Solving heavy backpacks that injure our children

(September 6, 2006) Early this week, as children were going back to school, a report on children getting injured because they have to carry heavy backpacks was again highlighted on a feature story of a leading TV news program. This is not new. In fact, before the end of the millennium, there have been studies that heavy backpacks cause injuries to schoolchildren, either suffering from a lower back pain or in the shoulders.

What’s troubling, however, is that many students, who always feel very proud of going to school, seem not to mind carrying heavy backpacks, as if these are the norms, especially when they are in higher grades. As if it comes with the responsibility of being a student of higher grade, and one should not complain because everyone in the class has to carry the same load.

In the school where my daughters go to, higher grades are classed on the second floor. Other schools go up as high as four storeys. And to think they have to carry their backpacks all the way up there.

Sensing trouble when I saw my younger daughter carry her loaded backpack, I took the liberty of speaking to the principal after school (she’s new) about what I think was a problem that is mostly overlooked by parents, who might think that because their children are bussed to schools or dropped off inside the campus, heavy backpacks are negligible. Well, I’m sorry, parents. But I needed to do this because I think there are better ways to improve the situation, and because, even if your child has not complained about it, many are suffering from injuries and that they only make it to the headlines on the first day of school.

According to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, your child’s backpack should weigh less than 15 percent of their body weight. A 100-pound child shouldn’t be carrying more than 15-pounds of weight, the academy said, which doesn’t need explaining. And this the principal, thank God, already knew. She even said that it’s “ridiculous” for children to be carrying heavy bags. I told her I have no problems with children taking their books home and studying hard (hopefully), but there should be a better way to relieve the students of the heavy burden. She assured me that she will meet with the faculty on how to address the weighty problem, like perhaps they can alternate the days in which kids will bring home books from one subject at a time.

My wife has been suggesting that instead of books, children should be bringing home CDs as she thinks, with today’s technology, most books were already conceptualized in a computer even before they were printed. Ergo, an electronic copy should now be available. She found out from at least one publisher, McGraw Hill, that some books used by our daughters, which were published as early as 2003, are already available in a CD format. (Remember the advertisement where novels are already available on CDs, thereby allowing you to read them with your laptop? What’s more, some books on CDs can now be heard, no reading is necessary, all it takes is a set of head phones. Yes, my daughter told me that too. That everybody should learn how to read and that listening is not an option. Only for the seeing impaired, and maybe for old folks like me, who always needs to find his reading glasses in order to read. He..he...)

My daughter said that just like any file sharing software wreaking havoc on many recording companies, books on CDs can be copied resulting in copyright infringements. I responded that publishers can encrypt the formats so there will be no “illegal copying” (good luck!). I also told my daughter that we will even save on trees and freight cost since shipping heavy books, both hard and soft bound, is pricey as against a copy of a CD which can be sent by regular mail, if not totally downloaded from the publisher’s website, which means more savings for us. I also went as far as telling her that this will solve the problem of the lack of books in many countries, including mine back in the Philippines, where during my elementary days, we had to share books in class because there were not enough books. With CD copies or access to the internet, everyone should be able to read their assigned book, further enhancing literacy. 

Another argument my daughter raised though is that some still don’t have computers. I said, well, there are libraries, where computers and internet access are available. Also, with an electronic format, libraries won’t have to maintain several copies – one would be enough in the computer hard drive or in the network. Besides, it’s better to invest in computers, which has many uses, than purchasing volumes of books of the same title. Lastly, we prevent injuries to the back and shoulders because of heavy backpacks.(RFL)

Warrant of arrest issued vs Atty. Joel Bander in 2008

Above is a photocopy of the warrant of arrest issued against Atty. Joel Bander in 2008, two years after he was charged with "Acts of Lasciviousness" and "unjust vexation" for allegedly sexually abusing a Filipina in 2006 but has reportedly not appeared in court for months.

Two years after being accused of molesting a Filipina, the U.S. lawyer became a wanted man in the PHL

By Rhony Laigo

Last week, we here at Balita presented compelling evidence that may have disputed the pseudo investigative reporters’ claim in their new newspaper – which they call their new baby – that showed that there was an incident that allegedly took place on July 15, 2006 involving U.S. lawyer Joel Bander for reportedly molesting a Filipina client. The Filipina claimed the incident took place in a Manila when she came to the office of Atty. Joel Bander to help her secure a U.S. visa.

