LawTube - Lawyers sperging at each other on YouTube

[kurosawa]

Have to lead with something else I uncovered (yep I was digging around in Pacer and autouploading stuff to courtlistener).

But wait, there's more!

Searched the "Law Offices of J. Henry Nierman," and there was lawsuit against that entity (and ROJ) in 2011.
Once again for alleged FDCPA violations and it was withdrawn by both parties.

From the answer to the complaint in the 2011 case (attached):


He was an owner back in 2011 and didn't "regularly" engage in debt collection in his practice of law. He was very vague about these facts in the Levy case deposition but yet somehow still remembered the lawsuit (page 40 of the Levy case deposition).

Might as well add a funny that I found in the Levy case deposition:



Joe famously said in one of Balldo's streams that his wife drives him around. Does Joe have a driver's license? Inquiring minds want to know.

Spoiler: Malpractice insurance - might as well spoil this since its a bit dry compared to the above

Probably won't ever find out this info but it'd be interesting to know whether his malpractice insurance covers this:

There has been a significant increase in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) actions against lawyers in recent years. This has become a leading cause of claims in LPL the last few years. It’s important to determine whether your LPL policy covers awards arising under the FDCPA. Make sure to check your state’s laws on punitive damages, as well.

Most older LPL policies exclude punitive and exemplary damages in the definition of damages. Some polices do not specifically exclude coverage for punitive and exemplary damages, however there is no direct language as to whether they are covered in the policy.

From Joe's (as the defendant) deposition:



This is stupid. If you're a professional engineer with your own practice, if you're an attorney, if you're any number of other professional professions - obtain professional liability insurance. I have a license of sorts I don't use because I don't want to bother carrying the insurance.

 

[SMOCAINE 4]

Joe's deposition is hilarious. He is just straight up lying and gaslighting.
It says "SUBPOENA" in fat letters and he tries to pretend its not a SUBPOENA.

The argument he was advancing in the deposition only made him look worse..

This is the most damning this about Joe. He is pulling out the absolute weakest arguments possible. The Court is aware that when an attorney says “well, my assistant sent the letter, but I don’t know if she read it. I didn’t read it, surely. I can’t confirm that I sent it but I probably did” he is just trying to avoid an outright lie and it’s obvious.

I can assure you nobody involved in this case believes that he accidentally sent a fake subpoena, or that he has no oversight in his firm, or that his assistant tripped, fell, and on the way down, drafted/mailed a fake subpoena.

I would love to see his other case filings, this has to be a pattern. Really hope the disciplinary committee does some digging

 

[Captain Manning]

Attached are Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 (Which they refer to in Joe's deposition I believe)
There are two other Exhibits 2 and 3, but those are from Joe deposing Levy.

You attached the same file twice.

However... No big deal, because...

I believe those documents are on Courtlistener as Exhibits A and B of the initial complaint (docket entry 1).
I assumed they were already posted, but I'm attaching both.

The letter is only one page so I'll screenshot it.
View attachment 6484934


Just FYI you attached the letter twice. The "subpoena" (or the other "letter") is the 2.6MB pdf attached to this post, Exhibit A in the complaint

Yeah, that's BAD.

VERY BAD!



Where the FUCK is the judge's signature?


(Please excuse the "saved." You get the point).

Subpoenas are issued enforced (wrt Anominous's correction below) by the COURT.

"Oh, it's just a letter.."

Fuck you, Joe. No it's not. It's a letter, and then an enclosed "subpoena," that isn't a real subpoena. AND IT'S OVER JOE'S SIGNATURE!

He needs to be brought before the bar for this shit. This is him abusing the system and praying on the ignorant. Lawyers like this deserve the rope.

This is in addition to the stuff @AnOminous already mentioned.

I never liked Joe, but now I despise him.

 

[AnOminous]

This is stupid. If you're a professional engineer with your own practice, if you're an attorney, if you're any number of other professional professions - obtain professional liability insurance. I have a license of sorts I don't use because I don't want to bother carrying the insurance.

He's going to have a harder time getting insurance now after this stunt. Like the article points out, it also quite likely wouldn't have covered intentional torts, and he obviously did this on purpose. It wasn't a mistake. While I don't think it's a black letter law issue in this case, the fee amounts strike me as punitive especially in light of the reasoning the court used to get to them.

Subpoenas are issued by the COURT. Not attorneys unilaterally.

"Oh, it's just a letter.."

Fuck you, Joe. No it's not. It's a letter, and then an enclosed "subpoena," that isn't a real subpoena.

Actually subpoenas are usually issued by an attorney for a party, with few exceptions, like pro se litigants. The court can also issue them. It takes a court to enforce them, though.

