GUEST POST: Don’t Be Concerned Martin Is Dead Wrong, by Michael Pines

 

COUNTERPOINT

So, this morning I posted an article about the Glaski decision, which I first wrote about just after it became a “published decision” last August.  In my article this morning I wrote about the Glaski case having “taken a hit,” when another California court chose not to follow the reasoning from the Glaski decision and dismissed the borrower’s complaint as a result.

My point was to make sure homeowners knew that just because Glaski prevailed last August, it doesn’t necessarily mean that any other case will, and there’s a link to my article below.

Well, my article was only posted for maybe an hour when I received an email from Michael Pines saying that my article was… well… nonsense.  And he said that because of my article, he would now have to write an article to correct what I had posted, and post it on a site by the name of StopForeclosure.com.  His email to me is below…

Screen Shot 2013-11-13 at 2.59.29 PM

My article was nonsense?  Well, that would certainly be disappointing, I thought to myself. I wasn’t aware that I had ever written an article that was considered nonsense by anyone.  I’m not saying that everyone likes what I write or the way I write it, but no one ever  challenges the facts presented in my articles because… well, because they’re FACTS, that’s why.

However, I was certainly willing to debate the issue with Michael, or anyone else for that matter, so I wrote back offering to post his rebuttal article on Mandelman Matters and he replied saying, “that would be great.”

I waited in anxious anticipation for him to straighten me out, and about 90 minutes later his article arrived in my inbox.  You’ll find it in its entirety below… followed by my discussion of what he had to say.

(Isn’t this fun?  I don’t know about you, but I’m having a great time!)

~~~

Don’t Be Concerned Martin is Dead Wrong (by Michael Pines)

Martin Mandelman wrote a feature story entitled “GLASKI TAKES A HIT: California Court Rejects Reasoning in Glaski Decision.”

GLASKI TAKES A HIT: California Court Rejects Reasoning in Glaski Decision

Respectfully, nothing could be further from the truth. (Sometimes I think Martin writes articles to sensationalize, rather that provide information. This isn’t the first time I have e-mailed Martin about clearly incorrect statements made on his site, including one I wrote in the last few weeks all of which were ignored.  Although Martin states:  “… I love hearing from my readers”, I guess he doesn’t love hearing from me. This time he went way to far.)

Martin goes on to state things like Glaski was “rejected” by the court and similar statements implying Glaski would not be followed by that court, or others.  He also says that the court relied on the Gomes and Jenkins cases. Nonsense; as are most of the other statements in the publication about this. Other websites have also published statements saying there is a “conflict” in the law, worried about Glaski. (For example, see: http://www.lockelord.com/qs_2013californiacourt-chambers)

In San Diego where the case was heard, I am familiar with the judge; Judge Hayes.  Judge has is incredibly strict about enforcing procedure.  That is all he did, and I was not at all surprised.

One of my biggest frustrations in fighting for homeowners, perhaps the biggest, is that there are an enormous number of  “pocket attorneys” out there providing grossly incorrect information.  Often this information is relied on to scam people by the droves of scammers that are out there.

Although Martin is always careful to write the usual standard disclaimer that he is not a lawyer, his publication of articles that are just plain wrong can be misleading and cause concern, where none is justified.  Let me explain.

First and most importantly, the court did not reject Glaski in any way. All it said was that the homeowner had to plead more specific facts, and gave them leave to amend to do so.  I am confident they will be able to plead such facts and the case will move forward.  In legal terms, he gave them “leave to amend”.

I plan to publish a Complaint that can be used based on the Glaski decision and the “New York Trust Theory”, that has already been approved by a court in Texas.  In fact, the case was a class action and the court “certified” the class.  This means the complaint and other pleadings in that case were correct, and the case proceeded to the crucial stage of “certification”. This is a very crucial stage in class actions.

This was a bit surprising because the court, in the Western District of Texas, has a reputation of being unfriendly to plaintiffs, especially in class actions.  Yet, it ruled in favor of the plaintiff homeowners, granting certification.  (Because this is such a crucial hearing, class action lawyers know that cases often settle shortly after such an order is issued.)

In that case, the bank did take an “Interlocutory Appeal” which is pending, and it may be transferred to New York, where a similar case is pending on appeal along with at least three others.  (Normally, appeals can only be taken when a case is over, however a party can request that an appeal be taken before that which is why it is called an “Interlocutory Appeal”.)  There in fact are things to worry about concerning Glaski, as the banks attack it, but the decision Martin writes about clearly isn’t.

My two cents. So, I would caution readers of Martin’s cite that although he provides tons of good information, in my experience he is often wrong and overly sensationalistic.  He is entertaining, but from my point of view that is the most important value of his site (just my opinion.)

I DO NOT PRACTICE LAW. I ONLY CONSULT WITH ATTORNEYS. NOTHING IN THIS E-MAIL SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE AND YOU MUST CONSULT WITH A LICENSED ATTORNEY IF ADVICE IS NEEDED

 
MICHAEL
619-534-9046