Though graphic in nature, the photocopy of the criminal information we published last week described how Atty. Joel Bander allegedly committed “Acts of Lasciviousness” against the person of one Cristina San Jose Y Aler at the Imperial Bayfront Tower, where Bander allegedly was entertaining clients. The same criminal information was the basis for the People’s Tonight story and its reporter, Allan Bergonia, when he wrote that Bander was slapped with the criminal case for committing “acts of lasciviousness” and “unjust vexation.” A photocopy of the same People’s Tonight story of Mr. Bergonia was also published in our midweek edition, which can be read in its entirety in our website balita.com.

The main reason for presenting the documents in our previous issue was to dispel the claims of the pseudo investigative reporters, who we will refer here as dogs so we can all identify them as being staffmembers of their newspaper which bears part of the same name. Two weeks earlier, these dogs published a story claiming that this author based his letter to the commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration of the Philippines on a “People’s Tonight story” that they said was later “retracted by People’s Tonight.” According to the dogs, People’s Tonight deemed it “untrue and without basis” and that the complainant was “fictitious.” Even the subhead of their article said that this author “was unaware” that the complaint “was filed by (a) fictitious accuser.”

Perhaps, the dogs didn't know that such criminal information did exist that stated that a certain Cristina San Jose swore before a prosecutor when she filed the complaint back in July 2006.

Therein lies the problem of the dogs. The real People’s Tonight story stated that Bander was facing criminal charges based on a true incident report and a true complaint filed before a Manila Prosecutor’s Office, specifically at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 27, as written by Bergonia.

The dogs claimed in their so-called investigative reporting that the same newspaper, People’s Tonight, published the same incident, but the dogs stated that People’s Tonight published it as being filed in Taguig, Branch 78. However, as we presented here last week, and as posted on our website, the story of Mr. Bergonia didn’t make any mention of Taguig, nor Branch 78. Bergonia also wrote that the complaint was filed at the Manila Prosecutor’s Office.

At this juncture, Balita poses this challenge to the dogs – who may have been FED not with “dog food” by their master/owner but maybe RAT POISON (but since they’re animals they ate them anyway not even thinking that they didn’t have the actual documents with them) – to produce their own copy of People’s Tonight that stated otherwise.

Be that as it may, as we have promised last week, we are presenting here another document that may eventually kill whatever credibility these pseudo investigative reporters have (if they had any) for being careless, unprofessional and unworthy of their claim to be the dogs of the community.

As you can see, the warrant of arrest issued against Atty. Joel Bander on July 10, 2008 was based on the same July 2006 incident. Although the dogs reported that Bander attended the initial hearings against him, there were no succeeding appearances made on his behalf or by him in person that warranted his arrest, the Manila prosecutor’s office told Balita.

According to the court, Mr. Bander could no longer be located and that his attorneys could no longer make representations on his behalf. The warrant of arrest was signed by Judge Joel A. Licuanan of Branch 27, Manila, Metropolitan Trial Court.

In 2011, Bander appeared before the same judge, or five years after the 2006 alleged molestation incident and a year after erstwhile BID Commissioner Marcelo Libanan issued a watchlist order on Bander in 2010.

Libanan reportedly found out that Bander made trips to the Philippines at least five times in 2009 but never faced the courts nor inquired about his case, when he knew for a fact that a criminal case was filed against him. He apparently never even informed his lawyers that he’s been to the Philippines several times.

But what’s funny was that the dogs also wrote about the dismissal of the case – a stark evidence that there was indeed a case and has been pending since 2006. For these dogs to infer that People’s Tonight – the most popular afternoon daily tabloid in the Philippines – retracted its own story because it was “untrue” and “without basis” was ill-advised and laughable to say the least. And did we mention that the warrant of arrest was issued in 2008 or two years after the case was filed in a criminal court?

(Next week, we will publish parts of articles that will portray the character of Atty. Joel Bander and why several Filipinos filed a complaint against him at the California State Bar.)

