Attorney Erikson Davis And Mitchell J. Stein’s Legaspi vs. Spivak Lawsuit Dismissed
. 
.
.
.
.
.
Pause music by putting mouse below.
Ding Dong The Mitch Is Dead?
.
Written by John Wright
March 16, 2012
“The Complaint challenged by this motion is one of the most addled pieces of legal drafting this Court has ever seen in 40 years of legal practice and judicial service.”
Those were the words of the Honorable Judge Highberger in a Los Angeles Superior Court on February 15th, 2012, after he reviewed the Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit that had been drafted by Attorney Erikison Davis and Mitchell J. Stein. The lawsuit had alleged that Kenin Spivak, Edwin Lasman, Theodore Maloney, SML LLP., Brookstone Law – Vito Torchia and Damian Kutzner of Brookstone Law – - were knowingly, willfully and intentionally “duping” all the plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit. The lawsuit had further alleged that the Defendants had falsely advertised that Mitchell J. Stein would be representing those in the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit. However, on March 15, 2012, Judge Highberger apparently had one more thing to say to Erikson Davis and Mitchell J. Stein. Judge Highberger announced that the Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit had been officially DISMISSED.
On March 15th, 2012, it was reported that a very tired looking Attorney Erikson Davis had entered the courtroom looking as if he had not slept in days, while at the same time, he seemed to be avoiding any eye contact at all with the Brookstone Law Team and Kenin Spivak Team, who had reportedly entered into the courtroom like a intimidating armored tank brigade.
The Honorable Judge Highberger ordered that Mitchell J. Stein’s team had to pay the Defendants any costs associated with the lawsuit that had been filed against Brookstone Law and Attorney Kenin Spivak and SML LLP.
Ding Dong the Mitch is Dead?
.
Congratulations to Kenin Spivak, Edwin Lasman, Theodore Maloney, SML LLP., Brookstone Law – Vito Torchia and Damian Kutzner of Brookstone Law, as it apperars that you might have turned “The Doberman” into nothing other than “The Poodle” by the time you were done with him.
Mitchell J. Stein’s Potential Response
Now if some potentially washed-up attorney can be considered “The Doberman” — then I am guessing that Brookstone could be more appropriately described as “The Pit Bull.”
What is the difference between the Dobie and the Pit Bull?
Temperament of a Pit Bull:
Now if there was a manual describing ideal Pit Bull temperament, it would probably read something like this: “The Pit Bull is goofily friendly towards people – family, friends, and strangers alike. Known for its sound character, strong nerve, and great intelligence, the breed makes an ideal companion for households with children, while remaining strong and vigilant enough to protect its loved ones if need be. It is never necessary to embark on guard or attack training with this breed, as they are naturally attuned to their environment and intuitive about real threats. Although never aggression towards people without real need, the Pit Bull may show dog-directed aggression, but sensitivity to other dogs will vary from dog to dog. The properly socialized and trained Pit Bull should not be an instigator, yet it is unlikely for the breed to shy away from a challenge.
Today the Pit Bull has evolved into a marvelous working and companion dog, used for purposes as varied as those it originally performed. Pit Bulls are employed as police/armed services dogs, search and rescuers, therapy animals, and livestock workers. They compete in all manner of organized dog sports, from herding to agility to conformation to obedience and the bite sports like Schutzhund and French Ring. They make loving pets for children and seniors, and everyone in between. They are indeed one of the most versatile breeds on the planet. Much of this is owed to the activities it once performed. The harshness and physical demands of the activities molded a strong, healthy, stable animal, one anyone should be proud to own.
They are known for their intelligence and loyalty. American Pit Bull Terriers make excellent, loving and protective companions despite the unfair press they receive. - source
Temperament of a Doberman:
.
If you can not view youtube where you are at – click here
Here are some solutions for your Doberman if you have this problem:
Spay/Neuter your Doberman
This helps prevent surprises and overpopulation. If done early enough, it also helps prevent the emergence of dominance or aggression based behavior problems (if the behaviors have already emerged then training will be needed to correct them). Make sure that you have set and are consistently enforcing the household rules. Establish yourself as the pack leader (tips here) so that he will follow your commands. Make sure your dog knows the “Leave It Command.” Any time he starts the behavior or appears to be thinking of doing it, instruct him to Leave It. Use a firm tone. If he ignores your commands, try using a water bottle to squirt him with whenever he starts the humping.
.
Looks like Brookstone seemed to put a muzzle on the Doberman!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The end!
.
Their names are Brookstone Law and SML LLP. AND THEY FOUGHT BACK AND WON!
.
- Final Legaspi vs. Spivak Rulings
- Legaspi vs. Spivak Order
- Brookstone Law Press Release Regarding Legaspi vs. Spivak Win
- Get-Out-Of-Debt-Guy Story written on topic
- Ronald et al vs. BofA Update
- Stein’s Heart Tronics trial begins 10/01/12 in Florida.