However, it's questionable whether this was a real or a fake subpoena. It was improper in either case. If you have ever seen a dunning letter, they quite often explicitly disclaim that they are actual legal process, to avoid lawsuits specifically like this one. Joe did the dead-ass opposite of proper practice.

 

[sneedem&feedem]

Someone in Nick's thread said 2 lawtubers covered Joe today...I know Meme Copium did a stream...anyone know who else has covered it?

At the beginning of his stream tonight, Potentially Criminal was asked about the situation. He said he's reading the docs and might cover it however notes that the Sarah Boone trial will cut into his time. We'll see if he'll actually cover for Jew Nierman or not.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

I never liked Joe, but now I despise him.

I really hope that the opposing lawyer takes the time to report him to the NY state bar association.

Joe needs to get roasted over an open fire and and then have his license revoked.

At the beginning of his stream tonight, Potentially Criminal was asked about the situation. He said he's reading the docs and might cover it however notes that the Sarah Boone trial will cut into his time. We'll see if he'll actually cover for Jew Nierman or not.

He replied in this very thread (if it is indeed him and not a fanboi impersonating him)

 

[zyclonPD]

So Legal mindset was discovered to be on the run from debt collectors in Florida, Uncivil Law was found to be a failed patent lawyer who was laughed out a court, Good Lawgic has now been found to be a convicted scumbag lying debt collector and Rekieta Law is a child endangering swinging cuck coke feind . What the backstory on Nate the Lawyer and Legal Vices? Is there even one decent person in Lawtube?

 

[Captain Manning]

Actually subpoenas are usually issued by an attorney for a party, with few exceptions, like pro se litigants. The court can also issue them. It takes a court to enforce them, though.

Well, when I had to get a subpoena once, long ago, I had to have it signed by a judge (technically an ALJ in my particularly case) and only THEN could I hire process server to have it served on the other party.

Either way, in it's current state, there's no way in fuck that Joe can unilaterally compel somebody to turn over documents, under penalty of fines or jail. I don't believe it.

This is scummy AF.

 

[SMOCAINE 4]

I really hope that the opposing lawyer takes the time to report him to the NY state bar association.

Let’s hope the victim here goes through with that. You cannot make bar complaints anonymously here in New York State. As far as I’m aware there is no “tip” line, either.

 

[Captain Manning]

Is there even one decent person in Lawtube?

Well, thus far, Sean seems okay.

The only two things Nick has been able to fling at him is he's wrong, and fat.

However, only the latter is true. He's been 100% right about Nick thus far, and it endlessly chaps Nick's ass.

 

[AnOminous]

Either way, in it's current state, there's no way in fuck that Joe can unilaterally compel somebody to turn over documents, under penalty of fines or jail. I don't believe it.

No, and in fact, he lied about that, claiming it would be contempt of court not to comply, when the court was not even involved in that subpoena yet.

 

[zyclonPD]

Well, thus far, Sean seems okay.

The only two things Nick has been able to fling at him is he's wrong, and fat.

However, only the latter is true. He's been 100% right about Nick thus far, and it endlessly chaps Nick's ass.

Is he really lawtube though? He actually practices. The true dyed in the wool lawtuber streams more than he practices.

 

[Captain Manning]

No, and in fact, he lied about that, claiming it would be contempt of court not to comply, when the court was not even involved in that subpoena yet.

My point exactly.

This is designed to trick somebody who doesn't know any better that they have legal obligation to comply, when they don't, and maybe never will.

Absolute scumfuckery. I would wipe my ass with such a document. It has no force of law in the state it's in. It is not a court order. However, Joe is counting on people to not know any better, and to think they have to give into his demands immediately, or face consequences. It's obvious. Fuck him.

This is an example of why so many people hate lawyers, and why so many people on the Farms were hoping Rekieta was different.

Is he really lawtube though? He actually practices. The true dyed in the wool lawtuber streams more than he practices.

A fair point.

"Lawtube" should fuck off along with Rekieta anyways. I think the name is irreversibly tainted now. Nick will be forever associated with it as its leader.

EDIT: Typo.

 

[Balldo's Gate]

This is the first page of the document purporting to be the subpoena from Exhibit A of the complaint (see linked post)

I have superimposed an excerpt from Joe's deposition where he says "I understand the document looks like a subpoena. I'm telling you now that I don't think it's a subpoena."

However, it's questionable whether this was a real or a fake subpoena. It was improper in either case. If you have ever seen a dunning letter, they quite often explicitly disclaim that they are actual legal process, to avoid lawsuits specifically like this one. Joe did the dead-ass opposite of proper practice.

Well, the person whose signature is on the "subpoena" said: "I don't think it's a subpoena".

Note that apparently, the usual practice was for the office manager to use a signature stamp to affix Joe's signature to a draft/form subpoena document he drafted, and he only reviewed a "random sort of sampling" of the documents going out under his name.

This is the most damning this about Joe. He is pulling out the absolute weakest arguments possible. The Court is aware that when an attorney says “well, my assistant sent the letter, but I don’t know if she read it. I didn’t read it, surely. I can’t confirm that I sent it but I probably did” he is just trying to avoid an outright lie and it’s obvious.

I can assure you nobody involved in this case believes that he accidentally sent a fake subpoena, or that he has no oversight in his firm, or that his assistant tripped, fell, and on the way down, drafted/mailed a fake subpoena.

The office manager sent it and affixed his stamp signature but Joe says he doesn't know whether he ever saw it and doubts he did: "It seems very unlikely."



He then argues that it doesn't matter because when the plaintiff first retained a lawyer, Joe is sure "the first thing he said to him was this is not validly served."

This is designed to trick somebody who doesn't know any better that they have legal obligation to comply, when they don't, and maybe never will.

Was this the only person mailed a document like this?
It was apparently based on a form document, so I'm going to go with "no".

Did every person mailed documents like this retain a lawyer to see if it was enforceable?
I somehow doubt it.



Note that earlier in Exhibit A of this document, before the transcript, we have the retainer agreement where we see that there was an initial flat fee of $3000.00 which the plaintiff/debtor Levy had to pay.

Joe says no harm no foul because he presumes the lawyer which the guy retained for an initial fee of $3000 would tell him that the "subpoena" is not enforceable.



Also WTF is this?
"If Mr. Schlanger spoke to me, which presumably he did based on your question before, I would have told him that no, there was no intent for us to compel compliance."
Why the conditional construction of that sentence?
Either Joe said that to him, or he didn't, or he doesn't remember.

 

[AnOminous]

Note that apparently, the usual practice was for the office manager to use a signature stamp to affix Joe's signature to a draft/form subpoena document he drafted, and he only reviewed a "random sort of sampling" of the documents going out under his name.

This man has a positive talent for his excuses making him look even worse and more incompetent.

It's not even an excuse. He's responsible for anything going out of there with his name on it by his authorization. It seems the court was as unimpressed with this slithering as I was.

 

[TherapyMan]

Note that apparently, the usual practice was for the office manager to use a signature stamp to affix Joe's signature to a draft/form subpoena document he drafted, and he only reviewed a "random sort of sampling" of the documents going out under his name.

Based on my personal experience with solo practitioner / small firm collections attorneys, this sort of laziness is par for course. Low flat fee work means that they have every incentive to cut corners as much as possible to save on time and bulk process letters.

 

[AnOminous]

Based on my personal experience with solo practitioner / small firm collections attorneys, this sort of laziness is par for course. Low flat fee work means that they have every incentive to cut corners as much as possible to save on time and bulk process letters.

Until you get raped out of a year's income for doing it.

 

[Mourning_Cloak]

We didn't think it could get anymore Joever when Biden withdrew but here we are.

 

[Darkholme's Dungeon]

Andrea Burkhart is also part of it, but she seems like a relatively normal person, but I have not watched all her videos. Maybe someone has fun clips.
And Melanie Little who fails at using the right tool to redact pdf documents and doxes all involved parties in the Canton PD quack case video. Turtle Boy case video.

I only listed the most prominent retards. Didn't know about the Melanie Little Drama and LMAO at the Burkhart stuff.

What about Potentially Criminal?

Is he okay, or maybe normal?

https://www.youtube.com/@PotentiallyCriminal

He is, Allah forbid, a death fat foamer.

 

[Captain Manning]

Was this the only person mailed a document like this?
It was apparently based on a form document, so I'm going to go with "no".

Ditto. I bet anything he did this a lot, but has only recently gotten caught.

Problem is, because the "subpoenas" aren't legit, they wouldn't be on file with the court. So other people would have to come forward.

Did every person mailed documents like this retain a lawyer to see if it was enforceable?
I somehow doubt it.

That's why I'm peeved here. It's soooo greasy.

A subpoena has an entirely different function and connotation that an ordinary demand letter.

Based on my personal experience with solo practitioner / small firm collections attorneys, this sort of laziness is par for course. Low flat fee work means that they have every incentive to cut corners as much as possible to save on time and bulk process letters.

Form letters? Sure. In some cases that's even justifiable, I guess. Some debt collection is similar enough to other debt collection. "Dear X, please pay Y."

But bullshit form fake subpoenas? That's a new one on me.