Setting the record straight: Atty. Joel Bander was wanted in the Philippines for 'Acts of Lasciviousness'

A copy of People's Tonight disputes a claim by another newspaper regarding the alleged molestation incident by Atty. Joel Bander against a Filipina woman he claimed to be fictitious.

THE PROBLEM with pseudo investigative reporters is that they never verify any claims, especially if these are provided by their own boss. You may have recently seen a new tabloid in the market that “reported” on events that another newspaper had published, which happened to be us, Balita.

To set the record straight, we are providing here a copy of a People’s Tonight story, (“The High Price of US Visa”) dated July 22, 2006. In the story, you can see that Allan Bergonia wrote that the complaint was filed before the “Manila Prosecutor’s Office.” The complaint was filed, according to the story, “yesterday” or July 21, 2006.

Unlike what the other paper had printed, Bergonia didn’t write any other city or place other than Manila. Maybe the pseudo investigative journalists have a different People’s Tonight copy because they had stated that the complaint was filed in a fiscal’s office that “does not exist.” Also, Bergonia’s story didn’t say any word about “illegal recruitment charges” as published by the other paper.

But the next document that Balita possesses and that we are providing to you here tells a story that such person that the other paper said was “fictitious” may be a real person when she filed the complaint.

How, you may ask?

Above is the criminal information filed by the Manila Prosecutor's Office on October 17, 2006 against Atty. Joel Bander on behalf of a Filipina who claimed that she was molested by Bander. The case "People of the Philippines versus Joel Bander" accused the lawyer of "Acts of Lasciviousness" based on an alleged incident whereby the woman, who said she came to Bander to seek his help in acquiring a U.S. visa, was reportedly abused by Bander back in July 2006.

1. As stated, the case was filed at Branch 27 of the Metropolitan Regional Trial Court, City of Manila as so stamped. The case is docketed as Criminal Case # 433318 and filed on Oct. 17, 2006.

2. The case says “People of the Philippines” versus “Joel Bander” with the address Imperial Bayfront Tower, 1624 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila. As stated, Joel Bander, who Bergonia wrote was “An alleged trader who assists applicants in securing United States visas” is the accused.

3. 2^nd Assistant City Prosecutor Rector E. Macapagal, Chief of the Eight Division, so stated that the “undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor, upon sworn complaint fi led by the offended party CRISTINA SAN JOSE Y ALER…hereby accuses JOEL BANDER, of the crime of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS...” In case you missed it, UPON SWORN COMPLAINT.

Now, for the benefit of all pseudo investigative reporters, before any prosecutor files a case, a police report is required. According to Bergonia, Ms. San Jose filed the complaint before the Manila Police District.

Bergonia wrote that Bander allegedly molested the complainant and that the incident allegedly took place on July 15, 2006. This means that the prosecutor and the police investigator worked for three months to verify if such complaint merits the filing of the case. To understand this better, perhaps an episode of Law and Order would be helpful, especially for those who never even covered the police beat (where most if not all cub reporters begin their professional careers to become full-fledged journalists) and the courts.

What we’re trying to say here is, the prosecutor doesn’t just invent a person to criminally prosecute any person, let alone a foreigner, which the Philippines has been courting to conduct business in the

Philippines, invest there and spend their dollars in the country. (But then again, U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas revealed, albeit carelessly, that almost half of all Americans who come to the Philippines go there to engage in sex, but that is another story.)

In the People’s Tonight story, Bergonia wrote that Ms. San Jose said “she gave Bander $100 as partial payment for the visa application.” The story goes that Ms. San Jose had sought Bander’s “help” in getting a U.S. visa.

Several years later, the case was dismissed and Bander claimed that Ms. San Jose was fictitious and because the complaint was based on “trumped up charges.”

It should be noted, however, that Ms. San Jose was seeking Bander’s help for a visa five years earlier, back in 2006. This could mean that Ms. San Jose has been wanting to leave the country for greener pastures.

Balita, which, as mentioned by the other paper, had gone to the Philippines – because this is how an investigative story is conducted – had inquired from the prosecutor’s office about the Bander case. Indeed the documents showed that there was a case filed, that a certain Ms. San Jose swore before a prosecutor, and a People’s Tonight story was published.