.
All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Follow John’s Daily Blog
.
.
.
.
Brookstone Law PC Wins Court Decision Against Mitchell J. Stein
.
March 22, 2012
Superior Court Judge Calls $1 Billion Lawsuit “Crackpot” Before Dismissal
Newport Beach, CA (PRWEB) March 26, 2012
A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge has ruled in favor of Brookstone Law PC and all other defendants in a significant court decision against embattled attorney Mitchel J. Stein by dismissing Stein’s $1 billion lawsuit against Brookstone and ordering Stein and other plaintiffs to pay all legal costs.
The case is Legaspi v. Spivak Case BC469228 State of California, County and City of Los Angeles, California.
According to court documents (Legaspi v. Spivak Case BC469228 transcript by Elsa Banda Lara, CSR #3226 Los Angeles Superior Court Department No. 307 Los Angeles, California) during the hearing on the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Judge referred to the lawsuit as “crackpot” and according to court documents in his written ruling, stated: “The Complaint . . . is one of the most addled pieces of legal drafting which this Court has ever seen in over 40 years of legal practice and judicial service.”
Stein and his partner Erikson Davis had sued Brookstone Law, SML LLP (which represents Brookstone in various matters) and others for $1 billion, allegedly on behalf of clients of Brookstone Law and other Stein clients. The suit claimed that Brookstone had committed fraud and used Stein’s dog logo without permission.
According to court documents, even before the Court dismissed Stein’s lawsuit, the named plaintiff and other plaintiffs withdrew from the action and terminated Stein and Davis as their counsel. Numerous plaintiffs testified on behalf of Brookstone that they had never authorized the filing of the lawsuit or the use of declarations against Brookstone and the other defendants.
Court documents indicate that Brookstone and the other defendants showed that the case really was about Stein’s retaliation for the filing of a motion against Stein by SML LLP, Brookstone’s filings relating to that motion and Stein’s pique about Brookstone’s and SML LLP’s cooperation with the California Attorney General’s and California State Bar’s investigation into alleged illegal sales of mass joinder lawsuits to consumers. As a result of the investigations, law firms run by Phillip Kramer and Stein were raided, those firms’ records were seized, and their practices were taken over by the State of California.
According to court documents, Stein and lawyers working with him filed a total of six actions against the State of California, County and City of Los Angeles, California Attorney General, California State Bar and others, including Legaspi v. Spivak (Case BC469228) against Brookstone, SML LLP and the two firms’ partners. According to court documents, the lawsuits alleged civil rights violations, fraud and other torts in an alleged campaign to damage Stein and his clients. All of the actions were promptly dismissed.
By order of the California Superior Court, the California State Bar seized Stein’s legal practice.
- Effective January 1, 2012, the [California State Bar Court has taken away Stein’s license to practice law, declaring that he is “involuntarily inactive.”
- In December 2011, the United States Department of Justice indicted and arrested Stein for securities fraud. He is currently scheduled to go on trial in October.
- In December 2011, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action against Stein and others for fraud.
According to court documents, in dismissing all causes of action against Brookstone and all other defendants, highly regarded California Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger found that:
- Stein and Davis failed to obtain authorization for the inclusion of all plaintiffs in this action;
- Stein and Davis brought claims without factual and/or legal support;
- Stein’s and Davis’ pleadings and advocacy were for an improper purpose;
- Stein’s and Davis’ claims were “frivolous” in that they were both (A) totally and completely without merit and (B) for the sole purpose of harassing Defendants and causing unnecessary expense.
According to court documents, on its own motion, the Court intended to impose legal costs and fees as a sanction on Stein and Davis. However, they refused to accept the sanction, forcing the Court to instead impose the obligation to pay legal costs on the individual plaintiffs. Brookstone and SML LLP then proposed that any plaintiff who promptly signed a sworn affidavit that he or she had never authorized the lawsuit or participated in the lawsuit would not have to participate in paying the legal costs. The Court accepted the approach. Davis is required to distribute the affidavits to the individuals he and Stein named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
According to court documents, the Court specifically cited Brookstone’s observation that Stein’s “narcissistic damages theory irreparably fails to alleged cause-in-fact or proximate cause.” In the lawsuit, Stein had claimed that he alone could win against banks and that Brookstone and SML LLP were “make believe and pretend lawyers.”
“We are extremely pleased that this decision exonerates Brookstone Law PC from the outrageous claims made by Mr. Stein, and we look forward to continuing to provide effective and expert legal help to homeowners facing foreclosures who need help dealing with banks,” said Vito Torchia, Jr., managing attorney of Brookstone Law, PC. “Thanks to expert legal work and dedication to the truth, we have turned someone formerly known by the nickname “The Doberman” into a defeated puppy.”