~~~

AND NOW FOR MY RESPONSE TO MICHAEL’S POST…

MICHAEL’S FIRST PARAGRAPH… Respectfully, nothing could be further from the truth. (Sometimes I think Martin writes articles to sensationalize, rather that provide information. This isn’t the first time I have e-mailed Martin about clearly incorrect statements made on his site, including one I wrote in the last few weeks all of which were ignored.  Although Martin states:  “… I love hearing from my readers”, I guess he doesn’t love hearing from me. This time he went way to far.)

When I read Michael’s first paragraph I was frankly disappointed.  Not because he was critical of me, but because he wasn’t very specific in his allegations, except to say that I was prone to “sensationalize,” rather than inform.

Just in case the irony of being accused of sensationalizing things by Michael Pines is lost on you, you probably don’t know that Michael Pines was a San Diego lawyer representing homeowners in foreclosure until he was disbarred for advising his clients who had lost their homes to foreclosure and been evicted, to break into their homes and simply move back in.

Now, I want to be very clear that it’s not like Michael was doing this under the cover of darkness, it was his way of protesting what was happening to homeowners.  He would stage these break-in-move-back-ins, notifying local law enforcement of his plans in advance and then calling the media so reporters could be on hand for the event.

PINES

When the San Diego Union Tribune wrote about his trial, they described Michael as a “national headline grabber,” which he certainly was.  That’s him above in handcuffs and the blue jailhouse jumpsuit awaiting his trial.  Here’s what the San Diego newspaper had to say…

A North County attorney who advised evicted homeowners to retake possession of their foreclosed homes has been sentenced in two criminal cases and has been disbarred, authorities say.

National-headline grabber Michael T. Pines was given three years’ probation in those cases on Nov. 26. Those cases involved charges of stalking, violating a restraining order, sending an extortion letter, practicing law with a suspended license and trespassing, all counts that Pines pleaded guilty to, said prosecutor James Romo.

Pines’ unconventional ideas made national news in 2010 when he helped clients break into their repossessed homes and reoccupy them. He has told the U-T San Diego and other media outlets he’s gone through this process about 70 times.

So, when I read his first paragraph accusing ME of sensationalizing things, I’ll admit… I felt a little bit flattered.  I mean, Michael Pines is like the P.T. Barnum of the foreclosure crisis, so it was like being called “Slugger” by Babe Ruth or Mohamed Ali.

I was really hoping for some sort of specificity, however, as opposed to merely the naked accusation because if I knew what I sensationalized so effectively, at least I’d know what to duplicate next time I wanted to sensationalize something.

Anyway… it’s a minor point.

Michael then says that I stated that Glaski was “rejected” by the court, that I implied that Glaski would not be followed by the court, and that the court relied on the Gomes and Jenkins cases.