Five years may have been too long and perhaps Ms. San Jose is no longer in the Philippines. Besides, how could the case progress when the accused was never present in the Philippines? And this we will present why in our next issue.

(Next week, we will publish here a copy of the warrant of arrest. We will also present more legitimate and legal documents in succeeding issues.)

Mt. Pinatubo@20 Photo Exhibit: More than just pictures, it was a reunion of survivors

(Standing from left) Nick Sagmit (formerly of Manila Bulletin), Mike Pusing (former PIO of then Mayor Richard Gordon, Olongapo City and organizer of Mt. Pinatubo@20 Photo Exhibit), Rhony Laigo (formerly of Times Journal), Myrna Aquitania (president of Filipino American Press Club of Los Angeles), Zen Lopez (curator and civic leader), Consul General Mary Jo Bernardo Aragon, City of Carson Mayor Jim Dear, Miss Beauty of the Philippines USA 2011 Erina Lightholder, Councilman Elito Santarina (City of Carson), Charie Villa (ABS-CBN Head of News and Online Business Regional Network), Tourism Director Annie Cuevas-Lim, Heraldo "Boy" Cabrido (formerly of Philippine Daily Inquirer), Joe Galvez (GMA-7 Online Editor and president of Press Photographers of the Philippines), Ted Aljibe (chief photographer of Agence France Presse, Manila Bureau), (seated from left) Val Handumon (photographer, European Pressphoto Agency, Manila Bureau), Ernie Sarmiento (current chief photographer of Philippine Daily Inquirer) and Angie de Silva (freelancer, consultant for YKL Fuji Film, Manila). Inset is Albert Garcia (current Manila Bulletin Photo Editor).

It’s been 20 years and yet the memories were still vivid in their minds. The photojournalists who risked life and limb to capture the moments of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption had only one thing in their mind: perform their assigned task to take the best picture possible in the best possible place.

It’s no wonder why a select group of Filipino photojournalists braved facing nature’s fury to work on one of the most daunting coverage ever. Not that they had little regard for their safety, but the urge to frame a picture that “tells it all” was much more compelling at that time as shown by the photographs now on display at the Mt.Pinatubo@20 Photo Exhibit at the Southbay Pavilion in the City of Carson. These pictures, chosen by a panel of Manila’s top press photographers, deliver reality, the truth, and the impact to humanity.

There are about 100 pictures in the City of Carson exhibit which were flown in by photojournalists from the Philippines that gave the awe-stricken and the curious a glimpse of how it was like during the eruption on June 15, 1991 and the days that followed. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption killed about 800 people, buried several towns around the volcano and destroyed properties worth billions.

Garbed in Barong Filipino, the photojournalists opened their initial U.S. leg of the photo exhibit in large formats sponsored by YKL Fuji Film in the City of Carson to celebrate the Filipino Heritage Month. The event was made possible through the invitation of the City Council led by Mayor Jim Dear and Filipino American Councilman Elito Santarina and the organizers of the Tambayayong Festival led by Sining Kambayoka president Edgar Lopez and project director Peter Calma.

The idea behind the photo exhibit that began in the Philippines was conceptualized by Mike Pusing, who at that time was in charge of the journalists covering the event as far as providing them shelter and direction. Pusing served as the public information officer of then Olongapo City Mayor Richard “Dick” Gordon, whose office was turned into a barracks by the reporters and photographers both foreign and local covering the eruption. 

It was Pusing who reminded Heraldo “Boy” Cabrido, who used to cover for Philippine Daily Inquirer and who just like the other photojournalists may have forgotten the seemingly now dormant volcano, that it’s been 20 years since Mt. Pinatubo roared and changed the topography of Central Luzon.

At that time, Cabrido was with 10 other photojournalists in Botolon, Zambales. All 11 in three separate vehicles were the most celebrated, for the lack of a better word, among all those who covered the eruption. Among the 11 was Albert Garcia, now photo editor of Manila Bulletin, whose photograph in full color captured what turned out to be the most compelling shot that showed the power of Mt. Pinatubo while exploding, followed by a searing pyroclastic flow racing against its slope, enveloping everything in its path and was going after him and the rest of the photojournalists, most of whom thought would never see another day.

