Gisel
Jersey City,#2Consumer Suggestion
Wed, March 06, 2002
While reading the complaint and the response of the devotee, I could not help but notice how the devotee's comments are simply defensive and irrelevant to the complaint. The devotee offers no solution or structured defense for the firm in question. The devotee used the rebuttal as a tool for offending and degrading the victims decisionmaking and as a mean for defending her role and actions in the matter. The complaint was of W&B, not the devotee. When responding with a rebuttal it should be in defence of the firm not herself. Her technicalities are trivial. The devotee's rebuttal is illogically stated nonsence. The victim's complaint should be acknowledged and viewed as a lesson well learned. His money should be returned. Anything that goes through court is never uncontested.
Sandra
newark,#3Consumer Comment
Wed, February 20, 2002
I am acquainted with both the victim and the devotee. I am also familiar with the situation at hand. The victim was in need of a divorce and unfortunately accepted what was offered to him by the lawyers. Unaware of the entire legal structure behind a divorce, any one in need of something would concsiously accept the advice of the professionals they are hiring to get the job done. W&B adviced the victim to allow the devotee to become the plaintiff so that the supposed uncontested divorce would fall through alot faster. Add to that the reassurance of being able to contact the lawyers whenever about whatever, and ofcourse the victim will agree. After all,the victim was hiring them for expert legal advice. The devotee in this case was the plaintiff of an uncontested divorce. The devotee is who opened a family court case while being the plaintiff of an UNCONTESTED DIVORCE. Now, does this make sence? A complete contradiction. Regardless of the relationship between the victim and the devotee, there is no excuse for malpractice. The firm should not have advised anyone to allow another to become the plaintiff while reassuring them that they would remain the client of that firm. They took advantage of the victim and misleaded the victim. The divorce never occured, yet W&B kept the money and offered no solution to this case. The solution: don't ever attempt to come to terms with anyone you do not trust. I do not advise anyone to contact Wilens & Baker for an uncontested divorce. Also, educate yourself about legal procedures before pursuing legal representation. As for the devotee's comments: This person's comments are in summary an attempt to mock the victim. ". . .that is what happens when you want something bad enough and you don't think first" her endeavors were soley motivated by mischief and deciet. Her words clearly announce and confirm that the victim was ripped off. Her attempt to justify the victim's misfortune by stating his lack of knowledge about the matter, only strengthens the victim's complaint. Wilens & Baker saw an opportunity to gain easy money and accomplished it. The devotee is childish in her manner of describing the event and is simply happy that she accomplished what she intended to do --- not give the divorce.
#40
Wed, June 06, 2001
This email is a rebuttal to RipOff #5321. It was sent by CRYSTAL MOLINA at [email protected]. Wilens & Baker Attorneys ----- Divorce Case Rip Off Liar Lawyers (#5321) They filed the following rebuttal to the above Rip-Off Report: Their email: [email protected] Their name: CRYSTAL MOLINA Their phone number: 718 739-9332 Their relationship to the company: Devotee Rebuttal: I KNOW THIS PERSON AND I AM THE PLANTIF IN THIS CASE. BY LAW HE IS NOT SUPPOSE TO ANY ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE DIVORCE. HE WENT IN THE LAWYERS ACTING PSYCHO. OF COURSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO HELP HIM AFTER THAT AND HE MADE SUCH A BIG DEAL THEY THOUGHT HE WAS THE CLIENT. 2ND OF ALL THEY WERE ALSO CONFUSED OVER THE MATTER BECAUSE THEY WERE WONDERING WHY WAS HE PAYING FOR THE DIVORCE BUT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WANT SOMETHING BAD ENOUGH AND YOU DON'T THINK FIRST. ALSO I WAS THE CLIENT BECAUSE HE WAS BASE ON CRUEL AND INHUMAN TREATMENT WAS THE GROUNDS. THAT IS HOW I BECAME THE CLIENT. ALSO THEIR IS FALSE INFORMATION IN HIS CLAIM AGAINST THEM BECAUSE HE WENT TO THESE SAME LAWYERS ABOUT 2YRS AGO. THANK YOU