Thursday, May 9, 2013

Independent MEDIA, Citizen Journalist, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox FILES Anti-Trust Lawsuit against Forbes, Kashmir HIll, David Carr, New York Times, WIPO, Marc J. Randazza, Tracy Coenen, Peter L. Michaelson ...

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox v. Kashmir Hill Forbes Reporter 
Northern California Case 4:13-cv-02046-DMR
 
Anti-Trust Lawsuit Cox v Kashmir Hill, Forbes -

Thursday, April 4, 2013

"No one cares about the conflicts of interest that occur in these bankruptcy cases, so the facts of what Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance did that was probably illegal are washed under the carpet, never to be seen again. "


"August 30, 2010 in

Part Two

Stephanie sets camera up on back counter and situates it.

Mark to Stephanie:  So you think…I mean Vivienne is a pain in the ass!
Stephanie:  I think she’s OK.  I mean she came and searched me out.

Mark:  But, but Vivienne…whispering…
Stephanie:  The only thing I am concerned about is that it is taking so much time already.
Mark:  It’s taking so much time.  I am going to put that back on Susan (Susan Ford of Sussman Shank).  I mean it’s like you haven’t even set up a Conduit for us to transfer assets.  In fact, you said no.

Terry:  Well part of the reason for that was to make sure there was some stipulation or agreement by the creditors’ committee.  That they weren’t just going to start attaching everything.  That’s all part of the 105 Injunction.

Mark:  So was there any talk yesterday about the whole Tennant thing.
Terry:  That’s where the biggest problem is in terms of blocking this whole mess.  As far as I’m concerned it came right out of the creditors’ committee, of which, Obsidian has been totally responding to the creditors’ committee.

Mark:  Right.
Stephanie:  Right, but the Judge seemed to say that unless you guys…basically the creditors’ committee convinced that Obsidian will do the job they say they are going to do and they’ve given them a presentation and they had a vote.

Mark:  I talked to one of them…well I didn’t but that one (creditor – Rolland Andrews) – Scott (Scott Adams) said he was going “At that presentation they gave us some bull shit.  They are expensive as hell.  I don’t even understand what all these people want.”  He’s on the creditors’ committee and he sees it.

Stephanie:  So anyhow, we have to figure out a way to get this (whole mess) into the right hands if we can.

Jan:  Seems like the person or the party who’s spent the most time actually hands on knows the most and should be…

Stephanie:  And Susan did agree with…I said that Terry has a working knowledge. He’s been working there (Summit) day in and day out trying to find out what’s going on here.

Jan:  I mean that’s a slam dunk.  He knows more…

Stephanie:  She (Susan Ford) reiterated the same thing and no one seemed to have a problem except this Tennant group because they can’t get what they want

Terry:  Exactly.

Stephanie:  So now they want to just appoint a Trustee so that they can just to get things going.

Terry:  You know it would have been a long time ago if they would have just gotten out of the way.

Mark:  How come no one brings this up at the hearings?
Terry:  I don’t understand that.
Mark:  Why do we have attorneys who sit there and can’t even bring it up as an issue?
Jan:  It makes you feel like you should be present at all of this stuff if it’s in Portland.

Stephanie:  Well that’s why I think…I don’t know…be there because when I went there the attorneys did bare minimum for you guys.

Tim:  How long was the hearing, yesterday?
Stephanie:  An hour and…

Terry:  Did they even address the injunction?
Stephanie:  K what’s what’s…No.  I don’t think so.

Terry:  The original reason for that meeting or the hearing yesterday was to rule on the injunction…
Tim:  To extend it.

Terry:  Well extend the TRO and figure out whether…

Stephanie:  They did it.  They did do an extension of the TRO.  Then the talked…the only things that they had on there was that and whether to get you (Terry) out and Obsidian in.

Terry:  Well I guess the extension was the TRO.  I’m not sure of the injunction.

Mark:  You know Bob (Bob Vanden Bos – Mark’s bankruptcy attorney) calls me up yesterday and says, “Well I need to know if you agree to extend the injunction or not.  What do you want me to do?”  Do I have a choice Bob?  “Well if you say no, they’ll just do this and that.”  Why are you wasting your time calling me and asking me anything?

Tim:  He has to sign it.

Mark:  I know it’s just a ridiculous conversation we’re having right now.  I get tired of you asking me all this shit that I don’t have a choice on.

Stephanie:  Well so anyhow he gave me something to sign that would give me power of attorney to do whateverJ

Tim:  Who, Bob Vanden Bos?

Mark:  Well I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
Laugh

Terry to Mark:  You gave her power of attorney?

Tim:  Now we have a whole different worry.

Laugh

Stephanie:  He’s all – “Are you sure you want this job?”  I said, well I don’t know.

Tim:  I got a whole new worry now.

Stephanie:  Whatever.

Mark:  Yah at the next hearing we’ll have the Santa Rosa police there going “Let me tell you about this one.”

Stephanie:  Hey, if I wouldn’t have gone there yesterday this would have gone through the Trustee (US Trustee) quick and you guys have no say.

Jan:  And what’s it looking like to them when nobody is there to…I mean does it look like…well I guess they don’t care and their not.

Tim:  Why can’t we get better advice from our attorneys?

Jan:  It’s frustrating that way.