Well, that’s mostly correct.  I definitely did state that the court rejected the rationale in Glaski in favor of the decisions in the Gomes and Jenkins cases.  But I only said those things BECAUSE THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

However, I don’t think I “implied” that “Glaski would not be followed by any specific court in the future.”  In fact, what I said word for word was…

“… the question is, will other California courts consider the case persuasive… and tend to follow the more established case law.”

“Maybe it’ll all get decided by the state’s Supreme Court and it’ll just be one way… or the other.”

I don’t know, but if anyone read those sentences and thought that I was implying that courts would not follow Glaski in the future, please consider asking your loved ones for Hooked-on-Phonics as a gift this holiday season.  And remember, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Michael refers to whatever I said about the case as “nonsense,” but he also references another entity who was similarly concerned about the apparent conflict in the law created by Glaski, and he provides a link to the law firm, Locke & Lord.  Ever hear of them?  No?

Well allow me to make the introduction…

Locke Lord is a full-service, international law firm with offices in Atlanta, Austin, Chicago, Dallas, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, Sacramento, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Our team of approximately 650 attorneys has earned a solid national reputation in complex litigation, regulatory and transactional work. We serve our clients’ interests first, and these clients range from Fortune 500 and middle market public and private companies to start-ups and emerging businesses.

Locke Lord consistently ranks among the top 100 law firms nationally in the annual AmLaw 100 (American Lawyer) list, currently listed at No. 69 in 2013.

Among Locke Lord’s many strong practice areas are appellate, aviation, bankruptcy/restructuring/insolvency, business litigation and dispute resolution, class action litigation, consumer finance, corporate, employee benefits, energy, environmental, financial services, health care, insurance and reinsurance, intellectual property, international, labor and employment, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, public law, real estate, regulatory, REIT, tax, technology, and white collar criminal defense and internal investigations.

 

Yeah, I’d say they certainly look like a nonsensical law firm… 650 attorneys in offices from Washington D.C. and all over this country, to Hong Kong and London all just being Silly-Billys and nincompoops.  Their article on Glaski being rejected said…

In Diunugala v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. the United States District Court for the Southern District of California addressed this conflict, finding “the reasoning in [cases such as Jenkins and Gomes] to be more persuasive than that in Glaski.” The Court explained that these prior cases correctly found that a borrower who is not a party to an assignment lacks standing to challenge its validity.

“Diunugala is the first case coming out of a California court to expressly reject the California Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Glaski and deem Glaski unpersuasive.”

“… other State and Federal Courts in California may follow Diunugala as persuasive authority and similarly follow well-established case law holding that a borrower lacks standing to challenge an allegedly invalid assignment of a deed trust.”

Michael, however, says we’re all wrong and the basis for this is largely his claim that he’s familiar  with the judge in the Diunugala case, who he says is “incredibly strict about enforcing procedure.” 

That is all he did, and I was not at all surprised,” Michael says.

Oh, is that all he did, “enforce procedure?”  Well, he is a judge, after all, and since judges do have a tendency to do that sort of thing… you know… enforce procedure… I’m not surprised either.  Nice to find some common ground, anyway.

Michael then says that one of his “biggest frustrations in fighting for homeowners, perhaps the biggest, is that there are an enormous number of  “pocket attorneys” out there providing grossly incorrect information.  Often this information is relied on to scam people by the droves of scammers that are out there.”

Well, I don’t know what a “pocket attorney” is exactly, but I think he’s describing my biggest frustrations as well.  I dislike anyone who provides grossly incorrect information… you might even say that I’m a stickler for accuracy… and I HATE all scammers, but especially if they’re lawyers because in my mind… and I think even under the law… lawyers should be held to a higher standard.

In fact, my HATE for scammers is why I’ve devoted so much of my time to producing “SCAM PREVENTION PODCASTS,” featuring such well-known attorneys as Max Gardner, Tom Cox and Margery Golant, to say nothing of the hundreds of articles I’ve written to straighten things out for homeowners.

