance could save you $40-100,000. Approximately 90% of libel cases are dropped and never make it passed initial disclosure, the tab can be very expensive for the party that is litigating (plaintiff) as they are not covered by homeowners. If the party is merely on a fishing expediation and trying hard to build some flimsy case, it will cost the poor plaintiff thousands of dollars.
Here from Professor Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA and expert on Freedom of Speech issues and a reputable GOOD Attorney.
Bloggers — You May Already Have Blogging Libel Insurance,
Eugene Volokh • February 8, 2005 3:53 pm

but you might have lost it by having ads or a tipjar.

This surprised me, too, but it seems to be so. Here are the details. (Thanks to Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation for first suggesting this point, and to my wife for her advice on insurance law. Please note, though, that I’m not an insurance lawyer, though I’ve done a bit of research on this subject. Don’t take this to the bank, and do let me know if you are an insurance lawyer and have some corrections. Consider this general speculation about the lay of the land, and not individualized legal advice.)

1. It turns out that homeowner’s insurance policies, and possibly also some renter’s insurance policies, generally cover libel lawsuits. That may sound odd, but the policies tend to cover both damage to your property (the main reason, I suspect, that most people buy these) and liability for unintentional harm that you inflict on others. One policy that I read, for instance, says that

If a claim is made or a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury . . . caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies, we will:

1. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable; and

2. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice even if the allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent. . . .

POLICY DEFINITIONS . . .

“Bodily injury” means; . . . personal injury . . . arising out of . . . libel, slander or defamation of character; or . . . invasion of privacy.

If you have an umbrella liability policy, it may provide extra monetary coverage. Of course, you’re only covered if your insurance contract does indeed specify this, explicitly or implicitly. You ought to read your policy (they are often quite readable), and pay close attention both to the body of the policy and any separate definitions section.

2. These policies generally don’t cover punitive damages, but they do cover both compensatory damages and litigation defense costs. Fortunately, that’s what you most want to have covered.

Libel cases are hard for plaintiffs to win, and punitive damages are especially hard to get. If you’re writing on matters of public concern, and are sued for libel, you can’t be liable for punitive damages unless a jury finds that you knew your statement was false or at least knew it was quite likely false but blithely published it without any investigation. So chances are you won’t be on the hook for punitive damages, or even for compensatory damages.

But even if you win, you could spend huge amounts of money defending yourself. That’s where the insurance can be especially handy.

3. However, these policies generally explicitly exclude liability related to “business pursuits.” The exclusion and the definition of “business pursuits” may vary from policy to policy, so check yours (and again check both the homeowners’ insurance and your umbrella policy, if you have it). Still, I’m told that most policies just say “business pursuits,” and sometimes define them as referring to a “trade, occupation, or profession.”

If your blog is entirely noncommercial — you neither have ads nor solicit donations for a tip jar, and you don’t systematically use your blog as primarily promotion for your business — then you should be covered for libel lawsuits arising out of your blog posts, because the blogging wouldn’t be a business pursuit. (Possible exception: If your primary occupation is a professor or a journalist, then even noncommercial posting on topics related to your specialty may conceivably be seen as part of your main occupational “business pursuit”; I know of no precedents one way or the other about this.)

But if you make some money out of it, even a small amount, then in many states you probably won’t be covered. In a few states (as best I can tell, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina), even a blog that makes some money will be covered if blogging isn’t your primary occupation. In Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and Michigan, you might be able to get coverage on the theory that making money wasn’t your primary motive in blogging, and that you were instead doing it as a hobby with money being only a side consideration. Still, the majority view, as I understand it, is that any moneymaking component (so long as it’s regular, rather than just one-time or highly intermittent) makes your blogging into business activity and thus excludes it from coverage. This isn’t entirely clear, but that’s my sense from reading some cases and a couple of reference works.

4. This means that if you’re worried about the risk of libel lawsuits, you might want to consider staying entirely noncommercial. Naturally, you wouldn’t have to do it if you live in a state which reads the “business pursuits” exception narrowly. (Most homeowner’s insurance policies, I’m told, don’t have a separate provision indicating what state law would be used to interpret them, so courts would generally apply the law of where you live.) And if you figure that you’ll make lots of money from the ads or the tip jar, you might be willing to run the risk, especially because libel lawsuits against bloggers are thankfully rare, and because you might think that your posts would be unlikely to trigger a lawsuit.

But if you think that having libel insurance will let you sleep better at night, you might conclude that it’s better to forego, say, $500 worth of advertising income in a year in order to remain insured.

5. What should you do if you get a threatening letter?

Read your insurance policy. As I said, it may not be a hard read. Pay close attention to all the sections, to see if there might be some unexpected exclusion that may apply. Also pay close to attention to the definitions section, since some terms may be defined in counterintuitive ways.

Immediately notify your insurance company, in writing, that there might be a claim against you; send them a copy of the nastygram you received, and a dated cover letter. Tell the company that you need to consult a lawyer to deal with the threatening letter, and ask them to get you a lawyer right away, or to authorize you to consult one yourself on their dime. The insurance company may not have an obligation to pay your lawyer’s bills until the lawsuit is filed, but it doesn’t hurt to ask.

I’m told that you can usually do the notification through your insurance broker, who knows how to deal with the company, and whom to talk to there. In any case, talk to your broker and see whether he’ll do the notification for you or whether you ought to notify them yourself.

Always communicate in writing, keep copies of all communications, and date all your communications. You can also call them (particularly important if you need to nag them), but confirm any substantive communications in writing.

If the other side’s gripe with you is sound — if you did indeed err — post a correction. It’s the right thing to do, and it may avoid a lawsuit.

If a Complaint is filed against you in court, notify the insurance company about that, too, by sending them a copy of the Complaint with a dated cover letter. Demand that they get back to you quickly about whether they’re hiring a lawyer on your behalf.

If they don’t tell you quickly, hire a lawyer yourself, and show him a copy of the insurance policy. Then inform the company that you’ve hired the lawyer, and that you expect them to pay the bills. Bug them repeatedly, if necessary, including through your insurance broker. If your policy covers libel, and you aren’t within the business pursuits exclusion, you likely have a very strong case for coverage; but they can still be slow, and you need to be the squeaky wheel.

If you do hire a lawyer, show him the policy, and negotiate with him in light of the policy. See if he would agree to represent you for rates that he’s pretty sure the insurance company would pay. See if he would agree not to charge you if the insurance company denies coverage. That, of course, depends on his sense of how likely coverage seems to be. But cyber-libel cases are potentially pretty interesting, even glamorous. Some lawyers may be willing to take a small risk of nonpayment to do a fun case like that.


* * *

In any case, these are just a few thoughts; use these numbers for comparison, your mileage may vary. But keep in mind that (1) you may already have libel insurance for your blogging, (2) you might lose it, depending on the state you’re in, if you sell ads, have a tipjar, or otherwise make even small sums of money from your blog, (3) you may therefore want to plan your blog financing accordingly, if you’re the worrying sort (or for that matter the libeling sort), and (4) if you are sued or threatened with a lawsuit, look carefully at your insurance policies, notify your insurance company immediately and in writing, and bug them repeatedly for an answer.

Vanessa Kachadurian- Why Lawyers Can't Handle the Truth.

How is a lawyer likely to react when confronted with the undeniable truth about the ugly side of the legal field?
He probably will lash out in abrupt and misguided fashion. I know because just yesterday a lawyer threatened me with a defamation lawsuit because of my coverage of an Alabama divorce/child custody case.
I attended a status conference at the Jefferson County Domestic Relations Court on Turner v. Turner, a case that involves the custody of triplets who now are 10 years old. Turner v. Turner embodies much of what is wrong with our broken justice system, and we have reported on it several times. (See here, here, and here.)
The case got even uglier yesterday as I was leaving the hearing. Tom Kendrick, of the Birmingham firm Norman Wood Kendrick and Turner, approached me, introduced himself and proceeded to threaten me, on about five different occasions, with a lawsuit for portraying his firm in a false light. I informed Mr. Kendrick that I've been a professional journalist for 30-plus years, with 11 years of experience in daily newspapers, and I had not written anything that is defamatory on Turner v. Turner--or any other subject.
Read the complete article by Roger Shuler
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lawyers-Can-t-Handle-the-T-by-Roger-Shuler-110419-215.html

Vanessa Kachadurian- Top 10 bizarre or frivolous lawsuits

http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/

Vanessa Kachadurian- Should attorney recuse himself from the Doctor of Michael Jackson's murder case?

Dr. Conrad Murray, former physician of Michael Jackson


Many people I have spoken with believe that Nareg should step down from this case. It is unethical when an attorney has crossed the line and become personally involved in a case and no longer can make sound judgment. Mark Geragos is correct and it is unprofessional as Nareg would be privilaged to certain information about Michael Jackson. These Attorneys will be on either side of the fence depending on who is paying them. Especially in these economic times, any case even if it is flimsy is good so long as there is a wealthy client willing to fork out $450.00+ an hour.

CBS/AP) LOS ANGELES -The judge overseeing the case of Dr. Conrad Murray, who is charged in Michael Jackson's death, will hear arguments today on whether a new attorney who had ties to the singer should be allowed to join the defense team.



Nareg Gourjian is a former associate of celebrity attorney Mark Geragos.


Geragos represented Jackson from 2003 until 2005 but left the singer's case before he was acquitted of child molestation charges. Geragos is also expected to speak Thursday about whether he thinks Gourjian should be allowed to defend Murray, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Gourjian has said he did very little work on Jackson's case.

An attorney for Jackson's estate is also among those expected to weigh in on the matter.


Murray is not expected to attend the hearing.

Vanessa Kachadurian-Trial Lawyers of Central California

The Best!!! Trial Lawyers of Central California. Thank you for your support!

Vanessa Kachadurian- Mark Geragos #1 Criminal Trial Lawyer in the USA

Sofie, Mark, Vanessa and Brian

Mark Geragos is a dynamic attorney and recognized worldwide for his high profile cases and legal commentary on CNN and other reputable media. He is a fantastic enlightening person that we had at our local school event coinciding with the CVTL- Central Valley Trial Lawyers that came out in full support. Thank you Mark Jan for all that you do, especially with charities.

Geragos was born in Los Angeles, California. He received his bachelor's degree from Haverford College in 1979 and his Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Loyola Law School in 1982.[6] He was admitted to the California State Bar in 1983.[3][7] Currently, Geragos is the managing partner at The Law Offices of Geragos and Geragos, a 13-person law firm in Los Angeles.[8] Geragos is also a partner of the Law Offices of Luque Geragos Marino LLP in Washington D.C.[9] Geragos handles criminal defense and civil litigation.

An Armenian-American, Geragos maintains his close relationship with the Armenian community.[10] He has earned praise from the Armenian National Committee of America[11] He serves on the Advisory Committee of Birthright Armenia,[12] as the chairman of Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry,[13] and also is involved with the Armenian religious community.[14] He has been a member of the Armenia Fund International Board of Trustees since 2006.[15]

Geragos was one of the lead lawyers in a pair of groundbreaking federal class action lawsuits against New York Life Insurance and AXA for insurance policies issued in the early 20th century during the time of the Armenian Genocide of more than 1.5 million Armenians. The two cases settled for over $37.5 million in 2004 and 2005.[16] The settlement was in 2009 overturned by the US Federal Court, ruling that "No Armenian American can sue foreign insurance companies for unpaid claims because the U.S. government doesn't legally recognize that an Armenian genocide occurred."[17]

Geragos represented actor Keith Carradine, actress Hayley DuMond, attorney Stephen Kolodny, designer Donna Dubrow and Lee DuMond in a class-action suit following private eye Anthony Pellicano's illegal wiretapping conspiracy and subsequent conviction.[18]