Garcia narrated that he was in the second vehicle. While the others sought cover and prayed that they’d be saved, Garcia was busy focusing his camera. He recalled that his 50 mm lens wasn’t quite right – too tight, he said. Not thinking that he too had to duck and put down the curtains, Garcia decided to change his lens for a wider shot. He said he put in his 24 mm lens and took a picture…the same picture that made the covers of Time Magazine which also declared it as one of the Greatest 

Images of the 20^th Century. The National Geographic Magazine also chose it as one of the Best 100 Pictures of the same century.

The other photojournalists who were in the same vehicle with Garcia also had pictures of the explosion, but not until Garcia convinced them to hold their camera and take their shot. If not for Garcia’s presence of mind, the panicked photojournalists may have missed the moment when Mt. Pinatubo was at its “best” – again for the lack of a better word. Sad to say, others in the two other vehicles were not as lucky to have another alert Garcia with them that they failed to take as good a photo as that of Garcia’s.

But that was only on June 15. There were other photos that were as dramatic as Garcia’s and may arguably have competed with Garcia for the covers of the prestigious magazines if that were possible given the tons of photos to choose from. Some of the are pictures didn’t even show the erupting volcano itself, but they showed the tragedy that was taking place, of people fleeing to safety, the desperation of those in the evacuation centers and the destruction that mudflows and ashfalls were causing that resulted to deaths to many.

These unforgettable moments were recalled when Garcia, Cabrido, who together with Ted Aljibe (now the chief photographer of Agence France Presse in Manila), Val Handumon (now a photographer of European Pressphoto Agency), Ernie Sarmiento (current chief photographer of Phil. Daily Inquirer), Joe Galvez (current president of Press Photographers of the Philippines), Angie de Silva (freelancer), Charie Villa (who serves as head of ABS-CBN News and Online Business Regional Network) and Pusing, flew in from Manila courtesy of Philippine Airlines and Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation or Pagcor at the insistence of fellow photojournalist Ed Galvez (who used to worked for Times Journal) that they come to Los Angeles join Nick Sagmit (formerly of Manila Bulletin) and this author (who used to cover for Times Journal) to hold the exhibit in the U.S. (Derek Soriano, now a freelancer, is on his way to join his colleagues, most of whom will proceed to San Francisco for a similar exhibit on Oct. 11-12.)

The reunion of the journalists, who call themselves the Mt. Pinatubo Media Survivors Group, had all the flavors of what it’s like to be a member of the Philippine media once again – beer, smoking, loud voices and cussing...and it was all made possible through the hospitality of Priscilla Sagmit, wife of Nick Sagmit, who accommodated almost everyone at her place in the City of Carson, and by Jess Fonseca and wife Raquel, who hosted a night of booze and laughter at their Garden Grove residence. 

View Rhony Laigo's news broadcast on Kababayan LA now available on Youtube.

Homeowner clients of Bander Law Firm ‘doomed’ from start

FILIPINO and Korean homeowners listen to one of the lawyers representing a few of the former Bander Law Firm clients who alleged that the BLF did little or nothing to their cases after paying the firm an average of $8,500 only to lose their homes to foreclosure.

Lawyer ‘embarrassing’ emails between Bander and associates

HOMEONERS who lost their homes to foreclosure at the height of the mortgage crisis had a fair chance of keeping their properties had they not hire the wrong lawyer.

This came to light after email exchanges between the owner of the Bander Law Firm (BLF), Atty. Joel Bander, and his staff exposed the alleged low quality of work that the BLF did to its clients, some of whom were Filipinos, Koreans and Armenians.

Unearthed by BALITA MEDIA, the controversial and revealing emails within the BLF were actually part of the evidence submitted by a BLF associate, Atty. Tim Umbreit, in a motion he filed to rescind a court order against him. Umbreit’s motion was in response to a case filed by a couple that asked the court to disgorge all fees paid to the BLF in the amount of $20,000. Umbreit, according to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, had ignored scheduled court hearings earlier.