Mark:  I mean we pay them a lot of money and…

Stephanie:  When Bob called me back after I told him why I need to be there (at the hearing) and he said “OK” and he got off the phone and he talked to Summit’s bankruptcy attorneys and they said “It wouldn’t be a good idea she comes…they are going to choose Obsidian anyway.  There’s just no way.”  I said you know I have been told…
Mark:  Susan is such a…she can be pushed around.

Stephanie:  It was the guy attorney.

Tim:  Oh, Tom (Tom Stilley)

Mark:  Tom

Stephanie:  I said – Ok I have been told several times by attorneys what will and will not happen and I don’t believe that they always know and so I am going to go down there and
I want to at least be there present so that if there is a chance and something happens, great, but if nothing happens then I don’t lose anything.

Jan:  You have to try.

Mark:  I think there is a pattern of what they tell you is going to take place…they’re wrong every time so why do we…

Tim:  They’re guessing and they control things in a controlling environment.

Stephanie:  My experience is with attorneys is they always tell you what is bad that is going to happen and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t.

Terry:  Do you have considerable experience?

Mark:  Yah, there you go Terry.  Good question.

Stephanie:  That’s why I’m not scared to go over there.

Tim:  Terry, don’t go there.

Laugh
Mark:  You don’t want it to get dark.
Laugh

Tim:  You know I did this stuff with the trucking company that filed bankruptcy, we used Barry at Sussman Shank and he said, “I understand there wasn’t a criminal aspect and I understand there wasn’t the amount of money”

Mark:  Well let’s bring Barry back.

Tim:  He said “You go and you explain openly to everybody where you’re at and what you’re trying to do and that you’re doing the best that you can. If anyone has questions for your attorney, have them call me.”  I think my retainer for their services was $5,000 and he gave me $250 back when it was all done.  Granted it wasn’t the scope of all this, but it’s…what diffused a lot of people was me saying look I’m not running away, I’m doing everything I can to take care of this problem and you know you can fight it but al it’s going to do is throw us in bankruptcy.  Well, of course, we are already in bankruptcy but it seems to me like that face and saying…

Mark:  Nobody knows that we’re not running away.

Terry:  And because the Judge quoted directly from my affidavit at the previous hearing regarding…then and he asked both the creditors’ committee and Susan and Tom, “Why the hell we can’t get something done.  It says right here…Mr. Vance said right here that the debtor…all of the principals are cooperating to the best of their ability and they’re willing to make every effort.”

Stephanie:  And they reiterated that yesterday too.

Mark:  But that’s who they aught to be asking…Susan…because I just don’t believe she takes charge of this.  She gets moved around by everybody and I even saw it that day with Vivienne where she just buckles.

Stephanie:  She did do an OK job presenting and she validated the points I had brought up as far as you (Terry) and the work you’ve done.  She reiterated it with the Judge.  She kind of supported me up there when I wasn’t yah know but…I don’t know.  I don’t know what their job is exactly to do.

Mark:  Their job is just to get paid.

Tim:  I think that’s another reason why we have to be there, if not for ourselves, it also holds her accountable, but it also gives her something to support instead of just going with whatever direction things seem to be going.

Mark:  I think you’re right.  I think it holds her accountable while we’re there.

Stephanie:  And the Judge seemed to want to get this resolved quickly.  Like sooner than this date..they set a court date for the 20th…Umm…

Mark:  It’s the end of the extension of the TRO.

Stephanie:  Right, but he wants to figure out the trustee deal prior to that except for Wednesday.
Terry:  Except for Wednesday?

Stephanie:  He’s gone Wednesday or something.

Mark:  You know one of my biggest fears is that…like in these LLC’s…that all of our partners who are innocent parties to this whole thing just get run over.  That’s just a huge concern to me.
Terry:  Run over by?

Mark:  By whoever the Trustee is…they just go into these LLC’s and they want you to just sign your rights over and then we get control and we do whatever we want.  I just want someone with the best results…

Terry:  Well isn’t that defined in the operating agreement, though?

Stephanie:  It is.

Mark:  Well yah but my attorney is going…well no you know there’s operating agreements…I pointed out…

Stephanie:  But their going to get in default.

Mark:  I pointed out that like on Smith Brothers…if I assign it, I don’t have any ownership.  I want to ask Kevin specifically about Smith Brothers…I’m going to ask him about Century Drive Mobile Home Park…If he knows that if we assign our interests’ that it immediately puts them in default.

Stephanie:  I asked him about that and he kind of pushed it aside, but said that “There are ways to deal with that.”  So I want to know exactly what ways you say there are to deal with that because he says, “The seller doesn’t always get the property.”  How do they not when you’re in default?

Mark:  When I look at Century Drive Mobile Home Park…it’s like ok…put it on the market…can we get anything for it?  Why are you putting it at risk if we’re cooperating…just leave it where it’s at…let’s see if we can sell it for an amount to get some money to the creditors.
Tim:  And preserves the interests’ of our partners.

Mark:  Right, right.

End Transcript Prior to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance arriving to give presentation, but instead ends skirting around the fact that he did an end around on the Summit Principals by promising to help them with there liquidity problem, taking all their data, and selling a higher paying job to the US Bankruptcy Court, the US Trustee’s Office and the Creditors’ Committee.

