Coordinators

Other Contributors

About Us

www.clpblog.org

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« More on the ACA repeal-and replace-place bill, including how the bill breaks many of Trump's campaign promises | Main | More on what Senator Ron Wyden calls "Robin Hood in reverse" »

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Comments

Dave

Mr. Levy, or anyone else who cares to comment,

Could you explain the benefit to Ruddie in settling this case (and accepting responsibility for several more phony judgments)? I realize there was unlikely to be much doubt as to Ruddie's culpability in this instance and probably the others named in the Proposed Order, however; it seems to me the bigger problem for him at the moment is the criminal investigation(s) I would imagine have commenced by now. I would assume US Attorneys don't care too much whether he's resolved his civil liabilities to the private victims or not-- that doesn't do much to address the fraud on the court he perpetuated.

I'm left to wonder what all Ruddie gained by resolving this case and more or less confessing to being behind several phony judgments? I'd be interested to hear the opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about, though; as I have no legal training/experience.

(I see that the case against 'Mathew' Chan in Baltimore Circuit Court wasn't included in the Proposed Order. Can you say whether he's denying responsibility or if there's another reason you didn't include that case?)

Elliot Maxwell

Paul, great work by you and your associates.

Matthew Chan

This story and new development is stunning to me. I can barely wrap my head around all the characters and moving pieces. I am nearly speechless. All I can really say is that Mr. Levy's tremendous work created tremendous results. Congratulations to Mr. Levy and Steve Rhoad.

And there is still this pending case "Patel v. Chan" sitting in the Baltimore court...

Christenson

Dear John Doe:
Could you cite chapter and verse on the WIRE act? I find an interstate anti-betting act when I google, and don't see the relationship.

NickM

It would seem that a competitor of the customer companies might have claims under unfair business practices laws, at least in some states.

John Doe

Tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are. I've met many of your friends (not referring to anyone specifically mentioned here of course).

Of course the easiest way to stop ALL of this is via the WIRE ACT, which will be the undoing of a number of attorneys who have used online lies to get clients, sometimes even paying judgment-proof people to defame someone they know to be litigious, provoke them into filing, and then crowdfund the defense in the name of "free speech."

These lawyers think they're smart, but they're not. They hide behind aliases and VPNs, thinking they can't be traced, but their BRAINS are not hiding behind anything; their behavior is transparent. They really think the public will believe that there is this large community of people who hate -- just HATE -- lawsuits brought by pro-se litigants (the ones who can't be bullied into silence), and their little echo chamber of a half-dozen lawyers, the defamation-goons who do their dirtywork, the corrupt officers of the court who do the REAL dirtywork, and their wannabe-mafia "muscle" that is quite the joke.

The mistake these lawyers made was giving law enforcement probable cause to investigate ALL of them, and there's ONE crime that is so disgusting, so heinous, that you can be sure everyone wants it solved. In that case, all roads are leading to one person, and they know who they are.

The jig is up, lawyers.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

June 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30