ABOUT BROOKSTONE LAW, PC
Headquartered in Newport Beach, Calif., and with offices in Los Angeles, Calif., and Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Brookstone Law, PC is a law firm comprised of attorneys with experience and success in business, corporate and personal finance, employment, entertainment and media, art and museum, intellectual property and real estate law. The firm has a network of more than 40 affiliate attorneys nationwide and employs highly trained specialists, paralegals, paraprofessionals and administrative staff dedicated to serving clients. For information, call (800) 946-8655 or visit http://www.brookstonelaw.com.
.
.
.
Attorney Erikson M. Davis’ Legaspi vs. Spivak Lawsuit Might Have Been Slaughtered!
Written by John Wright
(Judge Highberger in picture on left)
Judge Highberger: “The Complaint challenged by this motion is one of the most addled pieces of legal drafting this Court has ever seen in 40 years of legal practice and judicial service.”
February 16, 2012 – The Honorable Judge William Highberger presided over the Legaspi vs. Spivak hearing yesterday (Feb. 15th, 2012) in a Los Angeles Superior Court. The Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit was the one that Stein brought against Attorney Kenin Spivak and Brookstone Law. The complaint alleges that Kenin Spivak and Brookstone Law were in a conspiracy, while Mitchell J. Stein claims that Kenin Spivak, Edwin Lasman, Theodore Maloney, SML LLP., Brookstone Law, and Vito Torchia and Damian Kutzner of Brookstone Law - - were knowingly, willfully and intentionally “duping” all the plaintiffs that are listed in the Legaspi vs. Spivak complaint. The complaint further claimed that the Defendants were falsely advertising that Mitchell J. Stein would be the plaintiffs’ attorney while they were at Brookstone Law. It alleges that the Defendants were engaging in false advertising to adversely impact the rights of millions of home owners across the country. The complaint goes on to say that the Defendants collected and illegally split the proceeds of over ten million dollars. Now here is the best part! Mitchell J. Stein is suing all the defendant’s in the Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit for a whopping ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Erikson Davis is Mitchell J. Stein’s attorney. (lol) Erikson reminds me of a poodle from hell - click here
However, Erikson Davis’ lawsuit might have been slaughtered yesterday in Judge Highberger’s courtroom. This is because the 
first four plaintiffs listed in the Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit had apparently defected in a mass exodus back to Brookstone Law. This is because they were not too happy to find out that they still would not end up with Mitchell J. Stein as their attorney, but instead, much to their disappointment, they would end up with Attorney Erikson Davis. I know how they feel! Plaintiff (Name Redacted), Nancy Frost, Jacklyn Sylvestre, and believe it or not, the lead plaintiff himself, Todd Legaspi claimed that they did not know that Attorney Erikson Davis had entered them into the Legaspi lawsuit. How would you like it if one day you woke up to find out that you are the lead plaintiff in a one billion dollar lawsuit that you did not even know you were in? Judge Highberger responded with the following comment: “Perhaps the most shocking take-away is that defendants have submitted declarations showing at least four of the named plaintiffs (Todd Legaspi, (Name Redacted), Jaclyn Sylvestre and John Wright) never authorized the filing of this suit on their behalf. (It is also notable that plaintiff Frost’s case was recently dismissed on the request of plaintiff’s counsel concurrent with the filing of dismissals for Legaspi, Lawley and Sylvestre.) The judge further stated: “The complaint challenged by this motion is one of the most addled pieces of legal drafting this Court has ever seen in 40 years of legal practice and judicial service.”
So it appears that you have another critic Attorney Erikson Davis. (Smirk) This is because, once translated, I think the Honorable Judge Highberger was saying that your lawsuit sucked. – click here At any rate, it looks like Erikson Davis got his ass handed to him by Brookstone Law and SML LLP. , because the Honorable Judge Highberger simply might be implying that Attorney Erikson Davis’ credibility is in question. It might also add to my allegation that his credibility was in question in regards to his reasons for withdrawing from my American Honda Financial Corporation lawsuit. That is why I am so very pleased that Erikson Davis referred the judge to my blog in his motion to withdraw as my counsel, because now the judge can take look at evicence that I might not have been able to submit to the court. That is why his name would sound better to me if it were duh duh Erikson Davis. What a dumb move.
Brookstone Law Joinder in this motion said: “The Complaint’s narcissistic damages theory irreparably fails to alleged cause-in-fact or proximate cause.”
This is why many theorize that the Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit will most likely be dismissed, while it appears that the Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit could be compared to the moment the lights went out before the Titanic sank.
Now Attorney Erikson Davis might be yelling out: “ICEBERG RIGHT AHEAD!”
.
All eyes are on Attorney Erikson Davis.
Legaspi Tentative Ruling: click here
Welcome home (Name Redacted), Nancy Frost, Jacklyn Sylvestre, and Todd Legaspi.
.
All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Follow John’s Daily Blog
.
.
Attorney Erikson Davis Files Motion To Withdraw
.