Umbreit cited that the “disorganization and chaos” at the BLF should’ve been considered in granting his motion for reconsideration. The BLF filed for bankruptcy on Feb.12, 2010, Umbreit said, which he “mistakenly believed” that all actions against the BLF – him included – were stayed as a result of the bankruptcy. His motion was denied and Umbreit, whose conduct the court ruled was “unprofessional and well below any standard of care” was ordered to pay $5,000.

Through the emails within the Bander Law Firm, Umbreit exposed what the court said was the “disorganization and chaos” inside the firm that Umbreit later described led to its “deterioration and eventual bankruptcy.”

In one of the emails dated Aug. 12, 2009, Umbreit said the BLF lawyers were “neophytes.” In that email addressed to Bander, Umbreit said their attorneys were “cheap not experienced or good (sic),” Umbreit also described the BLF lawyer’s quality of work as “shoddy, haphazard and below par” and that since joining the firm in March 2009, the law firm “never had a decent case or presented anything in a compelling way.”

Since they were “baby lawyers,” Umbreit urged Bander to provide them with “baby sitters.” Umbreit wrote “We don’t have the time to produce a quality product because we are scattered all over the place, apparently referring to Bander’s practice of assigning and reassigning lawyers and staff but without legitimate results. “Baby lawyers need babysitters,” Umbreit said.

Earlier, BALITA MEDIA published an article (in its weekend May 28, 2011 edition) that stated that Bander channeled his resources away from the homeowner clients’ cases to take care another case unrelated to mortgage litigation. Umbreit said Bander was obsessed with the case against BALITA MEDIA that Bander filed on behalf of a competing newspaper.  Umbreit said that although he joined the BLF to set up a bankruptcy practice for the firm, he, too, was dragged into the case against BALITA MEDIA.

Describing further the chaos in the BLF, Umbreit said that he had spent an “enormous amount of time to stem the tide of massive client defection.” He also wrote in an email to Bander that “I am embarrassed to take calls from other lawyers because of the poor quality of work we put out. The complaints are not well received and have been discredited time and again.”

But what was more revealing were the contents of an earlier email Umbreit sent to Bander dated Aug. 6, 2009, when he wrote that “Clients (homeowners) did not come in for BK (bankruptcy) and most were told that BKs are bad. Now we’re telling them they are good. BK is one of the most important decisions in a person’s life but we are pushing them into one at the last minute.” These were the same homeowners, some 800 of them, who paid the firm an average of $8,500 and were looking to sue their mortgage lenders. Many of them went to BLF after seeing full page ads of the firm in a Filipino broadsheet newspaper that told them to “Save Your Home. Sue the Banks!” to avoid foreclosure. Some of them were later forced to sue the BLF and also filed complaints with the California State Bar against Bander.

Yet in another embarrassing email, this one by a BLF staffer identified as Kaleb Liao to Umbreit, it was also revealed that non-attorneys were barking orders at attorneys. Dated Sept. 8, 2009, Liao wrote that experienced attorneys did not have the “temperament to be a babysitter to attorneys” and that “attorneys resented the fact that…a non-attorney would tell them what had to be done.” Liao identified the non-attorney only as “Carla” in his email.

Liao also disclosed in the same email that “All attorneys get the reminders of everything under the sky that is mortgage litigation related. If they chose to ignore (those), what can anyone do about that?”

Despite all these, however, Bander chose to blame the chaos in his law office on BALITA MEDIA, despite the fact that BALITA MEDIA exposed the plight of the homeowners in its articles beginning December 2009, or several months after the huge BLF mess was also already occurring within the firm.

(Rhony Laigo is the editor of Balita Media based in Glendale, California. He can be reached at rhony@balita.com. More Filipino-American news can be found at www.balita.com) ■

Bander lawyer spills the beans

INCOMPETENT?: Atty. Tim Umbreit (third from left in this photo that came out in a full page ad of a competing newspaper published in 2009), a former associate lawyer of the Bander Law Firm, owned by Atty. Joel Bander (fourth from left) testified that the cases in the firm were handled by “young and inexperienced associates” while “competent employees were let go.”

Attorney reveals cause of Bander Law Firm’s fall from grace

In 2009, the Bander Law firm placed weekly full page advertisings for several months in a broadsheet Filipino newspaper in Los Angeles about a loan litigation program that indicated to homeowners that they may be able to sue their lenders to save their homes during the home mortgage crisis.