Vanessa Kachadurian- Statistics of cases won by Plaintiffs

When Cases Go To Trial, How Often Do Plaintiffs Win?
Federal employers’ liability 69.1%
Motor vehicles 56.9%
Marine 53.9%
Other personal injury 46.3%
Airplane 43.8%
Assault/libel/slander 38.2%
Medical malpractice 36.7%
Product liability 33.5%

http://www.searcylaw.com/files/Statistics%20Show%20Medical%20Malpractice%20Cases%20Are%20Not%20an%20Easy%20Windfall%20for%20Plaintiffs.pdf

Vanessa Kachdadurian- Defendant FAR wins Defamation Case

Congratulations!!!!!

Vanessa Kachadurian E- Discovery and lawyer ignorance.Exterro

Exterro

Vanessa Kachadurian-UC Hastings dedicates Justice Marvin and Jane Baxter Appellate Law Center

Armenian Reporter:

Vanessa Kachadurian-The rise and FALL of the King of Foreclosures.

Lawyer David Stern in better days - King of Foreclosures


The rise and fall of a foreclosure king
By MICHELLE CONLIN
AP BUSINESS WRITER


This undated photo provided by Bill Warner, shows David Stern, a Florida foreclosure lawyer who became one of the nation's top foreclosure lawyers. The worse things got for homeowners, the better they got for Stern. That is, until last fall, when the nation’s foreclosure machine blew apart and Stern’s gilded world came undone. (AP Photo/Bill Warner)
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- During the housing crash, it was good to be a foreclosure king. David Stern was Florida's top foreclosure lawyer, and he lived like an oil sheik. He piled up a collection of trophy properties, glided through town in a fleet of six-figure sports cars and, with his bombshell wife, partied on an ocean cruiser the size of a small hotel.

When homeowners fell behind on their mortgages, the banks flocked to "foreclosure mills" like Stern's to push foreclosures through the courts on their behalf. To his megabank clients - Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, GMAC, Citibank and Wells Fargo - Stern was the ultimate Repo Man.

At industry gatherings, Stern bragged in his boyish voice of taking mortgages from the "cradle to the grave." Of the federal government's disastrous homeowner relief plan, which was supposed to keep people from getting evicted, he quipped: "Fortunately, it's failing."

The worse things got for homeowners, the better they got for Stern.

That is, until last fall, when the nation's foreclosure machine blew apart and Stern's gilded world came undone. Within a few months, Stern went from being the subject of a gushing magazine profile to being the subject of a Florida investigation, class-action lawsuits and blogger Schadenfreude that, at last long, the "foreclosure king" was dead.

"What Stern represents is an industry that was completely unrestrained, unchecked, unpunished and unsupervised," says Florida defense attorney Matt Weidner. "This was business gone wild."

The rise and fall of Stern, now 50, provides an inside look at how the foreclosure industry worked in the last decade - and how it fell apart. It also shows how banks, together with their law firms, built a quick-and-dirty foreclosure machine that was designed to take as many houses as fast as possible.

Not long ago, the world of back-office bank procedures was of little interest to the public. But revelations last fall about robo-signers powering through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day, without verifying a single sentence, changed all that. Today the banking industry's eviction juggernaut is under intense scrutiny as allegations of systemic foreclosure fraud mount.

The 50 state attorneys general are conducting a foreclosure industry probe. So are state and federal regulators. Class-action lawsuits are gathering force, and, with increasing frequency, state judges are tossing out foreclosure suits in favor of homeowners. The developments are prolonging the housing market depression, casting doubt on mortgage ownership and calling into question whether mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, backed by nothing at all.