Written by John Wright
February 15th, 2012
Attorney Erikson Davis made good on his threat of filing a motion to withdraw as counsel on my American Honda Financial lawsuit. On February 14th, 2012, Mr. Davis filed a motion to withdraw, while he alleges in his declaration that he decided to withdraw because: “There has been a total breakdown of the attorney-client relationship that John Wright, chief executive of Plaintiff XXX Inc., refuses to communicate meaningfully with me in association with this litigation. Mr. Wright has further been posting threats and accusation against me on his blog, which he claims has a wide readership. (I can provide samples of such postings if the court so instructs me.) Thus, I am not able to effectively represent this client any longer in this litigation. “ For the record, I categorically deny any and all allegations set forth in Mr. Davis’ declaration. I also did not know that Mr. Davis was my attorney, until he sent me a threat to withdraw from my lawsuit. 
Therefore, how was I supposed to have “meaningful” communication with him, if I never was advised that he was my attorney? Neither did I say to Mr. Davis that I had a “wide readership.” Maybe Mr. Stein was right when he said that Davis lies all the time. (Wink) At any rate, Erikson Davis will not send me the retainer agreement. Why? Is it because he is not my attorney? Either way, I am happy that he has invited the judge to come see what he might be all about. It actually works for me. (Smirk)
Attorney Erikson Davis was previously an attorney with Mitchell J. Stein & Associations, until the California Attorney General raided the law offices of Mitchell J. Stein for allegedly being involved in an unethical mailer scheme. The California State Bar Association then turned around and made Mitchell J. Stein’s status “Not Eligible To Practice Law.” Now many people now theorize that Erikson Davis and Mitchell J. Stein are one in the same person. This is because they alleged that Mitchell J. Stein is still running a law firm with the use of Attorney Erikson Davis. In other words, it has been alleged that Attorney Erikson Davis is nothing other than a puppet of Mitchell J. Stein’s.
.
Email to John From Pete Morgera 02/15/12:
Mr. Wright…I have no idea about any FACTUAL mailer scheme from Mitch Stein…I personally was referred to his lawsuit by a Senator’s office that was taking calls about Fraud in the Banking industry..Also for the record, I have never been asked for one single dime from Mitch…Not that you necessarily care…but again, the media and Attorney General’s office said he charged us all $5,000.00 retainer (not true in my case.), and he got us on board from a mailer (also not true in my case). In fact, I have never even seen a copy of this “so-called” mailer that they are talking about. You think if everybody got one it would be all over their website for an example.
Take it and do with it as you will…I read your blog everyday…when its all said and done…The banks are going to take heat…they will fight, try and settle…but this viral social networking information age world we live in nowadays is something they cannot control…Your blog is just one of many that are exposing these no good b##T###s for what they are.
Keep up the overall good work…!!!
Pete Morgera
.
Email from “unknown” dated 02/15/12
Your giving these scum bags way too much press. They have always been all pr with no substance…
.
California Business and Professions Code Sections 6126
- (a) In addition to any criminal penalties pursuant to Section 6126 or to any contempt proceedings pursuant to Section 6127, the courts of the state shall have the jurisdiction provided in this section when a person advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law, or otherwise practices law, without being an active member of the State Bar or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so.
California Business and Professions Code Sections 6127
The following acts or omissions in respect to the practice of law are contempts of the authority of the courts:
- (a) Assuming to be an officer or attorney of a court and acting as such, without authority.
- (b) Advertising or holding oneself out as practicing or as entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law in any court, without being an active member of the State Bar Proceedings to adjudge a person in contempt of court under this section are to be taken in accordance with the provisions of Title V of Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The question is if Attorney Erikson Davis is taking orders from Mitchell J. Stein. The answer might be in an email that Attorney Erikson Davis sent to Mitchell J. Stein on February 7th, 2012, where Erikson Davis makes reference to the threat the emal he forwarded to Mitchell J. Stein.
Email from Erikson Davis to Mitchell J. Stein:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:23 PM, erik davis erikdavis@att.net wrote:
“Now he’s gone from uncooperative to downright combative… The threat was your idea so now what do I do?”
Why is Attorney Erikson Davis asking Mitchell J. Stein what to do? Is it because Erikson Davis is taking orders from Mitchell J. Stein? I don’t know, but I do know that Attorney Eriskon Davis might not be credible in his declaration about me, after you consider that Mitchell J. Stein himself has stated that Erikson Davis likes to “make up stories all the time about Mitchell J. Stein that are not true.”
Email from Mitchell J. Stein on 02/07/12:
John again you are reading the emails of others. I have no time to talk to Eric let alone get him to threaten you. He likes to make up stories with me that are not true. The prior email from him (on another topic) asked why I haven’t spoken to him for a week.
I told Erik the truth: John Wright wants out so make it easy for him. The fact that he handled it his way is a fact that I have nothing to do with.
