fraud\scam or good service??

Here we go....

I did work with S&L for a short period prior to the acquisition so the BBB info is correct.
The firm to my knowledge has been devolved and no longer relevant.

What Mark Silverthorn does for a living is up to Mark Silverthorn.
Sheila Cockburn does manage the affairs of C&A and the firms new office location is the Toronto address.

I have not explained the S&L contract.... I provided the C&A enrollment process.

This is an accurate copy of the S&L Service Agreement and it was only provided to Canadians.

Based on what I have learned over the years I would disagree with a few of Steve's opinions. For the most part Steve relies on a certain amount controversy and no one other than Steve and a few others can really argue that.

You talk a lot about and make reference to the ABA....both S&L and C&A are/were Canadian law firms. How does US law apply?

With a due respect.. The more and more I read the more I wonder why you waisted your time on all this, S&L is history, it was a Canadian law firm. C&A is a Canadian law firm, Shelia is a member of the NY bar and admitted to practice in Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba and a member in good standing in NY and each province.

Michael Lupolover is another story in and of itself. His practice revolves around FDCPA violations in the US and a limited contingency debt relief program...case closed.

Mr. Lupolover is a member of several state bar associations and does have a Foreign Legal Consultant Permit issued by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

I work under the direct supervision of Shelia Cockburn.

Loan modifications, not to my knowledge. Let's keep our eye on the ball shall we.... I'm here for one reason and one reason only, to address any current or former clients that find themselves here based on an Internet query so that I may provide assistance if possible. If that means addressing an individual dispute or simply answering questions I've made myself available.

Best regards,
Mike

If you are only supplying contracts to Canadian residents living in Canada, then I have little more to say as I am not a Canadian.

If you are representing yourself as a debt adjustment company law firm, then I would suggest to anyone you contact within the United States that they may need to have separate representation before signing a contract with your firm.  The reasons they may perhaps need separate counsel are because you may not be licensed to be a debt adjuster in the jurisdiction in which they are located (if that is required, as it is in New Jersey), because they may not be getting the full legal representation they think they are getting, and because there are likely to be non-profit debt adjustment companies that can do what you do, possibly at a fraction of the cost. (If I were Canadian, I would still probably want to have separate representation for these very same reasons.)

But you say the contract was offered only to Canadians, so I just leave my statement above as a precaution for anyone in the United States tempted to use a debt adjustment law firm having its primary office outside the United States and/or that offers its services for a profit.

As to the relevance of U.S. laws, your firm's web site also gives the address of a Cockburn & Associate Law office in New Jersey.  If you are actually holding your services out as a law practice with a U.S. office, then the U.S. office is subject to attorney laws, including ethics laws, of the state in which it is located (e.g., the laws for practicing law without a license), and/or the states in which its attorneys are licensed to practice (e.g., you can confine your practice to New York cases and clients if you are located in New Jersey and you are licensed in New York but not New Jersey).  

In any event, you may want to tell Ms. Cockburn that the registration information on her New York State Courts Attorney Registration may be incorrect and need updating unless she actually keeps a law office with the current registration address in New York State.  The registration says:

"Attorney Detail
as of 09/10/2013
Registration Number:    4479945
SHELIA ANNETTE COCKBURN
COCKBURN LAW P.C.
16 W 23RD ST FL 4
NEW YORK, NY 10010-5230
United States
(New York County)
(646) 395-7997"

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch

Thus, she may want to update her registration to instead show her office in New Jersey, or to update the web page to show the office in New York.

But if all you do is solicit Canadians (the web site does seem to say that), then go enjoy all the poutine you can eat.  I'm outta here.

I would hope that everyone reading these threads realizes that not-for-profit organizations earn money and that the not-for-profit designation for the most part is a tax status. There has been many a debate regarding this issue which surrounds the original creditors and debt buyers supporting these types of entities as compared to for-profit companies.

A nonprofit organization (US and UK),[1] or not-for-profit organization (UK and others), often called an NPO or simply a nonprofit and non-commercial organization (Russia and CIS[citation needed]), often called an NCO, is an organization that uses surplus revenues to achieve its goals rather than distributing them as profit or dividends. States in the United States defer to the IRS designation conferred under United States Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c), when the IRS deems an organization eligible.[2]
While not-for-profit organizations are permitted to generate surplus revenues, they must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or plans.[3] NPOs have controlling members or boards. Many have paid staff including management, while others employ unpaid volunteers and even executives who work with or without compensation (occasionally nominal).[4] Where there is a token fee, in general, it is used to meet legal requirements for establishing a contract between the executive and the organization.
Designation as a nonprofit and an intent to make money are not related in the United States. This means nothing can be inferred by the declaration. Such inference is the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 501(c). The extent to which an NPO can generate surplus revenues may be constrained or use of surplus revenues may be restricted.