No one cares about the conflicts of interest that occur in these bankruptcy cases, so the facts of what Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance did that was probably illegal are washed under the carpet, never to be seen again.  The American Justice System allows for attorneys to have all sorts of conflicts of interest and end arounds as long as it suits their purpose which is their own agenda, not Justice.  If you don’t believe me, just wait until the same thing happens to you and you will be kicking yourself for ever thinking our Justice System is about Justice.  IT IS ONLY A GAME.  Attorneys are the best at playing that game because their work is about playing the game.  Kevin Padrick scored and he knew bankruptcy laws and he knew about fear and pleading the fifth and playing the media game.  He is smart and good at his job, which is apparently screwing people out of their money."

Source of Post and Lots More
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?s=opera

"DID YOU KNOW KEVIN PADRICK WAS, EFFECTIVELY, HIRED BY SUMMIT PRINCIPALS PRIOR TO SUMMITS FILING CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ON 12/18/08?????"


"Around 12/7/08 – Kevin Padrick meets with Summit Principals – Well yes they did. Kevin Padrick was recommended to one of the Principals by a Bend Developer as a guy who could help solve Summit’s proplems.

You see Kevin Padrick met with the Summit principals in early December 2008. By talking with the Summit Principals about this meeting, it looks like Kevin was more than willing to help them with their liquidity crisis. Kevin Padrick said his company, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, specialized in helping save distressed businesses like Summit Accommodators, Inc. Good news right?

Kevin Padrick said he had financial partners with DEEP POCKETS who would help fund the short-term liquidity issues. At this meeting, Summit Principals explained the business of short-term lending, told Kevin Padrick about the properties they were willing to hand over and about the $14 Million of cash that was in the Summit bank account. At no time during this meeting did Kevin Padrick even mention the words fraud, ponzi scheme, embezzlement, or illegal.

After this meeting with Kevin Padrick, the Summit Principals approached Summit 1031′s bankrupcty attorneys, Sussman Shank, with the possibility of contracting with Obsidian Finance since Padrick assured the principals that he and Obsidian Finance would be the best has helping distressed businesses.

Sussman Shank agreed that it would be a good idea to contract with Kevin Padrick and his company. However, the contract should be signed after a Chief Restructuring Officer is put into place (after they filed bankrupcty). Sussman Assured the Principals that Padrick and Obsidian would work directly for the CRO. Seems to me Kevin Worked more directly with Sussman Shank and Perkins Coie than Terry Vance…What do you think?

12/18/08 Summit 1031 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - DIP “debtor in possession” reorganization. In this type of bankruptcy a Chief Restructuring Officer is named and he is the “acting boss” of the reorganization to pay back the exchangers. It wasn’t until the bankruptcy was filed and Terry Vance was named CRO, that the official contract to hire Obsidian Finance Group, LLC was signed by Terry Vance and Kevin Padrick.
Click Here to See what they were supposed to do per their contract

The Summit Principals were advised by Sussman Shank that a Chapter 11 DIP bankruptcy would be ideal. Sussman assured the principals that this form of bankruptcy would provide a little more time than a Chapter 7, enough time to liquidate the illiquid assets in an orderly manner to, hopefully, get the exchangers/creditors paid back in full. This effort would alow the Principals to aid the CRO in every way possible to accomplish this goal.
Sussman’s Susan Ford also instructed the Principals to transfer approx $250,000 from certain accounts and to wire it out of a specific account. Ford did not want it to appear that Sussman’s legal fees were coming out of exchanger funds. Ford told the Principals that the $250,000 wold be more than enough to cover the entire legal cost of the bankruptcy. I know that as of 05/15/09 the attorney fees amounted to almost $2 Million. This estimate is just slightly off.

12/19/08 – end of December 2008 – Summit Principals gathered all the information and willingly gave it to there supposed saviors, Obsidian Finance Group. Ewan Rose, said thanks, we will get you our proposal within the week. No proposal was ever delivered.

Early February – Kevin Padrick makes a presentation to the Creditors’ Committee. What? Thought they were supposed to be getting the proposal to the CRO and Principals, NOT the creditors??? Jeez this stuff is so confusing.

2/11/09 – Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Hearing where Creditors’ Committee is pushing to replace Terry Vance as CRO with Kevin Padrick as CRO. Lucky for Kevin Padrick, at this hearing Judge Randall Dunn’s idea to resolve the matter at hand is to appoint a liquidating trustee. It wasn’t until yesterday that I received the legal document from The 1031 Tax Group, LLC case that says, “The appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is an extraordinary measure“. After going back and listening to the audio from this hearing, it seems to me that this appointment of a chapter 11 trustee was originally presented by Judge Randall Dunn.

DON’T Miss Clicking Here for the Audio – Click Here for Judge Randall Dunn Abruptly decides to Appoint a Trustee

Kevin Padrick has stated in his declaration under penalty and perjury that Doc 551 “8. Ms Studebaker-DeYoung has also posted on her website what appears to be an audio recording that she made during an official court hearing proceeding, in violation of Court local rules”
From Transcript:

“Judge Dunn – Let’s talk about the joint motion of the debtor and the official committe of unsecured creditors to substitute Obsidian Finance Group LLC for Mr. Vance as Chief Restructuring Officer and I have a limited objection from the US Trustee, requesting some additional time to see if this is the proper road or whether I ought to be appointing a chapter 11 trustee and I have a middle ground suggestion for the parties consideration and we may not get there today…WHY DON’T WE APPOINT OBSIDIAN AS TRUSTEE????