Michael then acknowledges that I am always careful to write the “usual disclaimer” stating that I am not a lawyer, which is sort of true.  I guess I don’t think of it as a “disclaimer,” as much as me bragging about having made some very good choices in my life.

Then he says that my “publication of articles that are just plain wrong can be misleading and cause concern, where none is justified.”

Okay, now thems fightin’ words.

First of all, I think the use of the plural, as in “articles,” requires specifics in order to rise above the level of baseless claim or insulting accusation.  But, for the moment Michael only offers his views of this Glaski article, saying…

First and most importantly, the court did not reject Glaski in any way. All it said was that the homeowner had to plead more specific facts, and gave them leave to amend to do so.  I am confident they will be able to plead such facts and the case will move forward.  In legal terms, he gave them “leave to amend”.

 

The court didn’t reject Glaski?  Not in any way?  I mean, the court did reject something, no?  It dismissed the borrower’s claim that was based upon the assignment of a deed of trust to a securitized trust that allegedly occurred after the closing date of the trust.  That sure sounds like it had something to do with Glaski to me.

And the judge did write the sentence…

“… found the reasoning in [cases such as Jenkins and Gomes] to be more persuasive than that in Glaski.” 

And the attorneys at Lord & Locke did say…

“Diunugala is the first case coming out of a California court to expressly reject the California Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Glaski and deem Glaski unpersuasive.”

“The Court explained that these prior cases correctly found that a borrower who is not a party to an assignment lacks standing to challenge its validity.”

But, no matter… Michael seems to be focused on the court granting the homeowner “leave to amend.”  He says, All it said was that the homeowner had to plead more specific facts…” 

He also graciously explains that leave to amend is a “legal term,” and I do appreciate him slowing down to explain those highly technical legal concepts to laypeople like myself.

(Some lawyers like to use Latin, which is exceptionally annoying.  Although since I did take five years of that dead language, here’s a tip you’ll want to remember for the next time a lawyer uses Latin for whatever reason… just reply: Vescere bracis meis.)

(It means, “Eat my shorts.”)

Look… granting leave to amend once isn’t really saying much of anything, is it?  Especially, considering that the plaintiff is a pro se litigant.  I mean, unless the homeowner is citing non-existent case law from the planet Zircon, the judge is going to give a pro se litigant a chance to fix it and return for their day in court, is that not correct, counselor?

Here’s what it says on U.S. Legal.com under defining “leave to amend”…

Leave to amend a pleading shall be freely given when justice so requires. This is generally interpreted to allow a plaintiff to at least amend his complaint one time in an attempt to state a cause of action unless, of course, it is clear that a plaintiff will not be able to state a cause of action. Ambiguities should be resolved in favor of allowing amendments unless and until it appears that the privilege to amend will be abused. [In re Forfeiture of One 1973 Mercedes Benz Motor Vehicle, 423 So. 2d 535, 537 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1982)]


And the court did NOT say, as Michael claims, “all the homeowner had to do was plead more specific facts.” 
In fact, that’s about the most euphemistic interpretation imaginable of what the court said in this case.

The court said… a plaintiff cannot assert a claim based upon an allegedly ineffective assignment of a deed of trust without alleging facts demonstrating that the deed of trust was not assigned in any manner or alleging resulting prejudice to the borrower.”

I wouldn’t describe that as just, “more specific facts.”  I might say that statement requires, “highly specific facts,” about the assignment and how the homeowner was damaged by the late assignment.

I realize that Michael says he’s very confident that the homeowner in this case will be able to plead the facts the court is looking for and that the case will proceed… but for the life of me, I have no idea why he feels that way, and he certainly didn’t explain it in his article written supposedly to set me straight.

Michael’s article then goes into his intention to publish a class action complaint he says can be used based on Glaski and New York trust law that has been approved as a class action by a court in Texas.

Why?  I don’t really know.

Towards the end Michael says, “There in fact are things to worry about concerning Glaski, as the banks attack it, but the decision Martin writes about clearly isn’t.”

And based on that comment, I’m not entirely sure Michael even understood the point of my article.  I wasn’t worried about anyone attacking Glaski based on this decision.  The two have no relationship to each other whatsoever.

My point about this recent decision is that it does show that even with Glaski having prevailed, that doesn’t necessarily mean that if you bring a case in California alleging a late transfer into a trust… hopefully a New York trust, by the way… it doesn’t mean you will prevail as well.

So, if anyone tells you that because of Glaski, you should file a similar suit because victory is in any way assured… run the other direction.

 

CLOSING POINTS… 

Michael closes out “cautioning” readers of Mandelman Matters because he says, although I do provide “tons of good information,” in his experience I am “often wrong and overly sensationalistic.”

You know, the way he says that, I’m starting to think he means that in a pejorative sense, but again… with no examples of what he’s talking about, it’s hard to say with certainty what he means.

When it’s Michael Pines who’s calling you “overly sensationalistic,” it’s difficult to know whether he’s complementing you and is feeling a little professional jealousy, or whether he’s trying to say something else.  Just consider the story below from the American Bar Association Law Journal about Michael…

According to the ABA Law Journal

A disbarred California lawyer who has repeatedly been accused of helping clients break into their foreclosed homes has taken a plea deal in another real estate-related case that will keep him out of prison.

Michael T. Pines pleaded guilty to extortion, unauthorized practice of law and trespassing and was given a suspended three-year prison term and three years of probation, with conditions, according to the Associated Press and the North County Times.

At issue was the home of former NFL player Robert Otis Griffith, whose Rancho Santa Fe house was put into a trustee’s hands after he declared bankruptcy. Pines was accused of sending emails demanding more than $1 million from a couple who were leasing the home.

 

I mean, come on… this guy is over-the-top, don’t you think?  Do you know even one other foreclosure defense lawyer that generates that kind of press?  Honestly, I can’t believe he hasn’t already been booked on Leno.

He represents a former NFL football player and after the guy loses his home to foreclosure, Michael billed the people leasing the home over a million bucks, and lands himself in jail charged with extortion.  I missed the whole media circus that went on in Rancho Santa Fe, but I’m told it was worth the price of admission.

There he is below in that familiar blue jailhouse jumpsuit… and by the way, I think it’s a good look for him.  Not just anyone could pull it off.

PINES 4

So, when Michael also says that I’m entertaining… it’s a pretty big complement, because this is a guy who knows entertainment.  And not only that… he says he thinks I’m so entertaining that my entertainment value is what’s most valuable about my blog.

So, that was an awfully nice thing for him to say, I thought, except that now I’m really feeling the pressure to be even more entertaining going forward.  (This must be what Jerry Seinfeld feels like.)

Regardless, it’s always best to err on the side of caution, so please… do exercise extreme caution whenever reading Mandelman Matters… it is not a safe environment for children and likewise for many adults. And if a piano falls on you while reading me, it’s not my fault and I’m not paying you a dime.  (See, that was pretty entertaining, right?)

There is one more point Michael raised in the very beginning that I didn’t respond to up front.  He said…

“This isn’t the first time I have e-mailed Martin about clearly incorrect statements made on his site, including one I wrote in the last few weeks all of which were ignored.  Although Martin states:  “… I love hearing from my readers,” I guess he doesn’t love hearing from me.”

 

Well, as soon as I read that I immediately went to my emails to find when in the past he has sent me anything about “clearly incorrect statements” made on my site.

I went through all of my emails from him dating back to the very first one, which I received on August 31, 2010, when I first heard from him, but I couldn’t find a single one saying anything about “clearly incorrect” statements made on my blog.  And I looked through every single email I’ve ever received from him.

He wrote that first time in August of 2010, to ask me to send him a copy of a court order from the Marques case that I had just written about.

Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 12.51.40 AM

However, in his article, he said he sent me one in the last “few weeks,” so it could be that his sense of time passing is a little shaky, because I found one email that has to be the one he’s referring to… but he wrote it on NOVEMBER 11, 2013… which was TWO DAYS before I got this morning’s email telling me how very wrong I was about the Glaski case.

Maybe he meant two days instead of two weeks?  Or maybe he didn’t think I would keep all the emails I’ve ever received… I don’t know… but the email is below and it references an article I wrote on February 14, 2011.

Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 2.11.38 AM

So, are you following this… Michael is writing to me on November 11, 2013… roughly TWO TEARS and NINE MONTHS AFTER I WROTE THE ARTICLE HE SAYS IS WRONG, to tell me that although “all gurus, including him,” have been teaching people about the decision I wrote about for years, and that it has been cited to courts thousands of times… and it hasn’t worked.

He offers to tell me why if I give him a shout.  I neglected to get back to him within 48 hours of his offering to tell me why something hasn’t worked that I wrote about almost THREE YEARS AGO… something that HE AND ALL THE GURUS have been teaching for years.

So, that’s his example of having written to me before to point out the “clearly incorrect statements made on (my) site.”

In other words, when I wrote the article in question, it was obviously correct, because HE AND ALL THE GURUS have been teaching it for years, but it hasn’t ended up working in the courts.  And that’s his example of me making clearly incorrect statements?

What about HIM AND ALL THE GURUS that have been teaching it for years?  Isn’t it HIM AND ALL THE GURUS that have been wrong all these years for “teaching it?”

I’d really appreciate it if you’d click on the link to the article Michael is referencing here: New Bankruptcy Court Decision Sounds the Alarm – The USS MERS is Going Down.  I want you to click on it because I want you to see what is there.

It’s probably the most detailed account of the AGARD decision ever written for homeowners, in the country.  It’s incredibly long, looks like it probably took me at least a week to write… and it’s been read on my blog alone 21,622 times… received 86 Likes, 19 Tweets and 75 Shares.  No one has ever said a word about any of my facts being incorrect… because they’re not.

It even has a song in the middle sung to the tune of The Good Ship Titanic…

Oh, they built the good ship MERS so foreclosures could sail through,

And they thought they had a plan that the courts would never see through,

But, some lawyers learned hands, showed that MERS just didn’t stand,

We were glad when the MERS ship went down.


OKAY, HERE’S THE DEAL…

If ANYONE can find anything close to what I wrote 2 years and 9 months ago about the AGARD decision and MERS… anything as detailed and complete, written for homeowners… anything read anywhere near as many times… 

… and I’ll come to your home, cook you dinner and clean you house in a French Maid costume wearing heels…

… and I’ll scrub the floors with a toothbrush while singing the Edith Piaf version of La Vie En Rose… in the original French, of course. (Click that blue type to hear Edith sing it like no one else can.)

FRENCH

Got it?  Does it seem like I’m nervous about losing that bet? 

Right, I’m not… go to town… scour the Internet.  And by the way… every FACT in that incredibly long and detailed article is CORRECT. Michael saying that almost three years later the courts haven’t bought the argument from the AGARD has NOTHING to do with my article’s accuracy.

PINES MIC

There’s Michael in front of his well-placed mics as he tells the media about what he’s about to do… like break into a home he doesn’t own on camera.  Last February, California Lawyer wrote the following about Pines

One of his most loyal supporters puts it this way: “He doesn’t recognize when he is going off the track,” says Moveon.org organizer Carolyn Zellander. “He has been in counseling and is learning that part of himself.” 

Pines managed to convince himself that by turning the house break-ins into media events, he could shame the government and banks into “doing the right thing.” Or so he says.

“People say to me, ‘You’re really a funny criminal, every time you commit a crime, you call the press in to record it.”

Although [Pines] is a seasoned attorney, he seems to have lost his ability to distinguish between zealous advocacy and lawlessness.” (Judge Honn, commenting In the Matter of Pines, No. 11-TE-10948, order filed Apr. 28, 2011.  Pines was disbarred.)