Is it possible that Attorney Erikson Davis is “making up stories” in his declaration to withdraw from my case on February 14th, 2012? For example, notice that Erikson Davis does not mention in his declaration on February 14th, 2012, any of the previous reasons for withdraw that he stated existed in his email that he sent me on February 7th, 2012.
Email sent to John Wright from Erikson Davis dated 02/07/12:
“IF YOU DO NOT COOPERATE BY SECURING NEW COUNSEL AND SENDING BACK THE ENCLOSED FORM WITH THE NECESSARY NAME AND SIGNATURES, WE WILL BE FORCED TO FILE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS YOUR COUNSEL, AS WHICH TIME WE WILL HAVE TO SUBMIT THE SUPPORTING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR WITHDRAWAL, WHICH WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ AND DISSEMINATE AS THEY WISH. I AM SURE YOU DO NOT WANT THIS.”
NOTICE IT WAS IN ALL CAPS!
Psycho Poodle from hell: Click here
Instead, Mr. Davis makes reference to my blog entries, which actually came after the threat he gave me on February 7th, 2012.
.
Therefore, I stand ready to pursue any and all legal remedies afforded to me by the law, which may include me reporting Attorney Erikson Davis to the California State Bar Association. I will also be considering filing a massive lawsuit against Attorney Erikson Davis, because Erikson Davis might have acted on his threat to do damage to my reputation as a high profile blogger, while his precipitous actions might have also resulted in seriously doing damage to my lawsuit with American Honda Financial Corporation. I am now willing to testify in any proceedings that are brought against Attorney Erikson Davis by the California State Bar Association and the California Attorney General. Therefore, the above agencies may contact me at piggybankblog@earthlink.net, if they are interested in my testimony.
In conclusion, it was reported to me that Attorney Erikson Davis started crying one time because he was over whelmed with his case load. (Unconfirmed) Maybe my “Start Me Up” theme song was appropriate, after you consider that the song said: “You make a grown man cry.” – click here
Well cry me a river Mr. Davis.
.
To think that this could have been all resolved with a simple withdraw of his threat and an apology. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.
All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
.
Follow John’s Daily Blog
.
.
.
Erikson Davis’ Office Threatens Another Client
.
Written by John Wright
February 14th, 2012
.
Well it looks like Attorney Erikson Davis is going to be my Valentine today. This is because Attorney Erikson Davis has still not withdrawn his threat or issued an apology to me. This is why I will continue to defend myself against his abusive threat, until Attorney Erikson Davis withdraws his threat to me in writing, which was the same forum that he used to issue the threat in the first place. The only response that I received from Erikson Davis was one that said: “We are not here to point fingers, only to effect a substitution. Please let me know when I can expect to get your signed form back.” Apparently, Erikson Davis seems a little out of touch with his own threat, because his threat was doing nothing but pointing fingers. That is why I pointed a finger right back to him, but I assure you that it was not my index finger that I was pointing at him, because I have never reacted well to any bully that threatens me. It seems that Mr. Davis’ office is in the business of threating his clients, after you read the following abusive response that Piggybankblog Personality Darrell Neilander received from his office when he asked for a refund.
Darrell,
I have forwarded your emails to management and spoken to them at length about these emails. Below is what the senior partners conveyed to me.
- With regard to accusing you of wrongdoing or being dishonest, the Firm reserves all rights and remedies under the law.
- The Firm will not be adding your name to the lawsuit in New York when we re-file it.
- In the event you are a named plaintiff on any other lawsuit that the Firm was representing you in, you will be dismissed from them without prejudice.
- The Firm’s representation of you is hereby terminated at your request.
- The Firm will not be refunding the $1,000.00 partial retainer you paid. If you have any questions about this, please re-read the retention agreement, particularly the section that says the retainer is non-refundable and fully earned. You signed a contract for the Firm to represent you, which the Firm has vigorously done thus far. This contract has legal ramifications. If it is part of the Firm’s legal strategy to dismiss a case so it can be re-filed, that is the Firm’s right. This right is stated very clearly in the retention agreement. I suggest you carefully re-read the retainer agreement.
At this point, I will consider this matter closed.
Again, please govern yourself accordingly. There are always consequences to actions. Known and unknown.
Toby Butterworth
For the Firm
Please contact John Wright at piggybankblog@earthlink.net if you have received a threat.
Well, look at the bright side Darrell, at least Toby answers your email, because he never answers any of mine or the others. I guess we have to ask for a refund to get an answer. But wow! What an asshole! See Dick drink! See Dick Drive! Don’t be a dick! What the hell does “Known” and “Unknown” mean? Apparently, Attorney Erikson Davis’ office is beginning to sound like something out the movie The Firm with Tom Cruise. The movie The Firm is about a character named Mitch McDeere, who is a young man with a promising future in Law. About to sit his Bar exam, he is approached by ‘The Firm’ and made an offer he doesn’t refuse. Seduced by the money and gifts showered on him, he is totally oblivious to the more sinister side of his company. Then, two Associates are murdered. The FBI contact him, asking him for information and suddenly his life is ruined. He has a choice – work with the FBI, or stay with the Firm. That is why we have to wonder if Erikson is Tom Cruise in the movie The Firm.