Some 800 homeowners signed up. Each paid an average of $8,500, some paid higher for multiple properties. A $3,000 downpayment was required from each home owner. However, after a year of collecting fees from property owners, little if anything was done to their cases, according to complaints they filed with the California State Bar and in civil cases filed in Los Angeles courts.

The homeowners claimed they received no legal services and many lost their homes in foreclosure, while others alleged that the firm filed bankruptcy petitions on their behalf without their knowledge or permission. The homeowners also claimed that Bander law firm refused to return their money. 

When the intensity of these complaints became too much, the Bander Law Firm, through its main partner and 99% owner, Atty. Joel Bander, filed for bankruptcy in February 2010.

BALITA MEDIA, along with KFI 640 AM radio station, Glendale News Press, ABS-CBN’s The Filipino Channel, were some of the first to bring the Bander loan litigation controversy out to the public in late 2009. Starting in December, 2009, BALITA MEDIA ran a series of articles on several homeowners’ complaints that included Filipino and Korean property owners, which Atty. Bander blamed, in his bankruptcy hearing, as the cause of his law firm’s downfall.

However, recent Federal court filings showed that contrary to the claims of Bander, the real cause of his firm’s demise was mismanagement on his part because, according to an attorney named Tim Umbreit, who worked at the firm, Bander channeled all of his resources into a case he filed against BALITA MEDIA on behalf of a competing newspaper.

The revelations were made by Atty. Tim Umbreit in a motion for reconsideration to rescind a bankruptcy court  order that penalized him in the sum of $5,000 for his “willful” non-attendance at Bankruptcy hearings and his intentional “disregard“ of the court’s directive to appear in person in the case filed by a couple asking that the Bander Law Firm disgorge the $20,000 that they had paid to the law firm. (In legal terms, disgorgement is the act of giving up something such as the profits obtained by illegal or unethical acts on demand or by legal compulsion.).

In the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, September 30, 2010 decision, the court said Mr. Umbreit’s conduct was “unprofessional and well below any reasonable standard of care.”

In his declaration signed under the penalty of perjury, Umbreit disclosed that although he joined as an associate of the firm to handle bankruptcy cases back in March 2009, the firm was “inundated with Trustee Sales when I started at the Firm“ which he described as “both a procedural as well as an administrative nightmare.”

Umbreit said “My initial responsibility to set up a bankruptcy practice…was waylaid almost immediately,” adding the Bander’s workforce was staffed by “young and inexperienced associates.” The reason for this, Umbreit said, was Bander’s strategy to hire the least expensive young attorneys to do all of the work who had “no orientation, no training and no oversight.”

Umbreit also revealed that the firm was “inundated with emergency filings and constant shakeup of employees…competent employees were let go because they were not ‘responsive’ to Bander.” He added that “work environment was precariously close to hostile and turnover was a real problem.”

Umbreit added that “Cash flow became a constant concern that imposed on all the employees the added burden of cutting  costs, cutting overtime, and working on too many cases.” Umbreit said, “I was, quite frankly, overwhelmed and unable to handle the work load.”

But the most telling statement was Umbreit’s remark regarding Bander’s handling of the case against Balita Media. Umbreit said, “By August of 2009 (or months even before BALITA MEDIA came out with its stories in December 2009 on the Bander Law Firm), I was almost exclusively dealing with a case that ultimately brought the Firm down....”

“Bander was obsessed with the...case and had a personal involvement with the parties that far exceeded the bounds of any professional relationship. Bander had an obsession with an attorney named (James G.) Beirne and his client (Luchie) Allen (BALITA MEDIA’s CEO).”

Umbreit revealed in his motion that “From July through November, I was embroiled in (BALITA MEDIA) case at Bander’s insistence…Mortgage litigation and bankruptcies all took a back seat to the...case. In late August, I learned for the first time that the Firm was not being paid for handling of the case.”

Weeks after Bander withdrew from the case against BALITA MEDIA, the parties settled their dispute. The terms of the settlement remain private.

BALITA MEDIA called the law offices of Bander on Friday. Email messages were also sent to him for his reaction, but he has yet to present his side of the story.