The Florida attorney general's economic crimes division is investigating three law firms, including Stern's, over allegations that they created fraudulent legal documents, gouged homeowners with inflated fees, steered business to companies they owned and filed foreclosures without proving the bank actually had a legal interest in the loan. Florida authorities characterize the foreclosure process at these law firms as a "virtual morass" of "fake documents" and depicted Stern's operations as something akin to the TV show "Lost" - only instead of people that went missing, it was paperwork. Stern's employees churned out bogus mortgage assignments, faked signatures, falsified notarizations and foreclosed on people without verifying their identities, the amounts they owed or who owned their loans, according to employee testimony. The attorney general is also looking at whether Stern paid kickbacks to big banks.

"There's a David Stern in every state, sometimes more than one," says Jacksonville Legal Aid attorney April Charney, who has successfully stopped foreclosure for hundreds of Florida families.

Stern denied repeated requests for comment. He did not answer inquiries at his office or at his main residence in Fort Lauderdale. Stern's lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, agreed to an interview in late December at his Miami office, then canceled it the night before without further comment.

Stern's story, starting with his law degree in 1986 from the South Texas College of Law, can be pieced together through thousands of pages of court documents, myriad depositions and scores of interviews.

After working at a law firm for mortgage lenders, Stern started his own practice in Fort Lauderdale in 1994. Four years later, he got a massive break: the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, a government-backed agency that provides market stability for mortgage lenders, named Stern to its exclusive attorney network. That meant Fannie directed banks to use Stern's firm when foreclosing in Florida. Fannie also named Stern Attorney of the Year in 1998 and 1999. Employees from that era remember an office that liked to party together. Stern enjoyed dressing up for his office bashes. One time he sauntered on stage turned out like Michael Jackson.

Almost from the beginning, Stern faced trouble. In 1998, he was named in a class-action lawsuit alleging that he padded fees on foreclosed homeowners. Stern settled for $2.2 million. According to legal testimony at the time from a Fannie Mae official, Fannie was warned about troubles at the Stern firm. But Fannie continued referring cases to Stern. Fannie Mae spokeswoman Amy Bonitatibus says, "At all times, Fannie Mae has had a reasonable expectation that our servicers and the law firms adhere to proper procedures and conduct under the law. In instances where we learn that servicers or law firms are not adhering to our requirements or applicable law, we immediately engage and take appropriate action, which may include termination."

Soon after, Stern was sued again, this time for sexual harassment. A former paralegal alleged that Stern created a "sexually-laden" atmosphere in which he routinely "touched and grabbed and subjected to simulated intercourse" his employees. Stern settled that suit in 2000 for an undisclosed amount.

By this time, lawyers and homeowner activists were also warning lenders, federal regulators and the Florida Bar about Stern. In 2002, the Florida Supreme Court reprimanded Stern for submitting "potentially misleading" fee affidavits.

None of the accusations stalled the firm's steroidal growth. After the economy crashed in the fall of 2008 and ravaged the housing market, Florida, along with Nevada, Arizona and California, became foreclosure central. Stern's caseload rose from 15,000 foreclosures in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009. His staff tripled to more than 1,200. To keep up with demand, Stern set up offices in the Philippines. When the U.S. staff responsible for entering bank data in the foreclosure files logged off, the offshore workers logged on.

Revenue swelled from $41 million in 2006 to $260 million in 2009, according to an SEC filing. The firm moved into a plush, marble-floored headquarters near Miami that was all glass and fountains. By now Stern was driving a Bugatti and had bought at least $60 million in property, including a 16,000-square-foot island compound that sits behind two security gates.

But all the paperwork Stern's firm was cranking out to make this fortune would soon come back to haunt him. The foreclosure business is a volume game. Banks typically pay law firms like Stern's about $1,400 for each successful foreclosure. But the banks can pay a lot less if the firm doesn't successfully foreclose within a certain time frame, usually around six months.

With so many foreclosures flooding in, Stern's firm couldn't keep up. Stern took shortcuts by hiring the young and cheap. "The girls would come out on the floor not knowing what they were doing," says Tammie Lou Kapusta, who worked in Stern's foreclosure department in 2008 and 2009. "Mortgages would get placed in different files. They would get thrown out. There was just no real organization when it came to original documents."