.
Well looky here Mr. Davis! I am pointing a finger at you! Do you know what it is? It is an asshole detector and it is working! Click here
All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
.
Follow John’s Daily Blog
.
.
Erikson Davis Refuses To Withdraw Threat And Apologize
.
Written by John Wright
February 13th, 2012
I have still not received a response from Attorney Erikson Davis, but in regards to my request that he retract his threat, and spell out specifically his reason for wanting me to sign the attorney substitution form. I am also in receipt of an email correspondence from Mitchell J. Stein, who stated that he was not behind the Erikson Davis threat, while representing that Erikson Davis is lying. This would imply that Erikson Davis might have had a wild hair up his ass the day that he decided to send me that threat letter, but ultimately, it means that he must also have a lot of balls to have threatened me, because I am not going to tolerate it. The question is why did he send it? I think it is because he might have received notice that I corrected the mistakes in a declaration I gave to him a while back. You see, Erikson Davis had approached me for a declaration, after the State Bar Association had removed Mitchell J. Stein as my counsel in the Bank of America lawsuit. I was happy to testify that I wanted Mitchell J. Stein to still be my attorney. Unfortunately, it appears that there might have been a bait and switch with my declaration though, because Erikson Davis apparently would end up using my declaration in the Lagaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit. The declaration itself was conveniently typed up ahead of time, before it was read to me over the phone somewhere around midnight. Now having a declaration prepared by a law firm might not be all that unusual, however, him not fixing the inaccuracies that I pointed out in the declaration is unusual. This is why I take issue with Attorney Erikson Davis, because I mentioned that there were several inaccuracies in it to him. For example, it claimed that Brookstone Law Firm had not dismissed my lawsuit, after I requested them to, in which the fact was that I had never requested that Brookstone Law Firm dismiss my lawsuit before that point. There was another part of it where it claimed that I said that Damian Kutzner at Brookstone said that he was close friends with the California State Bar Association investigator, in which the fact was that Damian Kutzner never said to me that he was close friends with anyone at the California State Bar Association. I was told not to worry about it, because it would be corrected in the version that would be sent to me to sign. That is why I would end up signing it when it was sent to me, basically because I was under the impression that it was the corrected version. I should have read it, but After all, I was half asleep at midnight, in which I did not bother to read it again because I trusted that it had been corrected. It would not be until some days later that I would find out that it was not the corrected version. I would also find out that it was used Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit. At that time, I had thought that the Lagaspi lawsuit was a lawsuit filed against Bank of America in New York, but had no idea that it was the Lagaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit. That is why I felt that it was potentially a bait and switch tactic, which might have been used by Erikson Davis to get the main plaintiff in the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit to say things against Brookstone Law Firm. I resented this because I SPECIFICALLY TOLD BOTH SIDES THAT I DID NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED. I had strategically positioned myself to have both Brookstone Law Firm and Mitchell J. Stein & Associates represent me in my lawsuit, but against the most potentially corrupt bank that this planet has ever seen. I am talking about a bank that might be fraudclosing on homes where the beneficiary might have been fraudulently and incorrectly identified, but also where there might be multiple trusts and mulitiple beneficiaries existing at the time of the fraudclosure. Basically a potential crime in progress. (I had just had to fit that in somewhere Kamala. (Wink) At any rate, I totally resented that Erikson Davis had maybe tricked me into being involved in a lawsuit that had nothing to do with saving mine or your homes, but ultimately, might have put my relationship in jeopardy with Brookstone Law Firm. Like I have said before, I do not like someone touching my privates without asking, in which I did not like the fact that this might have been misrepresented to me. So I admitted to those at Brookstone Law Firm that there were inaccuracies in it, while I shared with them that I was horrified that the incorrect version was submitted and used in the Legaspi vs. Spivak lawsuit. Now I was in a very uncomfortable position, because if I did not correct it, I feared that I would lose Brookstone Law Firms respect of me, but more importantly, I would lose respect for myself. At the same time, I feared that Mitchell J. Stein and Erikson Davis would be angry with me if I did correct it. This is because I feared they might not represent me in my Honda lawsuit. That is why I think Erikson Davis sent me a threatening letter on February 7th, 2012, because maybe I would not lie in my declaration, such as maybe he might be requiring me to do, since he did not correct it when I told him. Nevertheless, I offered to give Brookstone Law Firm a declaration to fix it, until I started freaking out that it was going to piss off Erikson Davis and Mitchell J. Stein, so I withdrew my offer to fix it. I sent Brookstone an email that said that I stood behind my first declaration, and I then ordered them to not pressure me anymore. This was even though they were not pressuring me at all. This was the first time that I had been in this kind of situation. The problem was that I started feeling guilty for not agreeing to fix it, so I admitted to someone else there at Brookstone Law Firm that I just said that to Vito to make it go away. This resulted in me offering to correct it again, but because I also realized that I had an obligation to correct it for the court.