 In 2011, for example, Pines was charged with stalking a purchaser of a house in Carlsbad that his clients lost in foreclosure.

But that did not deter him from speaking out in court for most of an hour about a series of purported criminal conspiracies, as well as accusations that San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis was aiding and abetting banks in the theft of people’s homes.

“I don’t want to insult you,” the judge finally said to Pines, “but frankly … in some areas, I think you are delusional.”

(Pines never proved any misfeasance on the part of Dumanis or the San Diego County DA’s office, but he did plead guilty to criminal stalking, violating a temporary restraining order, and interfering with a police officer.) 

PINES ARE YOU OFF YOUR MEDICATION?  OR ARE YOU HIGH ON SOMETHING?  DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT DAY THIS IS?  WHAT MONTH?  DO YOU NEED TO LIE DOWN?
DID YOU SERIOUSLY JUST WASTE MY TIME LIKE THIS… FOR NOTHING?


You used to be a lawyer, remember any Latin?  Try this:

CHAINED

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

 (It means: “If Ceasar were alive, you’d be chained to an oar.”)

 

IN MICHAEL’S OWN WORDS… 

By the way, Michael has emailed me quite a few times since August of 2010, and he seems to have fluctuated somewhat in terms of his opinion of my accuracy.

Check out the email below… he sent it to Teri Witcraft, a Senior Producer at ABC News on July 11, 2012… and he copied me on his email… this is worth a look…

In his email he says…

“I just spoke with Martin Mandelman of Mandelman Matters.  In my opinion, he is one of the very few in the foreclosure industry that is absolutely immaculate about making sure his facts are correct and writes very precisely and with care (a writer by trade and not a lawyer.)  His integrity is the highest.

When you are here, I would appreciate it if you would take a little time to meet with him and myself.”

Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 1.06.53 AM

He also must have thought pretty highly of me as recently as last February, when he said he had joined a new company and sent me the email below to talk about buying Mandelman Matters.  He says, among other things… 

“We are very well finder and are also interested in doing buyouts of existing companies such as yours.”  I would be interested in talking to you about a strategic alliance or possibly buying you out.”

 Screen Shot 2013-11-14 at 1.09.19 AM

 

MY FINAL WORDS… 

Michael… My facts are always accurate… always, as in every single time. You on the other hand are a babbling brook… with questionable reading comprehension skills. 

YOU SAID I WAS WRONG ABOUT MOST OF MY ARTICLE, THAT THIS TIME I HAD GONE TOO FAR… THAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO POST AN ARTICLE SHOWING THE WORLD THAT I WAS WRONG… AND AFTER ALL THAT BUILD UP…  NOT ONLY DID YOU FAIL TO PRESENT A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF MY FACTS BEING WRONG, BUT YOU BARELY EVEN MADE SENSE.

… ALL YOU’VE DONE IS BLATHERED MINDLESSLY, WASTED MY TIME… AND DEMONSTRATED TO EVERYONE READING THIS THAT YOUR ELEVATOR DOESN’T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP FLOOR.

… UNBELIEVABLE.

I don’t really know what your deal is, but I’m damn sure that it’s difficult to pronounce.  AND DON’T DO THIS AGAIN.  IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, ASK IT.  IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT, MAKE IT.  YOU WANT TO DEBATE SOMETHING… START DEBATING.

BUT, IF YOU EVER SHOW UP THREATENING ME AGAIN, YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST CHANGE YOUR NAME AND RETIRE TO SOMEWHERE THEY DON’T HAVE THE INTERNET… BECAUSE I WILL TEACH YOU A LESSON THEY DON’T COVER IN LAW SCHOOL, OR ON THE STREETS OF SAN DIEGO… DUDE.

Oh, and let’s try one more Latin lesson, shall we?

Commodum habitus es.

 

Mandelman out.

(It means: You have just been owned.)

 


Page Rank