I paid Mr. Brinckerhoff to represent me in court for a civil matter since I could not realistically be there myself because I do not live near that court. I spoke with him on the phone and specifically told him, “I need someone to represent me in court for a hearing regarding a motion I filed to dismiss a fraudulent foreign judgment against me.” I also spoon-fed him all the case and statutory law and told him about the overwhelming amount of fraud and corruption in the matter, all of which he disregarded. He could not even find crucial case law about which I told him.
Two days before the hearing, he told me he’d not be appearing in court since my motion “will be passed.” If so, then why did he take my money? He said he spent “9.5-plus hours” on the case and that the “retainer has been more than fully used.” That’s ridiculous, especially when I spoon-fed him all the statutory and case law! He should’ve told me beforehand that he wanted to perform more than one full work day of “research” to educate himself on the relevant law. If he had, I would’ve never paid him in the first place.
I specifically wanted someone to represent me in court—which I told him—not someone to learn fraud and collections 101 on my dime. Effectively, what he’s done is analogous to someone who takes his car to a service center because it is in dire need to have its brakes replaced. Instead of replacing the brakes, the repair tech changes all the filters and tells the customer he wasn’t sure how to replace a couple of them and had to search his repair manuals. Regardless of whether the filters were actually replaced or not, this is not the service the customer wanted or needed, and he shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Moreover, he said untrue things. He said I “retained the unrecorded deed” for a property I conveyed to someone else. I never said any such thing and never kept the deed. He also said I “kept personally all rents” from that property, which I also never said and which is not true. I am paid to manage the property, but all rents go directly into the owner’s bank account. Additionally, he said “You now have legal and criminal issues with the trustee you need to solve.” I’m not sure why he would think there were criminal issues to resolve unless he spoke to others involved in the matter and listened to their nonsensical claims. Certainly, there are criminal issues—just not where he is alleging. All such issues lie elsewhere in the original MA case.
Despite his incompetence, I offered to let him keep $250, but I said he would need to return the rest. He most likely concocted the story about spending all that time on the case as a smokescreen because he didn’t want to appear in court and argue the merits based on fraud. Nearly everyone who is part of the system pretends fraud and corruption doesn’t exist and will ignore it, just as he is doing. He has called me “stupid” and made other condescending remarks. I have far more experience in the legal system than he has—in more states, in more areas of law, and in more courts.
He was very eager for me to send him money. He said during our first conversation, “What can you send me? Can you do $1,200 or $1,500?” This is something a shyster, not a reputable lawyer, would say. That was a red flag. He was free to decline taking my case, but not after I paid him to represent me in court and then choose not to return my retainer after he decided not to go. He has insanely advised me to just roll over and pay a fraudulent creditor in a case wherein I’m 100 percent correct and have all the evidence to prove it. All other lawyers said I have a “slam dunk,” but those lawyers were not available for the hearing. If Mr. Brinckerhoff was a criminal defense attorney, he would probably tell his clients, “Just sit on this funny chair. You won’t feel a thing.”
For those interested, the case originating all of this is a toxic cauldron of fraud and corruption. An open letter is here: www.stloiyf.com/evidence/letter.htm.
Law Office Of Nelson Brinckerhoff Reviews
I paid Mr. Brinckerhoff to represent me in court for a civil matter since I could not realistically be there myself because I do not live near that court. I spoke with him on the phone and specifically told him, “I need someone to represent me in court for a hearing regarding a motion I filed to dismiss a fraudulent foreign judgment against me.” I also spoon-fed him all the case and statutory law and told him about the overwhelming amount of fraud and corruption in the matter, all of which he disregarded. He could not even find crucial case law about which I told him.
Two days before the hearing, he told me he’d not be appearing in court since my motion “will be passed.” If so, then why did he take my money? He said he spent “9.5-plus hours” on the case and that the “retainer has been more than fully used.” That’s ridiculous, especially when I spoon-fed him all the statutory and case law! He should’ve told me beforehand that he wanted to perform more than one full work day of “research” to educate himself on the relevant law. If he had, I would’ve never paid him in the first place.
I specifically wanted someone to represent me in court—which I told him—not someone to learn fraud and collections 101 on my dime. Effectively, what he’s done is analogous to someone who takes his car to a service center because it is in dire need to have its brakes replaced. Instead of replacing the brakes, the repair tech changes all the filters and tells the customer he wasn’t sure how to replace a couple of them and had to search his repair manuals. Regardless of whether the filters were actually replaced or not, this is not the service the customer wanted or needed, and he shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Moreover, he said untrue things. He said I “retained the unrecorded deed” for a property I conveyed to someone else. I never said any such thing and never kept the deed. He also said I “kept personally all rents” from that property, which I also never said and which is not true. I am paid to manage the property, but all rents go directly into the owner’s bank account. Additionally, he said “You now have legal and criminal issues with the trustee you need to solve.” I’m not sure why he would think there were criminal issues to resolve unless he spoke to others involved in the matter and listened to their nonsensical claims. Certainly, there are criminal issues—just not where he is alleging. All such issues lie elsewhere in the original MA case.
Despite his incompetence, I offered to let him keep $250, but I said he would need to return the rest. He most likely concocted the story about spending all that time on the case as a smokescreen because he didn’t want to appear in court and argue the merits based on fraud. Nearly everyone who is part of the system pretends fraud and corruption doesn’t exist and will ignore it, just as he is doing. He has called me “stupid” and made other condescending remarks. I have far more experience in the legal system than he has—in more states, in more areas of law, and in more courts.
He was very eager for me to send him money. He said during our first conversation, “What can you send me? Can you do $1,200 or $1,500?” This is something a shyster, not a reputable lawyer, would say. That was a red flag. He was free to decline taking my case, but not after I paid him to represent me in court and then choose not to return my retainer after he decided not to go. He has insanely advised me to just roll over and pay a fraudulent creditor in a case wherein I’m 100 percent correct and have all the evidence to prove it. All other lawyers said I have a “slam dunk,” but those lawyers were not available for the hearing. If Mr. Brinckerhoff was a criminal defense attorney, he would probably tell his clients, “Just sit on this funny chair. You won’t feel a thing.”
For those interested, the case originating all of this is a toxic cauldron of fraud and corruption. An open letter is here: www.stloiyf.com/evidence/letter.htm.