The simple fact was that I am not a liar. For the record, I would not have had to correct it if Erikson Davis had corrected it in the first place, such as I had told him to do. The question was if I was going to be punished by Erikson Davis for telling the truth? The answer might be in his “dear John” letter dated February 7th, 2012.
Dear John:
For reasons that you already know and have discussed with Mr. Stein, we can no longer represent you in the above-referenced litigation.
One of the many problems is that you refused to cooperate in the discovery process, i.e., you would not provide documents and information in response to valid discovery requests propounded by American Honda regarding your monetary losses suffered. (Please note that another set of responses is due on 2/17/12. The discovery requests are enclosed. Please be sure to retain counsel for XXX, Inc. immediately so that he can either provide the responses in a timely fashion, or negotiate with opposing counsel to obtain more time for doing so.)
Enclosed is a Substitution of Attorney form that we need you fill out in order for us to withdraw from your case. Simply sign your name where indicated, then have your new attorney print and sign his name as well. As you can see, I have already signed the form to show my good faith. Note: John Wright says he did not sign it.
IF YOU DO NOT COOPERATE BY SECURING NEW COUNSEL AND SENDING BACK THE ENCLOSED FORM WITH THE NECESSARY NAME AND SIGNATURES, WE WILL BE FORCED TO FILE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS YOUR COUNSEL, AS WHICH TIME WE WILL HAVE TO SUBMIT THE SUPPORTING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR WITHDRAWAL, WHICH WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ AND DISSEMINATE AS THEY WISH. I AM SURE YOU DO NOT WANT THIS.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Erikson M. Davis
I sent an email right away categorically denying all the allegations, because NONE OF IT WAS TRUE! For the record, I have the emails to prove that none of it is true, in which I am unable to post them right now, because there might be litigation brought against Mr. Davis in the future concerning this matter. The interesting thing was that I did not even know that Erikson Davis was my attorney for the Honda lawsuit, because I was told that it was first Mitchell J. Stein. Then I was told that some other attorney named Robert. Robert only talked to me on the phone one time. That is when he stated that Honda had asked for discovery items, in which Robert followed up with an email with the list of discovery. However, Mitchell J. Stein told me to wait until he talked to him before I gave it to him. This was why there was a delay. So I informed Robert by email of this fact. Unfortunatley, I never heard Robert again. He actually ignored all my emails and phone messages that I left. By the way, have any of you experienced that with Erikson Davis’ office? I bet you have! This is because I receive all your email complaints that you sent here to me at piggybankblog.com. I now welcome any threat letters that you have received from his office too, which might list both the “known” and “unknown” consequence if you do not comply. Please send them to piggybankblog@earthlink.net
Some months later I asked Mitchell J. Stein to remove me from any and all lawsuits that he might be representing me in. This is because I did not want to be affiliated with him anymore, after I had received all of your complaints by email about Erikson Davis’ office that had threatened some of you too. Some of you had also claimed to be a victim of threats. That is why I was willing to sign Erikson Davis’ substitution form, until I got to the part where he now threatened me. Big mistake Mr. Davis! This is because I do not and will not show a spirit of cooperation with anyone who threatens me in that manner. I think that Erikson Davis is nothing other than a bully, and guess what? I stand up to bullies! Mr. Erikson Davis might forget that I am not a little housewife, with curlers in my hair, standing on a chair, but because I am afraid of a little mouse with a big mouth. I just step on it. (Wink) That is why I fired back with “DON’T YOU EVER THREATEN ME AGAIN!” I then followed up with the following email to the mouse. This is because I like to play with my food before I eat it.
“Erik, I have thought long and hard about your threat. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to be threatened. In fact, I kind of have zero tolerance for it. Therefore, I accept your challenge of going ahead and filing your motion, while you “submit the supporting facts and circumstances of your withdrawal, which will then be available for the public to read and disseminate as they wish.” However, it should be noted that my response to such hostile unsubstantiated claims will also be public, in which you should know that I stand ready to pursue any and all legal remedies afforded to me by the law. So though I appreciate your potential threat to try and maybe character assassinate me on clearly unsubstantiated claims, I think you should know that I would respond. I would also hold you personally responsible counselor. Do I make myself clear? Nevertheless, it has never been my intention to be a part of any war with you or Mitchell J. Stein or Brookstone. I have actually gone on the record with both Mitchell J. Stein and Brookstone with this fact. Thus far, I have done a very good job in not being involved in any war. However, it should not suggest that I cannot defend myself if somebody chooses to start a war with me, such as your threat clearly seems to suggest you might be interested in doing. I assure you that I have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure that I am protected by any potential abuses from any law firm that threatens me. It would be a horrible mistake to miscalculate that fact Counselor.