Ms. Vivienne Popperl (attorney for US Trustee) – Sorry your honor but that is a decision for our office to make.

Judge Dunn – I understand that so I am throwing it out as something that you should consider.

Ms. Vivienne Popperl – We will certainly consider that, but at this time we’re very concerned about who is really directing this case. At the moment it appears to be the professionals.

Judge Dunn – It does appear that way, there’s no question the professionals are directing this case. There’s no one else in the driver’s seat.

Ms. Vivienne Popperl – Which is why we need a trustee and that is why we request a little extra time to get a motion and appropriate memorandum before the Court and we certainly will consider Obsidian, but we will consider other candidates as well.

Judge Dunn – Well, well, that’s fine, but I’m not sure I need additional memorandum. I think that needs to be discussed with debtor’s counsel and Obsidian and the committee and see where we come out. I understand why you would move for appointment under section is it 1112, whatever section and I’ll ??? with that. But I think the parties should talk and do what makes sense here, but certainly if the creditors’ committee has evaluated Obsidian’s work to date and their potential for future work…that’s going to weigh strongly in the Courts consideration in terms of the interests’ of creditors and I do agree that we need someone clearly in control of the ship of state?? that is functioning in effect as a trustee would so in the absence of further direction I really would like to see Obsidian named as chapter 11 trustee, but I leave that for the parties to argue out.

Ms. Vivienne Popperl – Well then would the Court entertain an oral motion directing the US Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee or do we need to file a written motion?

Judge Dunn – Well I want to hear from the parties and their respective positions on that, but I don’t want to trample on the US Trustee’s office perogatives either so if you would be offended by such an order based on an oral motion, I’m not going to do it, but I just am suggesting that it makes sense to consider it. Mr. Padrick’s here…Is Obsidian opposed to serving in the position officially as chapter 11 trustee.

Kevin Padrick – No Your Honor subject to the parties desires.

Judge Dunn – Right so that’s something I want the parties to talk about and consider because frankly at least my review of the situation with respect to the case as to what’s going on…having Obsidian functioning officially in the position of chapter 11 trustee solves a multitude of problems, but what do I know?”

Steve Hedburg (Lead Attorney at Perkins Coie and worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash back in the day) Steve Hedbergseems up to helping out with the appointment of Obsidian no matter what others’ concerns are due to the vote on the creditors’ committee. This committee is only made up of about 5% of the creditors. Did the group of creditors understand the ramifications of converting to a liquidating trust? Steve Hedberg rambles on about how creditors are voting for Obsidian no matter what guidelines are followed Obsidian will be trustee.

I can’t even spend the energy typing the rest of this now. BUT I did run into another interesting tidbit of discussion between Ms Vivienne Popperl and Judge Dunn…

Cont. Transcript…

“Ms Vivienne Popperl – Your Honor I’d just like to bring to the courts attention that the Court had been granted an oral motion. I want to make sure that the Court feels comfortable having done it with no notice because 1104(a) does say that a request of a party in interest or the United States trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall appoint a trustee – WELL THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN NOW Did it? They act as if they are following the procedures, but they willy nilly throw them out the door when they don’t fit their agenda. Is this what they mean by Highest Fiduciary Duty.


DON’T Miss Clicking Here for the Audio – Click Here for Judge Randall Dunn Abruptly decides to Appoint a Trustee

Here Ms. Vivienne Popperal is referring to Title 11 U.S.C US Bankrupcty Code Section 1014 (a)
§ 1104. Appointment of trustee or examiner

(a) At any time after the commencement of the case but before confirmation of a plan, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the appointment of a trustee—

(1) for cause, including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by current management, either before or after the commencement of the case, or similar cause, but not including the number of holders of securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the debtor; (didn’t apply to Summit, unless they are talking about Sussman Shank, Obsidian Finance and Terry Vance??)

(2) if such appointment is in the interests of creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate, without regard to the number of holders of securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the debtor; or (this is very arguable)

(3) if grounds exist to convert or dismiss the case under section 1112, but the court determines that the appointment of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. (doesn’t look like it applies to Summit) Based on the huge amount of legal fees the appointment would cost.


Click here to see Document from The 1031 Tax Group, LLC – Okun case for appt trustee in place of DIP. It also says “The appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is an extraordinary measure” and that it “should be the exception, rather than the rule”. “The decision to appoint a chapter 11 trustee is a factual determination entrusted to the discretion of the bankruptcy judge”.

I bet the US Department of Justice knows this proceeding did not follow the legal procedures.

After listening to this circle of players go on and on about replacing the Chief Restructuring Officer, Terry Vance, with Obsidian as Trustee. Seems everyone is in agreement right? Only Brian Steven’s attorney, Foraker seems to be mind boggled by the happenstance of this hearing. Is there a reason Foraker removed himself from teh case shortly thereafter? Was he scared to be part of the Ruse?