Ms. Cockburn has a NY address on file for her NY practice, her Canadian practice has both a US and Canadian location and she frequents both facilities.

Best regards
Mike

So I'm assuming the owner or moderators removed the last few posts???

I get removing the post from LMFAO but the rest...why?

Funny, very funny!


Regards,
Mike

Yes, very likely Admin killed the troll post, as promptly as I'd predicted for you. With it fell replies in reaction. No great loss, they were way off topic. Got a problem with how Admin decided that move? There's a "contact" link in every page footer.

You are the one who came here a week ago so concerned about your statistical analysis of the thread commentors and click-clucking because not all of them "were actual clients of either firm". You are the one who wanted everyone to sit quietly and "reserve comment" while you took the floor for an indefinite period, as though any random user could impose a pseudo-Robert's Rules of Order upon a venue which is structured for informal group participation.

I won't start a lecture here on the widespread problem of unrealistic expectations, but I do wonder if you could manage to show a little gratitude when in at least one way the thread has regained the focus I'd thought you felt was lacking.

I am happy that the "trolls" arrogant post was removed.

The post below it served some purpose however, i'm confident it won't take long before I have the opportunity to make my point again.

Thank you Admin!

Mike

Either a fan or Mike must not have been able to make it to his computer and asked his wife to show up and sing high praises of him while attempting to discredit everyone else!

Nice attempt! LOL ... doesn't fly though!

ROFL!  Pot meet kettle..

Mike needs to learn the First Rule of Holes.

Excuse me, Linda. "...by these phonies!" -- WHAT alleged phonies?
I've yet seen anything that Mike has posted that convinces me the "falsehood" posted by ALLEGED "phonies" are, indeed, false.
It seems YOU are the one assuming all of Mike's words are truthful AND complete in the information he is choosing to post. YOU are assuming his analysis is 100% correct and/or that he is making it appear correct.

In fact, I see flaws in information that has already been posted but am withholding comment until
--ALL of the information requested is presented, 
--I have made time for ample review, and
--then Q&A is completed.
Until that point, I have NO reason to change my opinion of the company OR the purported benefits offered their clients.

And your shilling is irrelevant.  Dear.

And this was my point all along...how does anyone know who is who, more importantly, who is real?

The people how don't believe in the service to the left... The people who do to the right... How do you make heads or tails of this?

Mike

"But you're opinion is only a opinion ..." -- as is yours, "dear," and is JUST as relevant as yours :-) .

"...have completed their services as scheduled..." -- and yet, you've suddenly decided to check the number, and post NOW. How convenient...AND suspicious.

But, since you want to applaud the program, tell us this:
1-What were the totals of your bills BEFORE you signed with them?
2-How many creditors were associated with those bills?
3-What were totals of your bills WHEN they made settlement arrangements?
4-What was the total amount they actually paid on the settled amounts?
5-What was the total amount of fees/payments you made to the company?
6-How long were you in the program? (36 months?)
7-How many of your creditors sued and obtained judgments against you while the company was waiting to negotiate?
8-How many were they unable to negotiate to a lower amount?

(I'm not asking you to give each individual bill, an overall total is sufficient.  Nor am I requesting any personal information.)

It seems that you don't quite understand how open online forums such as this one work. Perhaps if you had then you'd understand why everyone that posts don't use their names. What happens online stays there forever ... that's the long and the short of it!

As to this "Linda" that keeps showing up here ... seeing you have no idea who "she" is, then they are not helping either side in this matter and are only serving to stir things up. That smacks of this "Linda' being no more than an internet troll! With each of "it's" posts I have alerted the site Admins (as I am sure others here have as well!!!

You object to this "Linda" posting then simply report their posts (the "!" button to the right of the reply button).

Actually, since Linda wants to brag about the success of the program, I'd like to see her responses to my questions.  I phrased them in such a way as to NOT ask for personal information.  Since she was so pleased with the service, she shouldn't mind providing the information!

I'm sure (who was it?) Jackie in "negotiations" would be happy to help her if Linda doesn't wasn't given a full report of the information on a monthly basis.