Withdraw your threat Counselor.
Respectfully,
John Wright
That is when I received an email from Mitchell J. Stein. He was asking me to sign Erikson Davis’ request to withdraw him from being my attorney, in which I noticed that Erikson Davis has shared my attorney client privilege information with Mitchell J. Stein. Doh! Ooooops! I could see that Stein’s email to me had my response that I had sent to Erikson Davis attached to it, in which there was a part where Erikson Davis commented right above it with: “Now he’s gone from uncooperative to downright combative… The threat was your idea so now what do I do?” Wow! He actually sounded surprised. (lol) Well, I came un-fucking “super glued” at this point, because I was not about to support Mitchell J. Stein, if he was part of any threat that was sent to me. Clearly, Attorney Erikson Davis seemed to admit that it was indeed a threat in his
email to Mr. Stein too. Unfortunately for Erikson Davis, I do not see a fine line between a threat and a bluff but a faded line, because if Moscow sends an email to Washington D.C. saying that they are going to bomb New York, I venture to think that Washington D.C. might launch Stealth Bombers heading for Moscow.
Therefore, I called Brookstone Law Firm immediately to protect me form this obvious simulated and calculated attack on me. I then forwarded the email to Brookstone Law Firm, where Erikson Davis admitted that it was indeed a threat, but only to be followed up by me removing blog pages that might be considered in support of Mitchell J. Stein. This is because I was not about to support a guy that had just given someone the idea that it is was okay to threaten me. I simply shot from hip because I am straight shooter baby and I don’t mean maybe. I then gave Brookstone Law Firm permission to use the email in my defense. I had never sent a Mitchell J. Stein email to Brookstone Law Firm before that threat. That is with the exception of wanting to get a response from Brookstone Law Firm for an article I was writing one time. However, I concluded that with friends like this I did not need enemies. Nevertheless, I was absolutely heartbroken that my friend might have betrayed me. I simply had no other choice but to defend myself.
Now I was really sad, because Mitchell J. Stein helped me during a time where nobody else did, which is why I was confused why he would now order someone to threaten me. He had helped me get my cars back from American Honda Financial, and he did totally unconditionally for me, while not asking me for anything in return. I mean he never asked me to write blogs for him. I wanted to write them. I also believed what I was writing. The simple fact is that I don’t know what I would have done without his help at that time, which is why I gave him support when he was raided. I could not publically support him with the Heart Tronic’s issue though, because I did not know enough about it, in which I was not going to support him in something I know nothing about. Now it does not mean that I hope he goes to jail for it though. I want him to be innocent because he was someone who helped me during a time nobody else would. I would never conceal a crime for Mitchell J. Stein though, but if it did come back that he was guilty, I would actually visit him in jail because he helped me when I was down. That is because I will hate the sin but I will not hate the sinner. Now I know that many people here might have a problem with me doing that, but I am not going to abandon someone who helped me now that he is down and needs help. What kind of person would I be if I did that? I will always remember what the man did for me and not what he did not do for me. I will be appreciative at all times. This is even if he is found guilty. The simple fact is that the Father lets it rain on the good and the bad. And so do I. That is why I will spare my friend Mitchell J. Stein, even though I will not spare my enemy who dared to threaten me. Unfortunately, I am not willing to show my support on my blog while Attorney Erikson Davis is representing him. It is a conflict of interest for me because he potentially threatend to do harm to me and my cause.
Therefore, I have no other choice but to eliminate that threat, as it is my intention to pursue any and all legal remedies afforded to me by the law, because Erikson Davis has not apologized or retracted his threat to me. Unfortunately, this may include bringing a lawsuit against Attorney Erikson Davis for his precipitous actions that lead up to this threat.
I will simply show him the same mercy he showed me.
(All parties are considered innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law.)
All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
Follow John’s Daily Blog
..
4 Comments
I swear you guys are too damn funny. From pyscho poodle to Highberger admitting he’s at least 70 to the village idiot contest between all those mass joinder numbskulls — i come here to unwind and laugh my ass off. Thank you for that…..erin
Finally, you see the light. You had been in the shadows of the darkside for too long.
Next, they will sue you, blame you for all the tornadoes on earth, call you E.T. on crack, they’ll want to know every one who ever posted on your blog, say you are conspiring with imaginary enemies, and demand you are making $10 billion dollars off this blog as they read it in the wee hours of the morning as they pop some pills that will keep them from sleeping for days so they can draft more worthless lawsuits.
You shouldn’t worry about Davis. If history repeats itself, he will be sued like Spivak, maybe claiming hardship like attorney Paul Taylor, watched by federal law enforcement agents, or in jail.
Thank you for you comment Crazy Horse!
.
John taking a bow.
.
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
.
John Wright
Piggybankblog.com
product liability