Who was representing the Debtor? Who was representing the 200 creditors? They decided this in a matter of moments and they seemed to all really like the idea. Why follow any procedures? Who cares about who is doing the job? Who cares about anybody?

Seems like they are having a good time entertaining themselves with how do you get Obsidian in Control of the Estate and the Assets???? For my common sense brain this is So Confusing.
In Sharon Steel Corp “the standard gives the…. court discretion to appoint a trustee when doing so would serve the parties’ and estate’s interests”. In Ionosphere Clubs, Inc. the standard for appointment of a trustee should be…… “facilitation of a reorganizatoin that will benefit both the creditors and the debtors”.

Courts have considered several factors including “the benefits derived by the appointment of a trustee, balanced against the cost of appointment”.

It seems to me this was a rather rash decision and it was happening no matter what happened at this hearing. What are your thoughts? Was this already decided before the hearing began OR What???

Did you think that was it??? No there is more…

As you can hear for yourselves, the Judge says we can have this presentation…
I worked out the schedule with Kevin Padrick & the Summit Principals to hold the Presentation at the Summit Bend Office at 10:00AM on 2/12/09. Kevin Padrick was an hour late to the presentation. There was much discussed about the bankruptcy proceedings during this hour of waiting amongst some other fun chatter.

 I forgot I had the camera on the webcam for the duration of Kevin Padrick’s tardiness. There is no way I could have scripted the discussions and events that occurred. I like that it is an accurate representation of what what going on at that point in time and how there was a HUGE disconnect between what Terry Vance and the Summit Principals knew and what the Portland courtroom was basing motions and orders on.

Why weren’t Terry Vance and Summit Principals able to have their own say about appointing a Chapter 11 Trustee. Susan Ford did not represent Terry Vance, she just spoke for him.

There is some talk about Sussman’s ability to serve as counsel to the Obsidian as Trustee. Why is there not a conflict of interests for the Debtor’s Attorney, Sussman Shank, to serve as counsel for the Liquidating Trustee, Kevin Padrick??? Seems a slight conflict, but what do I know.

The Hearing was on 02/11/09. We had the presentation on 02/12/09.

The night of 2/11/09 I researched on the internet about this type of situation where I ran across the recording of court authorized meetings that were semi-public (Since Judge Dunn said all interested Parties would be interested in this presentation and from this, I believed I was able to determine that it was a semi-public meeting. You can record a semi-public meeting if the camera equipment was not concealedI did not conceal the camera equipment.

Kevin Padrick reported my so-called “illegal recording” to the Bend Police department in July 2009, just after he noticed it was on the Summit Blog. After some investigation and checking with my attorney we found out the investigation was going nowhere.


On January 5, 2010 I received notice that I was being charged with 2 misdemeanors of “illegal communication” related to the recording and the divulging of this recording.
Besides the fact that the investigation is stale, there are a few issues that seem fishy regarding why the DA incorrectly filed this claim.

A. The officer thought I told him, in July 2009, that I set up the recording computer in the “middle of the conference table”. The officer apparantly next thinks he found an inconsistency because he said it was readily apparent that I set up the device on the “back counter behind the Summit Principals.”

I think the officer erred twice here.

1. The device was facing Obsidian (the three people who are complaining (Kevin Padrick, Ewan Rose, & Ryan Norwood) – thus it was unconcealed, even by the officer’s standard.
2. The officer did not follow me (comprehend me (understand the importance of what I was saying)) when he interviewed me 4 months after the recording, in that he did not correctly quote me where I told him how the computer was set up. My own package of evidence should have jogged his memory.

B. Padrick, Rose, and Norwood were the only individuals interviewed by the officer besides me.

It seems that an unbiased officer (or rather an officer that was not being harangued by some powerful attorneys) would have interviewed Terry Vance and the other 5 people who saw where I set up the computer.

It looks like the first Deschutes County Deputy, likely contacted by Obsidian Finance, probably closed his investigation without criminal finding against me. Obsidian next pushed the Bend Police officer to follow up over 5 months after Padrick’s initial complaint. Next, the officer passed the buck (not a common practice) to the District Attorney’s office without a citing or closing the case. Next, because the District Attorney’s office (who also probably initially declined the case) to follow up. In other words, in all likelihood, at every step of the process, Obsidian had to resurrect the case, that otherwise would have remained closed, by pressing things."


Source of Post
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?s=opera

Also Check Out the Kevin Padrick Testimony in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Trial, Under Oath

http://kevinpadrickobsidianfinance.blogspot.com/2012/04/kevin-padricks-testimony-in-obsidian-v.html

David W. Brown, Obsidian Finance Group Testimony in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Trial, Under Oath

http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/06/david-brown-obsidian-finance-group.html

http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/10/bank-vp-declaration-declaration-of_14.html

Patricia Whittington, Obsidian Finance Group VP Testimony in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Trial, Under Oath

http://kevinpadrickobsidianfinance.blogspot.com/2012/04/lets-take-look-at-obsidian-v-cox-trial.html


More Research 

http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?s=buell

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox v. Defendant Marc J. Randazza, Jason Jones, Free Speech Coalition, Ari S. Bass, J. Malcom DeVoy, Ronald D. Green, APPLE, AOL Inc., David S. Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Tracy L. Coenan, Forbes, Kashmir Hill, New York Times, David Carr, Bruce Sewell, Godaddy, WIPO, Liberty Media and More.

