RagingBull.com, Jason Bond, Jeff Bishop, and Kyle Dennis have been charged with fraud.

You know, I totally believe that.

Although 20 years between Federal complaints for fraud really doesn’t make anything a “rite of passage.” But I’ve been a defense attorney for 30 years and encountered that attitude, albeit usually with clients criminally charged… mostly trafficking or drug conspiracy clients. It’s an indicator of a hermetically sealed bubble world this kind of people choses to live in. Where up is down and left is right.

Kind of like a Democrat.

You probably know best, because if you’ve “spoken to people from both organizations” you’re likely an actor in either one. Product manager? Copy writer? Don’t matter. If you were not named as a party in the suit, you are in a subordinate role and don’t have to worry much.

In my experience, being put through the ringer by Feds for over a year is a harrowing experience. No client of mine ever came out the same.

Not sure if I, as a sworn officer of the court, should be insulted by you equating my profession to unscrupulous marketers and film-flam men.

I am bound by the law and by the ethical rules of my profession. A dollar misappropriated from a client’s escrow account or a promise I cannot keep can cost me my license and my livelihood. If I don’t have my case law at hand arguing in court, I will damage my client & endanger my reputation, which is pretty much everything you have in this job.

My career would be over if a respected Federal judge expressly and on the record questioned my credibility. In your job (it’s not a profession), you just go on to make millions continuing your schemes with minor tweaks.

Until you get McCorkle’d by the Feds.

Now compare this to a copy writer. Someone who calls dividend stocks “Congressional checks”, bamboozles an elderly lady to put $4.95 on a cc (for “shipping & handling” of an emailed report), timing cancellation dates so her negative option offer for a non-refundable, automatically renewed $99, $149 etc. kicks in. Or sells surefire unproven, entirely made up trading systems to rubes for $5k based on a made-up record. Puh-leaze.

(Now I AM offended!)

If you engage in commercial speech, that speech is not unregulated. Ask any 2L law student. Get yourself a used Constitutional Law text book and read up on the very basics.

Maybe you’ll get the difference. But if you don’t… that means you’ve already bought into the bubble. That means you’re stuck with it. Bc no-one else knows anything about your business and your skills do not transplant anywhere but to another scam outfit.

Quite honestly, I don’t really give a flying f*ck what “many” people think about attorneys. Based on my experience, if they need one, they can’t get one fast enough, and money usually is not an issue.

It’s because you actually NEED an attorney on occasion. (Just ask Agora and RB.)

On the other hand, I’ve never heard anyone say, “honey, we’re out of newsletters. Can you pick some fresh lies on your way home?”

My terms are clear and, as per the non-negotiable Rules of Professional Conduct, my fee structure is transparent, my fees accounted for down to 6-min. increments. Indeed, I make clear from the first consultation, that there are no guarantees of success and there are no refunds for time spent and billed, court fees etc. Not in the fine print, with pre-checked boxes and hidden automatic renewals but in face-to-face, term-by-term explanation with/to the client.

In fact, when I take a contingency case (all civil, of course), I charge nothing unless there is an award of damages to the client. (Hmmm, I wonder if you have tried that in your business…)

As to “spinning facts” — the facts are the facts. It’s how they relate to the elements of a crime or tort, to due process, 4th, 5th, 6th, 14th Amendment case law and all that good stuff you don’t really learn about when you watch Judge Judy. You can’t just blow stuff out your ass, as in direct response marketing. (“Himalayan Silk”…)

So the only thing your job (given your emotional need to defend scammers, I assume you’re a marketer or some such creature) and my profession is that we both deal with people who lie. I deal with clients and you deal with copy writers and your publishers.

Difference, I know that everybody lies and act accordingly. You actually delude yourself that your industry lies are reality, no, even “good for you”.

Also: Opening the door to rebuttal witnesses by highlighting the “positive aspects of [my] client’s character”?? Maybe in a sentencing, VOP or parole hearing. Think about it.

Believe me, I do understand your psychological need to throw shade at my profession.

After all, my dear colleagues at the FTC and at the AG’s of PA, OR, & PA just in the past 2 years forced the two most egregious scoundrels of your predatory industry to grovel, “agree” to “voluntary” fines in excess of actual damages, AND to (indirectly) concede that their lack of ethics requires the Federal government to oversee their marketing efforts and customer relations for the next 10-20 years.

That must smart, almost as badly as now having to pretend to put in an honest day’s work.

(Sure, your postings here and what I’ve seen of your former colleagues on job sites, indicate that their assent to brutal terms, too, may have been fraudulent. None of my beeswax, I’m sure future breach-of-contract litigation will resolve that, especially now that injured consumers could also sue as third-party beneficiaries to the agreements.)

I also agree with you that the legal profession demands certain psychological qualities of their practitioners: The adversarial system requires of us that we fully and dedicatedly defend the most vile characters in society. Fentanyl dealers, human traffickers, killers, child abusers.

Not easy, if you have a sense of right and wrong. But somebody’s gotta do it. The sacrifices we make…

But honestly, while I’ll always defend the constitutional rights of a contract killer, I have always drawn the line at defending white collar crooks, conmen, and direct marketers. I can ignore a lot of bad odors, but the stench of direct marketing financial services is too much even for my asbestos olfactory nerves.

So, little boy, you’re now dismissed: Go back to figuring out how to swindle your next paycheck from a retired church lady with cancer! (“Himalayan silk!!”)

Now, now, little fellah. Don’t get your frilly panties in a bunch, wipe that spittle from the corners of your mouth, and simmer down from your temper tantrum.

First, why would I “bind[ly] hate” financial marketers. It’s such an inflationarily used cliché. I don’t “hate” something unappetizing or foul smelling, don’t “hate” the dog excrement on the pavement or the bubbly green sputum on the handrail. I kinda wrinkle my nose, suppress a gag reflex when necessary, shudder in silence, and try not to come into contact with it. Maybe warn my kid not to step in it.

Same with financial direct marketers or the guy from “Microsoft Technical Service” who calls 3x a week to scam my personal info: I kinda gag and hold my nose and hang up.

See, no blind hatred here.

As to reading the pleadings: Of course I read everything. Lawyers who don’t read don’t last long in the business. And I certainly didn’t envy my colleagues retained by RB who had to polish that particular turd, err, try to get the case dismissed responding to the complaint.

(Then again, they got paid extremely well, so my compassion is kinda small.)

As to what the FTC said was true, I refer you to Section VII (“Additionally Monetary Provisions”) (B), at 12-13 of the Proposed Stipulated Order, where the RB defendants assert: “The facts alleged in the Complaint will be taken as true, without further proof, in any susequent civil litigation by or on behalf of the Commission, including blahblahblah”.

So don’t blame me.

I’d consider my law school tuition entirely wasted if I were to purchase an “education” from an unaccredited “institution” or “academy” based on completely unaudited numbers.

Let’s call it a macabre interest, sparked by my dad’s initial curiosity in “Who Killed Vincent Foster,” refreshed, years later while reading appellate opinions from the 4th Circuit…

What you are saying is that Kyle Dennis has more spine than your 2 JB’s combined?

You mean the “billion-dollar empire” and the “fastest growing company” with $100mil+ p.a. revenues and tapped into unlimited earnings potential thanks to the trading acumen of their gurus rolls over when the Feds say “boo”?