Employee depositions paint a picture of a firm under constant pressure from the banks to move faster. The longer it took to foreclose, the more money the banks stood to lose. Like so many in the industry, Stern had a strategy to cope with all the volume and velocity: robo-signing. One employee testified that Stern's chief lieutenant, a one-time file clerk named Cheryl Samons who rose to become the firm's chief operating officer, signed as many as 1,000 foreclosure affidavits a day without reading a single word. The employee said Samons' hand got so tired that she told three other employees to forge her signature. Samons also signed numerous mortgage assignments with a notary stamp that didn't even exist at the time of signing. Notary stamps are only valid for four years. The only way Samons could have signed mortgage assignments at the time they were supposedly notarized was if she had been capable of time travel.

Stern rewarded Samons with a new BMW SUV every year, paid all her bills and took care of the mortgage payment on her home, according to testimony from two employees. Samons did not respond to request for comment.

Billings surged. So did the dysfunction.

Kapusta testified that she received 100 phone calls a day from people who never received their foreclosure notices or who wanted loan modifications but couldn't get through to the banks. If she talked too long on the phone, Kapusta testified, Samons would yell at her. "Everything was about getting the judgment entered because we had to report to the banks," Kapusta said.

Stern battled to keep the chaos inside his firm a secret. In 2008 and 2009, whenever the Fannie Mae auditors were about to touch down in Miami for their routine monitoring, Stern's employees sometimes toiled through the night, ripping the stickers and client codes off of Fannie files and replacing them with those of a different lender. Then, as an extra precaution, they hauled the disguised files to a remote back room.

Stern then gave Fannie officials the white-glove treatment, with catered meals and chauffeuring. The incomplete files stayed hidden until the auditors left town.

Fannie Mae's Bonitatibus says that, "To our knowledge, no one at Fannie Mae has had their expenses paid by the Stern Law firm."

Early 2010 brought Stern's biggest coup. He spun off a chunk of his business called DJSP that performed mortgage process services like title searches and lien monitoring and took it public. The deal reportedly made Stern $146 million, including $55 million cash.

DJSP stock started trading in January at about $10 a share. Within months, battered by rumors of indiscretions at Stern's firm, it was worth half. On July 20, two investors filed a securities-fraud class action alleging that Stern knowingly misled them by failing to disclose the problems within the business. "DJSP was a scam," says Bill Warner, a Sarasota private eye who successfully defended himself against a foreclosure suit brought by Stern.

At the end of July, Florida attorney Kenneth Trent, who had blocked Stern from foreclosing on a homeowner who was current on his mortgage, filed a federal lawsuit against Stern's firm under a statute normally reserved for gangsters, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act--or RICO. Days later, the Florida attorney general launched an investigation against Stern's firm and three other foreclosure mills. The AG's arguments were similar to those brought in Trent's class action.

At first, Stern railed against the media, saying he would defend the company and its reputation against the allegations. Then, in September, he dropped out of sight. Equally elusive is Cheryl Samons, who is no longer with the firm. She left no contact information.

In October, one by one, the megabanks started to withdraw their cases from Stern's firm. Fannie fired Stern on Oct. 22. Stern's staff of 1,200 has dwindled to 200. DJSP's stock, worth as much as $13 in April, now trades for pennies.

The firm's fall has spawned more chaos in Florida's circus-like foreclosure courts. A slew of homes Stern foreclosed on that sold for $240,000 each during the credit bubble sold at auction as orphaned cases for $200. Recently, even the most infamous "rocket docket," in Lee County, where judges were reported to have signed off on a foreclosure every 30 seconds, ground to a virtual standstill as the Stern firm withdrew from case after case. Some of Stern's remaining lawyers show up court with greasy hair, fleece jackets and food-stained clothing. As for Stern, if federal and state prosecutors file criminal charges, he could end up in prison.

Meanwhile, Stern's payment on his $12 million line of credit with Bank of America is late. So is the rent on his headquarters.

He's now in default.