Plaintiff:Crystal L Cox
Defendants:AOL Inc., APPLE, David S. Aman , OR, Mark Bennett, Sean Boushie , MT, David W. Brown, Brown, White and Newhouse Law Firm, Martin Cain, John Calkins, David Carr, Bernie Cassidy , MT, Doug Chey, Tracy L. Coenen, Corbin Fisher, Jennifer DeWolf Paine, Steve Dowling, Diana Duke, Dylan Energy, Royce Engstrom , MT, Allen Fagin, Forbes Inc., Free Speech Coalition, Bob Garfield, Godaddy Inc., Ronald D. Green, Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, Scott H Greenfield, Jessica Griffin, Roxanne Grinage, Taylor Kai Groenke , MT, Francis Gurry, Judge Marco Hernandez, Kashmir Hill, HireLyrics, Intel Corp., Jason Jones, Edward KWAKWA, Stephen P. Lamont, Joseph Lecesse, Liberty Capital, Liberty Interactive, Liberty Media Holdings, John C. Malone, Manwin Business Corporation, Greggory Mashberg , NY, Douglas Melamed, Peter L. Michaelson, Carlos Miller, Mobile Streams Inc., Michael Morgan , OR, Motorola Mobility Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., Multnomah County Sheriffs Office, Leo M. Mulvihill, Mulvihill & Rushie LLC, NPR New York Public Radio, Judge Gloria M. Navarro, New York Times , NY, Obsidian Finance Group, Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Kevin D Padrick , OR, Bob Parsons , AZ, Philly Law Blog, PopeHat.com, Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Marc J. Randazza , NV, Randazza Legal Group, Janine Robben , OR, Steven Rodgers, Marshall Ross, Kenneth Rubenstein, Jordan Rushie, Bret Sewell, Bruce Sewell, Daniel Staton , OR, Synaptics, Time Warner Cable Inc., Time Warner Inc., Sean Tompkins, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Matthew M. Triggs, Eric Turkewitz, Turkewitz Law Firm, University of Montana, Tim Vawter, Mark Vena, WIPO, David Wang, Kenneth P. White, Michael Whiteacre, Eric Wilbers, Steven Wilker , OR and XBIZ"
Nature of Suit:Other Statutes - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Cause:18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jury Demanded By:Plaintiff


Source of Post
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2013cv00297/92918/


District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Case Docket
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147851256/2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF%20-%20Nevada%20RICO

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF  RICO / Racketeering / Defamation /
 Harassment / Hate Crime Complaint Filing.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147018909/District%20of%20Nevada%202:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK%20Civil%20RICO%20Complaint,%20COX%20vs.%20Randazza.%20Racketeer/Corrupt%20Organization%20Jurisdiction:%20Diversity%20Case

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

HEY FBI, Investigate Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick, as well as Tonkon Torp Attorney David Aman

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Search Referral:
Host Name:Browser:IE 8.0
IP Address:153.31.113.21 — [Label IP Address]Operating System:WinXP
Location:Woodbridge, Virginia, United StatesResolution:1920x1200
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:Not ApplicableISP:Fbi Criminal Justice Information Systems

Navigation Path

DateTimeWebPage
  
12 Mar15:31:26

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Plaintiff, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox NOTIFIES Intel Corp., (INTC:NASDAQ GS) (INTC.OQ) (INTC:US) of Massive Shareholder Liability by sending INTC, Intel Corp a Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability Regarding Federal RICO / Racketeering Lawsuit District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, filed February 26th, 2013 by Plaintiff Crystal Cox. Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, District Judge James C. Mahan, Las Vegas Nevada.


Plaintiff Blogger Crystal Cox Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability; Defendant INTC, Intel Corp., Douglas Melamed personally and professionally, Steven R. Rodger personally and professionally. RICO / Racketeering Lawsuit, District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Pro Se Plaintiff
District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

March 6th,  2013

Steven R. Rodgers
Vice President of Legal, Corporate Affairs and
Deputy General Counsel of Litigation, Licensing & Patents, Intel Corporation

Douglas Melamed
Intel Corp. General Counsel

Intel, INTC Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers

Regarding:   NOTICE of Liability;   
Notice of Claim Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel, INTC Shareholders and Others.  Notice to all Intel Executives, Shareholders, Board Members, Insurance Providers, Auditors, and all financially connected to Intel Corp., INTC in any way.

Notice Regarding RICO / Racketeering Complaint Filed in District Of Nevada, Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders and Intel Executives.

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF names Douglas Melamed, Steven R. Rodgers and Intel Corp. in conspiracy to STOP the flow of information in online media regarding INTC, Intel’s Involvement in the iViewit Technology Theft.


Douglas Melamed, Steven R. Rodgers and Whom It May Concern:

This notice is written upon the Knowledge and Belief of Investigative Blogger Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox.  I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, write this letter to notify you of legal action pending against Intel, INTC in the District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Lawsuit, whereby Intel Corp., Douglas Melamed, and Steven R. Rodgers are named Defendants.

Notice was sent to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation, who is named Personally and Professionally, On December 27th 2012 and again in On January  27th 2013. As well as updated court documents.   Notices have also been sent to INTC, Intel Corp. General Counsel Douglas Melamed

Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation have, thus far, ignored this serious legal matter, and it is assumed have failed to notify auditors, shareholders, Intel Ceo’s, and all who should be notified of this massive liability to Intel Corp. and INTC Shareholders.

Upon information and belief, the frauds included but are not limited to the failure of Intel Corp., INTC, to disclose both this lawsuit and the Intellectual Property infringement of the iViewit Technology, which is a Trillion dollar liability to Intel, INTC Shareholders and the Intel Corporation.

Intel Corp., INTC executives have known of this massive liability over violations of NDA’s and infringement of the iViewit Video Technology for over a Decade.

Ex-Senior Vice President, General Counsel of Intel Corp., INTC, Bruce Sewell, now General Counsel of APPLE, who is also named in this Federal RICO Lawsuit. Corresponded with Eliot Bernstein regarding this massive undisclosed liability. I, Crystal Cox have attached those correspondences to this Notice of Liability, as well as added links at the bottom of this letter.

APPLE Executive Steven Dowling has also communicated with Eliot Bernstein of iViewit Technology regarding this massive undisclosed liability.

Eliot Bernstein, founder of iViewit Technology Company, and one of the inventors of the iViewit Video Technology, is named as a Defendant in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, which was filed in alleged conspiracy to suppress Internet Blogs, Domain Names and Online Media reporting on the iViewit Technology theft, which involves Intel Corp., INTC, as noted in the iViewit Technology SEC Complaint, RICO Complaint, FBI Complaints, USPTO Complaint and other Federal Investigations into this matter.

In regard to Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Technology Company, Intel Corp., INTC has massive, undisclosed liabilities and this notice is to warn all those financially tied to INTC, Intel Corporation of this massive liability. Failing to disclose this liability is in direct violation of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for disclosing liabilities and more.

The Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Technology Company, also involves an attempted murder of his family and a car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to Bernstein Vehicle.

The iViewit Technology theft is a very serious matter, and a massive, undisclosed liability to Intel, INTC shareholders, auditors, and executives. The iViewit Technology theft  involves high stakes corporate theft and fraud of a 13 Trillion Dollar Intellectual Property.

Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to the iViewit Case as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower case, the Christine Anderson case. ( Christine C. Anderson,Case No.: 07cv9599 Plaintiff Appellant, (SAS) (AJP), 2d Cir. No. 09-5059-cv v. The State of New York,Defendants-Appellee)

Steven Rodgers Vice President has allegedly conspired with WIPO, ( World Intellectual Property Organization) Director Francis Gurry, and also WIPO Legal Edward Kwakwa and also Eric Wilbers of WIPO, in order to wipe out blogs, online media that report on the iViewit Technology Story and cover up this massive liability by wiping out blogs, changing domain names servers of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have a web stat that shows WIPO looking at my Notice to WIPO of massive fraud, and then emailing Steven Rodgers of INTC, Intel Corporation.

Eric Wilbers of WIPO has spoke with Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox regarding this matter. WIPO has been notified of this massive fraud months ago, that will affect Intel, INTC Shareholders. WIPO has done nothing, that I am aware of, to correct this matter nor to notify executives, insurance providers, shareholders of this massive liability.

Steven Rodgers Intel Corporation knows of the iViewit Technology infringement by Intel, and has failed disclose this liability to Shareholders, Executives, Auditors..

Intel Corp. INTC Shareholders have a massive liability in this matter. This letter is a NOTICE to Intel Corp Executives, Shareholders, Auditors, Liability Carriers, Insurance Provides and more, to disclose this massive liability, that by LAW Intel Corporation, INTC, Must Disclose.

I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have attached the Federal RICO Complaint  District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF to this eMail notice, as well as documents of Intel’s Connection to this liability.

Here is an Online Link to the RICO Complaint Filed February 26th, 2013 by Plaintiff, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox,  District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147018909/District-of-Nevada-213-cv-00297-JCM-NJK-Civil-RICO-Complaint-COX-vs-Randazza-RacketeerCorrupt-Organization-Jurisdiction-Diversity-Case

Also note that Portland Oregon Law Firm Tonkon Torp LLP and Mike Morgan of Tonkon Torp are also named in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.

Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Portland represented Intel and represented Enron in their bankruptcy, this is very much connected to the Iviewit Technology case and also brings massive financial liability to the shareholders of INTC, Intel Corp.

There is definite action that Steven Rodgers of INTC, Intel Corporation should have take to disclose this legal action. There is definite action that Bruce Sewell former General Counsel at Intel Corporation should have also taken to disclose this legal action. Bruce Sewell, now General Counsel of APPLE is also a named Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, as is APPLE Executive Steve Dowling.

This Notice of Claim and Liability serves as a warning to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, Intel Financially for any reason of the massive, pending liability to Intel Corporation, INTC.

INTC, Intel has violated NDA’s with Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology.  INTC, Intel is named in Federal RICO Complaints, SEC Complaints and more, in regard to massive liability over the infringement of the iViewit Video Technology, which is said to be worth 13 Trillion Dollars.

Knowing the liability that Intel, INTC has over the iViewit Video Technology, and violations of agreements with Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology, Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation recently conspired with WIPO and WIPO Panelist Peter L. Michaelson, to take Domain Names from Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, and Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, who had been reporting on the iViewit Technology theft for 3 years.

Peter L. Michaelson has conspired with the Plaintiff in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Marc J. Randazza, who now is also a named Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, in order to launch a public defamation, disgrace, and discrediting campaign against Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, reporting on the iViewit Technology Theft for over 3 years.

Marc J. Randazza, Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, conspired by officially stating in WIPO Complaints, WIPO Publications, WIPO Decisions, and WIPO Legal Announcements to the World, that Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, and Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox are guilty of the crime of extortion, of which neither Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, nor Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox have been charged with, under investigation for, nor prosecuted of.

This action by Peter L. Michaelson and Marc J. Randazza in WIPO Decisions and in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, was intentional to discredit and silence the reporting of the world’s biggest technology crime. Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox has filed claims against all those conspiring with Plaintiff Marc J. Randazza in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, and the WIPO Decision.

I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have attached correspondence between Intel, INTC and Eliot Bernstein to this notice.  Here are links to further information regarding the massive liability to INTC, Intel Corp. Shareholders, Insurance Carriers and Intel Executives.

Links to Documents proving this massive Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, Intel Financially for any reason.

iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Naming INTC, Intel Corp.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

iViewit Technology NDA Agreements with INTC, Intel Corp.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/nda%20violators.pdf

iViewit Technology Demand Letter to INTC, Intel Corp.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/130695905/iviewittv_CompanyDocs_United-States-District-Court-Southern-District-NY_20090306-Intel-Demand-Letter-_-Liability-Exposure--Signed-3549l

More Regarding INTC, Intel Corp and iViewit Technology
.
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?tag=intc

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=498

http://www.rayfordwilkins.com/2012/10/intel-corp-intc-refuse-to-disclose.html

http://intelcorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/intel-general-counsel-bruce-sewell.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf

http://federalricolawsuit.blogspot.com/2010/01/judiciary-committee-reviews-iviewit.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/RICO%20CRIME%20CHARTS.pdf

I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, am an Investigative Blogger, I have read thousands of pages of documents over 3 years, listened to Senate Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings, read depositions, read billing documents, listening to depositions, read court filings, read NDA agreements, and massive amounts of proof of the liability that Intel has. This is an Important issue and by LAW must be disclosed.

I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, intend to file this Notice with the SEC, 7 days after sending this official notice to INTC, Intel Corporation.

I have read SEC Complaints, RICO Complaints, USPTO Complaints, NDA Agreements, Contracts, and massive amounts of documented proof of the rightful Inventors and owner of the iViewit Technology that 99% of ALL video uses today, and I feel it is my duty to Warn INTC Investors, shareholders, auditors, insurance providers, ceos and more regarding this massive liability.

Upon my knowledge and belief, Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation has directly conspired to silence me, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, as I have been reporting on the iViewit Technology theft for over 3 years. Due to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation conspiring to remove my online media regarding the iViewit Technology theft,  I have filed legal action against Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation personally and professionally, and against the INTC Company for 10 Million Each.

This is a serious and valid Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability and is in response to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation, Douglas Melamed, and Intel Corp. being named in a Federal RICO, Racketeering Lawsuit, FILED by Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.

Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF have directly attacked me, defaming me, suppressed my online news media blogs, endangered my life, threatened me, stolen my intellectual property, and ruined my reputation in order to SUPPRESS the flow of information regarding their involvement and liability in the iViewit Technology Theft.

Pro Se Plaintiff
District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
Crystal Cox News
Crystal@CrystalCox.com



PDF of INTC, Intel Corp., Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/148002688/INTC-Intel-Notice-of-Claim-Notice-of-Liablity

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF RICO Filing
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147018909/District-of-Nevada-213-cv-00297-JCM-NJK-Civil-RICO-Complaint-COX-vs-Randazza-RacketeerCorrupt-Organization-Jurisdiction-Diversity-Case

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Docket
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147851256/213-cv-00297-JCM-VCF---Nevada-RICO


If you are concerned about this serious liability to INTC, Intel Corp. Stocks, Shares, Assets or have questions regarding this legal action, here are Intel Corp., INTC Key Executive, and Contact Information.



Contact Information

Intel Corp

2200 Mission College Boulevard
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
United States
Phone: 1-408-765-8080
Fax: 1-408-765-9904

Key Executives for Intel Corp (INTC)

Andy D BryantChairmanPaul S OtelliniPresident/CEO
Stacy Jared SmithExec VP/CFOBrian M KrzanichExec VP/COO
David Perlmutter "Dadi"Exec VP/Chief Product OfficerRenee J JamesExec VP/Gen Mgr:Svcs
Thomas M Kilroy "Tom"Exec VP/Gen Mgr:Sales & MktgWilliam M Holt "Bill"Exec VP/Gen Mgr:Technology
Arvind SodhaniExecutive Vice PresidentA Douglas Melamed "Doug"Senior VP/General Counsel
Kirk B SkaugenSenior VP/Gen Mgr:PC Client GrpDiane M BryantSenior VP/Gen Mgr:Datacenter
Sohail U AhmedSenior VP/Dir:Logic TechnologyJonathan KhazamVP/Gen Mgr:Visual & Parallel
Michael C MayberryVP/Dir:Components ResearchMark HenningerInvestor Relations