You can pause intro music below
Bank of America Attorney
The Infamous Stuart Price
April 27th, 2012
It has been said by many in the past that Bank of America uses crooked law firms to use “improper tactics” towards any attorney that dares to bring a wrongful foreclosure lawsuit on behalf of the homeowner against Bank of America. Some have said they believe that this might be an attempt by Bank of Extorting America to deter homeowner’s attorneys across the United States from filing wrongful foreclosure lawsuits against them, while many people believe that it just another prime example of Bank of Abusing America’s potentially using irregular, fraudulent, unsafe, illegal and simply abusive mafia type practices — that they use against both the legal system and the good people the United States of America. (Picture above is of Stuart Price)
On July 19th, 2011 — A Santa Ana 39 year attorney named Gary Lane filed an individual lawsuit against a Bank of America attorney in California Superior Court of Orange County. This lawsuit was filed against, none other than, the infamous — Stuart Price. Stuart Price is a senior partner at the Bryan Cave Law Firm that is representing maybe one of the most criminal enterprises in the nation, Bank of Destroying America. Now for those of you who do not already know this – Attorney Stuart Price is actually the attorney representing Bank of America in the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit.
After filing the case — Gary Lane was informed by counsel that it might be far too difficult to challenge an attorney for such offenses — and that the slap laws of California made it almost assured that they would be forced to pay Price’s attorney fees if they pursued the case. So, upon that advice, Lane withdrew his case almost immediately. However, strangely enough, Stuart Price, in spite of their prompt voluntary dismissal of the case against him, filed an action against them anyway. He demanded that they pay not only the attorney fees he had demanded — but an additional approximately $7,000 more. This is AFTER the case had been voluntarily dismissed by Lane. Then Gary Lane appeared in Superior Court November 4, and Bryan Cave’s attorney, Jennifer Jackson, demanded that they pay Price’s attorney fees. This is even if Bryan Cave was not going to require Price to pay his own firm. The Judge, under the impression that he had no discretion in this matter, ordered Lane to pay Stuart Price’s demand for attorney fees of over $32,000 — in full.
The Complaint filed against Stuart Price alleged that Price used “improper tactics” that harmed Attorney Gary Lane and his business. This is because Mr. Lane said that he had to spend countless hours just responding to Stuart’s potentially illegitimate complaints that were filed with the California State Bar Association. These complaints filed might be better described as a “Chew on this for a while Gary Lane” tactic used by Stuart Price. Now just how many complaints did Mr. Price file with the California State Bar Association?Stuart Price ended up citing A WHOPPING SEVENTY EIGHT of Gary Lane’s cases. That’s right! That’s what I said! SEVENTY EIGHT! Unfortunately, this would require poor Mr. Lane to respond individually to each every one of the SEVENTY EIGHT cases WITHIN ONE MONTH which is required by the California State Bar Association. However, since all 78 complaints seemed to come FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL, Stuart Price, and all were done at the same time, the California State Bar Association gave Gary Lane a whopping extra one month to respond to each complaint. Even considering — Attorney Lane was forced to spend many hours dealing with these potentially illegitimate complaints, which according to Gary Lane, was much to the detriment of his Santa Ana based business. Attorney Gary Lane has operated a non-profit legal clinic for just a little over three years named – “Consumer Protecting Assistance Coalition.”
The lawsuit alleged that Attorney Stuart Price:
- Made it a practice to demurrer (motion to dismiss) every single Complaint filed by Mr. Lane against Bank of America.
- Made it a practice to include an introduction in the demurrers that make allegations about Gary Lane directly, personally, and by name as a means to impugn Mr. Lanes character, professional reputation, professional practices — and professional ethics.
- Personally had taken purposeful action to attempt to discredit Attorney Gary Lane in a way that is meant to interfere with Mr. Lane’s management of this business — and do harm to his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earnings potential.
Attorney Stuart Price potentially used similar character assignation “tactics” against the attorney in my first lawsuit that I had filed against Bank of America several years ago. This was a lawsuit that I had filed before I was with Brookstone Law.I remember being stunned at the fact that Stuart’s answer to the Complaint seemed to have very little to do with the merits of my lawsuit. It instead seemed to show that Mr. Price was more focused on trying to discredit my attorney as part of some “dirty or improper tactic” that he might have been trying to use. I mean, it was so ridiculous that I would not have been surprised if I read that my attorney had received a traffic ticket when he sixteen years old, because his whole response was that absurd. I even remember calling the law firm to tell them that I thought they had sent me the wrong lawsuit. That is when it became readily apparent to me that the Bank of America attorney was turning my lawsuit into a trial for my attorney – instead of allowing me to have my day in court with the issues surrounding my house. It seemed to be an “improper tactic” or “dirty trick,” because it should have been about my character — and not based on whatever online complaint that was issued about my attorney in the past. For all I knew – Stuart could have been the one that entered that complaint online. However, and for the record, Attorney Deron Colby at Brookstone Law has told me that Stuart Price has been nothing but a professional and a gentleman to him regarding the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit. That is why I am guessing that Attorney Deron Colby must have not ever received a traffic ticket in his past. (Wink) Also, for the record, I really do not know Attorney Gary Lane at all. What I am saying is — I do not know if there is any validity to Mr. Price’s claims or not. That is why I really do not take any position on the validity of the allegations on either side. I am just telling the story. (picture of Gary Lane posted above.)
On April, 13th, 2012, in the Superior Court of California in the County of Orange — Gary Lane has successfully won the right to have his appeal heard by the Court of Appeals. They will now hold a hearing. The purpose of that hearing will be to see if Gary Lane will be allowed to proceed against Stuart Price for his alleged “improper actions” as an attorney representing Bank of America.
Congratulations on your win Attorney Gary Lane.
A blogger left the following comment:
“le sigh”….John-this story is all wrong. Gary Lane dismissed his action against Price right before the Motion To Strike was heard. When he filed his appeal, he didn’t pay the filing fee. He received a default notice and then he paid. The court reinstated his appeal. Period. No victory, to ruling in his favor.
That will be $350 please. Didn’t you learn from Fadie? You don’t know Gary Lane any more than you really knew (Name Redacted).
John Wright responds: Fair enough and good point.
Dear Le Sigh, your comment is inaccurate. Since this matter is handled by our retained counsel, any actions in the proceeding are handled not by our law clinic, but by our retained counsel. They are experts in dealing with these sorts of issues. That is why they were retained by us. Please follow up before posting your complaints with Judge John Wright. Thank you.
My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!
All Rise! The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!
Please donate if you liked today’s blog.
PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning – any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other “picture” art posted on my profile.
You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee , agent , student or any personnel under your direction or control.
The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE