ANOTHER BOGUS ATTORNEY BITES THE DUST

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (July 9, 2008) – Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo announced his office has obtained a settlement that shuts down a Rochester woman’s unlicensed law practice. The settlement follows an investigation that found that Kathleen Johnson, of Broderick Drive in Rochester, operated a business out of her residence and repeatedly gave erroneous and conflicting legal bankruptcy and financial advice to consumers and received compensation for these activities, which can only be performed by a licensed attorney. Johnson also gave specific advice to consumers dealing with Bankruptcy Court proceedings despite having been previously prohibited to do so by the Office of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York. Johnson has also been the subject of several small claims judgments obtained by consumers.

“This woman victimized Monroe County residents by representing herself as a licensed attorney and a legitimate financial advisor,” said Attorney General Cuomo. “Consumers with legal or financial issues need qualified, licensed professionals to handle their affairs and ensure that they are not duped by those seeking to benefit off their misfortune.”

The Attorney General’s settlement requires Johnson to pay $5,000 in penalties and costs, plus restitution to any consumer who files a complaint by November 4, 2008. She is also permanently banned from acting as financial crisis consultant in the credit services business and must provide the Attorney General’s office with the name and type of any business she owns or operates for the next five years. Additionally, she must also supply periodic compliance statements to the Attorney General’s office. (nysoag)

Comments

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog