A Look at Details of the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy and Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick as Trustee. And a Deeper Look into Obsidian Vs. Cox.
I believe that Kevin Padrick Violated Bankruptcy Code in his appointment as the Trustee in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.
I believe that Judge Randall Dunn, the Summit Bankruptcy Judge, had a conflict of interest with Obsidian Finance Group, and others involved in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.
I believe that conflicts of interest with Pamela Griffith of the Department of Justice and Leon Simson led to favoritism, and biased decisions. I believe that Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie acted unethically and possibly illegally in assisting to get Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, the massively lucrative job of "Trustee" in a $40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy Case. The Summit Bankruptcy has given these guys paychecks up until March of 2012, per the court docket.
Take a Look at some more details of the Summit Bankruptcy Case. As I prepare my RICO Complaint, Judicial Complaints, Attorney General Complaints and more, I want to share with my readers more about this Bankruptcy, in hopes that providing transparency in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, this will show you the Model of Corruption in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, and together we can put an end to it by Exposing the Bankruptcy Judges, Trustee, and the Department of Justice Trustee that is suppose to provide the highest fiduciary duty and they do the opposite as far as I have seen.
Patty Whittington's Testimony Starts on Page 99 Line 7 of the Obsidian V. Cox Trial Transcripts
David Aman, Tonkon Torp is asking the Questions Here
My Comments on Patty Whittington's Testimony is in Blue in the Post Below.
Q. Now, you see the statement, the first statement says that "The Summit principals also did their own 1031 exchanges during the past years as they purchased and sold properties. When you do an exchange, you have deferred gain that you don't pay tax on until you sell the property." Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. And that's consistent with what you saw?
Q. But the next statement says, "When Kevin Padrick, as Chapter 11 trustee, did a turnover of all the assets to his liquidating trust, these deferred gains became tax liabilities to the liquidating trust." Do you see that?
A. I do see that.
Q. And is that accurate?
A. No. That's incorrect."
As a real estate Broker Owner of over a decade, it is my understanding that if you are in the processing of deferring gain, such as a 1031 Exchange does, then, if for any reason that transaction is not completed within the IRS 1031 Exchange Codes, then you, the real estate consumer, are responsible to pay that tax gain.
However, it would seem logical to me that if an "Entity" such as a "Liquidating Trust" took control of that property and you had no way to sell it, to complete the exchange, well then you the victim, in this case the Exchanger, who is also known as the Creditor in the Summit Bankruptcy, as far as I understand it, you would have to pay the tax on that gain, and if you were not in control, I would assume that the Liquidating Trust, the Trustee would have to pay that Tax Gain. Or that, at the very least it would be a "Tax Liability" to that "Liquidating Trust". I don't believe that Patricia Whittington is stating this factually.
Q. The next statement says, "However, Obsidian Finance's accounting staff is conveniently leaving these deferred gains out of their tax returns." Do you see that?
A. I do see that.
Q. And you didn't put them in the tax returns for the liquidating trust because it wasn't required under the
tax code; is that correct?
A. That's correct "
Where is the tax code that proves this? Obsidian Finance Group provided no tax documents, as I requested, in order to prove they paid that gain. Judge Hernandez even discusses this in the motion to deny a new trial, however there was no documents proving that this was not required under tax code. I am not an expert in the 1031 Exchange business, however I have had countless clients partake in a 1031 Exchanges, I have taken over a dozen courses from Starker and other Exchange Companies, as I have been a Real Estate Broker Owner for over a Decade. I still believe that this deferred gain had to be paid, or at least reported in this process. This is just what I believe from my Experience in this Field.
At one point Patricia Whittington talks about Moss Adams doing the Taxes, so why didn't Moss Adams take the stand and testify to this? Why didn't Moss Adams give a Statement? Why did none of them bother to send me a bit of proof and an exact blog post they had issue with, in order that I may consider a retraction?
Q. You also, in your job at Obsidian, you do finance accounting for the company itself, correct?
A. I do.
Q. And since the beginning of this year, what have you seen in terms of the revenues that you've generated from the advisory business?
A. Our advisory business is significantly down this year. "
What does this have to do with this case? The Lawsuit was filed on January 14th 2011, the Blog Post was put up December 25th 2010. This was a 20 Day Period of which only 14 was in the "this year" she is talking about. Homestreet Bank filed an Objection in 2011, and other issues came up for Obsidian, such as the Lake County Oregon residents upset over their Solar Farms, and Oregon Tax Payers upset at the 50 Million in Solar Tax Credits that Obsidian wanted, when denied, they sued the State of Oregon, yet we are to believe that my ONE Blog Post and those 14 days was the problem? Really?
Q. And what would you estimate that it's down from the past?
Patty Whittington Answers this
A. My estimate is about a million dollars this year."
Thing is folks that last year had nothing to do with the Trial really. See I posted the Post on December 25th 2010, and they filed a Lawsuit 20 days later on January 14th 2011.
My infamous email I am accused of Extortion with was sent January 19th 2011, After the Lawsuit was filed. So down a Million, with no proof, no spreadsheets, and this is proof enough for a Federal Court Judge? Think about it folks, they are protecting Judge Randall Dunn, Perkins Coie, Pamela Griffith US Trustee, Sussman Shank, Tonkon Torp, and Obsidian Finance Group who is connected to the biggest money in Oregon and in this year they allege to have lost Millions they signed a MAJOR contract with Pacificorp for Millions a Year, called the Black Cap Project. Also look at YarrowBay and the Cascadia Project and all the money they are making from deals made in that same "this year" that Patty Whittington is testifying to.
The Plaintiff's Attorney David Aman had brought up a Piece of the Subject Post on the Screen, it Started As "Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group - Tax Fraud? Fraud Against the Government? Gee ya Think?"
This was what David Aman used to question the star Witness Gary Stachlowski of PNW Tax Advisors, SO in the questions below I am referring to the subject post from that spot.
Here is the Subject Post ( I was not ordered to remove it) It is just how it was
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COX:
Q. This blog post that you just talked about, was the title a question or a statement?
A. I don't know."
MS. COX: Could we -- I guess I have no way to pull it up again.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. But you're familiar with the post where it says "Tax fraud," question mark?
Skip to line 8 where the Document is on the Screen Now.
MS. COX: Exactly what you were saying, where it says, "Tax fraud," question mark. At the top of what you just read, the top of it said, "Tax fraud," question mark, "Brought against the government," question mark, "Gee, ya think," question mark.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Would you say that that's a question or a statement?
A. That's your statement. I actually don't know.
Q. What you just testified to was right below that, just on the screen.
Q. And so that is asking a question about everything beneath that, would you agree?
Q. So you're saying that that's a statement?
A. If you would like me to say those are question marks, yes, I'll say that. If you would like me to say that's a question of everything below, no, I can't actually say that. I don't know."
This part of the Blog Post about Tax Fraud was Clearly in a Question Form, though the witnesses claimed over and over that it was a Statement.
We Continue on page 109, line 3
"Q. Okay. When did you first read this blog post?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was it between December 25th and January 14th, by your recollection?
A. I can only say possibly. It was talked about at our office, so --"
So the Post of December 25th 2010, a Lawsuit filed January 14th 2011, and the VP of Obsidian Finance Group, whom claims they lost Millions over the ONE Blog Post, she had not read the post at that time? Doesn't this seem odd to you?
Q. Do you have any information that proves actual revenue loss due to this exact blog post?
A. No, I don't have that."
So the VP, the gal in charge of the "books" at Obsidian Finance Group, she cannot prove ANY actual Revenue was lost due to that ONE blog post? Hmmmm....
Next, Page 109, Line 12
"Q. Are you aware that Obsidian Finance Group had a contract with Summit at any time?
A. You'll have to -- Summit?
Q. Summit Accommodators?
A. I think -- I actually don't know if it was ever approved by the bankruptcy court. So there was a draft,
I do know. I don't know whether it was approved by the bankruptcy court."
So Obsidian Finance Group's VP Patty Whittington took in $100,000, and put this permanently into the "books". This money taken for a contract she signed for one of the Principals, Kevin Padrick.
This money was taken in such a way as she knows that a bankruptcy judge would have to "approve" those fees, and as of November 2011, at this Trial, Patty Whittington does not know if this fee was "approved by the bankruptcy court"? Really?
How can this be when clearly almost 2 years had passed, and as Patty Whittington tells us in this transcript, Obsidian took this money onto their books with no refund given. And yet she does not know if it was "approved by the bankruptcy court", this is illegal right?
Q. What is the difference between the Summit Accommodators and the Summit 1031 exchange, just for clarity?
A. According to my information, it was -- one was a dba, doing business as, and one was the company.
Q. Were they the same owners?
A. To my knowledge, yes.
Q. Have you read any other derogatory blogs that say anything negative about Obsidian in any way?
Q. Can you tell me what blogs besides the defendant's, mine?
A. No other ones besides yours."
Really? How can this be True?
At the time of the Summit 1031 bankruptcy there was lots of blog postings, article and news comments and more. Plus there is David Aman deposing Stephanie Deyoung ( Click Here) and talking about her blog, so he fully knows there is more then just me out there making stuff up to defame an innocent attorney.
Yet David Aman told Forbes, Seattle Weekly and the New York Times that I knowingly posted false information, when to this day I believe it to be True. The Video AGAIN proves that David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney new that it was not just me, and that my blogs were not the only one.
See they had already put her to ruins, and she had backed off. Stephanie DeYoung's Blog was not my only source, I had read all the documents on it, watched videos, read court filings, spoke with people involved and did so for years. When David Aman, Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group used their Power and Clout to silence Stephanie DeYoung, the next step was to remove my Internet presence, and they attempted to do that offering deal after deal. Thing is I believe there should be Transparency and Accountability in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts.
And then there is the Witness Write up for this trial ( Click Here) where on page 4 David Aman, Plaintiff Attorney claims that Ms. Studebaker (Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung),"engaged in an internet campaign in an effort to undercut Mr. Padrick’s actions as trustee.". Yet just below in this same document he says it was just me, I will show you that in a moment.
Page 4 goes on to say "She illegally videotaped a meeting with him and was criminally prosecuted for doing so. She ultimately entered into a plea bargain in which she admitted she violated the law in doing so.".
Thing is they pressured her to drop the videos by putting her life under extreme duress and she has 3 young children. She had to do what they made her do. And the video taping of a public meeting, in an issue that involved 100's of victims ( Exchangers, Investors, Creditors, Employees), this was not illegal, and those videos are still online ( Click Here)
The reason for Ms Studebaker's Blog was to provide documents of transparency. She, and others had also filed an objection to the fees that showed the conflicts of interest and possible corruption, Judge Randall Dunn Ignored this very important information (Click Here)
Also in this document, David Aman lies about the funds received by Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung. This Trial is about a Blog Post and whether True or not, yet the Plaintiff's attorney David Aman uses these documents, court filings to defame, harass, and flat out lie about the Summit Bankruptcy Whistle Blower Stephanie DeYoung.
Page 4 of the document called "Plaintiff Witness List" by David Aman Tonkon Torp goes on to say
"Given the nature of Obsidian’s and Padrick’s business, their reputation is critical. They often engage with sophisticated entities and individuals who have little or no experience with Obsidian. It is common for these entities and individuals to review Obsidian’s website and conduct background research on Obsidian, Padrick and David Brown —including using internet search engines."
Why is it ok for Obsidian Finance Group to ruin hundreds of business and lives in their actions in the Summit Bankruptcy but when we expose them, they cry foul, and act like this damaged them? All we did was point out the documents and ask questions, comment and give our professional opinions as we were both in the "Industry" that Summit 1031 Exchange company was involved in, Taxes and Real Estate. Kevin Padrick used his connections to Jeff Manning of the Oregonian to seemingly defame Summit and ruin their lives and reputations, even after they had hired him to advise them. This is Ok? Not in my OPINION.
"Sometime in 2008, defendant Crystal Cox began posting on the Internet about Mr. Padrick and Obsidian on numerous websites that she either already owned or that she purchased. The website postings falsely accused Mr. Padrick and Obsidian of engaging in various unlawful conduct, including bribing judges, tax fraud, fraud against the government, solar tax credit crimes and money laundering. Mr. Padrick did not commit any of the wrongful acts Ms. Cox accused him of. Nor has he been charged with or convicted of any criminal conduct of any kind."
Well actually it was 2009. Insiders first Contacted me in July of 2009. If they thought it was false that many years ago, why wait to years to talk to me in ANY way? Do your research, Follow the Money.
"In December 2010, Mr. Padrick had his attorney send Ms. Cox a cease and desist letter. Ms. Cox responded by requesting that Obsidian pay for her reputation management services. The only reputation damage that had been done was by Ms. Cox herself. The defamatory statements made by Ms. Cox have caused Obsidian and Mr. Padrick to suffer serious damage to their reputation. They have received numerous comments and inquiries from business associates, potential clients, investment bankers, and others concerning Ms. Cox’s defamatory statements."
Again David Aman talks of me "Response", yes my Cease Fire Response dated January 19th 2011, after a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit was filed against me, I responded by trying to Negotiate a Cease Fire and Stop a year of legal battles, that is now still continuing. Note here that David Aman claims I offer these services for damage that had only been done by me, as this sentence says, "The only reputation damage that had been done was by Ms. Cox herself." So, remember the paragraph before when it was Stephanie DeYoung, then it was Crystal Cox. The Truth is Kevin Padrick ruined his own reputation, we simply got his bad behavior found online where it could be seen in the light of day.
Also not I did not "Request", I negotiated and David Aman asked me my Rates and Services after this, as in part of the negotion ( Click Here for that )
Also on page 6 of that same document, David Aman says this
"Ms. Cox makes the statement that "Padrick just gave away the Summit Shareholders’ interest in Century Drive Mobile Home Park to another owner named Jim Hull. Obsidian did an extensive review of the Century Drive transactions and the value of the property involved. Obsidian determined that the property had no value to the Liquidating Trust because the amount owed to the lender was substantially more than the value of the property. Obsidian also determined that Mr. Hull had been potentially misled by the Summit principals into investing into the Century Drive deal. Ms. Studebaker DeYoung had also been involved in Century Drive with the Summit principals. Mr. Hull advised Obsidian that he wanted to try to salvage the venture. For all of these reasons, Padrick decided to relinquish the interest in Century Drive to Mr. Hull. "
This, as far as I know violates the law, and violates the agreement among owners. Kevin Padrick had no legal right to pick one of the owners and give away the interest of the "others". The other owners were not even notified, this is not based in law, as far as I see it.
Also Note here, Jim Hull was one of those who filed an Objection to the Fees of Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group, so what kind of deal was REALLY Made.
Click Below for a Bit more on that. ( I Say, Time to Depose Jim Hull for the Real Truth on that One )
Anyway, Back to the Patricia Whittington Testimony, my Comments are in Blue
Q. Did you at any time contact -- When you became aware that this blog post was a problem to Obsidian, did you at any time contact the defendant and ask for this post to be removed?
Q. Do you have any proof that I knowingly posted false information on this blog?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. AMAN: Thank you."
Why can't I ask this? Well they don't want this out there, as this is to do with whether I had actual malice, which I did not have actual malice. Even though David Aman states in many documents and at that trial, that I knowingly posted false information, thing is that is NOT true.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Were you aware of all of Kevin Padrick's duties and activities regarding the Summit bankruptcy?
A. No, I can't say all. Many.
Q. I think I may have asked this, but do you have any proof that there was actual revenue lost between
January 25th -- or January 14th and December -- the prior December 25th, with Obsidian Finance?
A. Yeah, I don't know the dates.
Q. You don't have proof that this exact blog post --
A. No, no."
Ok so again, the VP, who does the books at Obsidian, has no proof that this blog post resulted in lost revenue?
Q. So are you familiar with the bankruptcy code?
A. I'm not a lawyer. So I am familiar with the parts that I've worked with.
Q. Are you familiar with Summit having a contract with Obsidian Finance and taking a retainer of $100,000 to be their client, for Summit to be the client of Obsidian Finance?
MR. AMAN: Objection. That's outside the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that.
THE WITNESS: I can't remember how you started that question. Am I --
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Are you aware of -- You say you do the accounting for Obsidian Finance, right?
Q. Are you aware of a -- or Summit Accommodators, the Summit principals, the owners, had a contract with Obsidian Finance, a signed contract? They took a $100,000 retainer to represent them as their client. Are you aware of this retainer?
A. I was aware of the retainer, yes.
Q. Was this retainer returned to Summit or was it part of the income of Obsidian?
A. It was not returned to Summit. It was applied against the fees.
Q. Are you aware of what services Obsidian Finance provided for Summit?
A. Well, where do you want me start?
This should not be a hard question. I did not ask what services Obsidian provided for the Creditors, or the Liquidating Trust. I asked " what services Obsidian Finance provided for Summit? "
Q. Would you say that Obsidian Finance Group -- that Summit Accommodators was a client of Obsidian Finance Group via this retainer and this contract?
A. Yes. I don't -- I'm not sure that's how the bankruptcy views it, but I'm not a lawyer. So I would
have called it a client."
Not sure how the bankruptcy view it? Summit contacted Obsidian before the Bankruptcy was filed.
Ok So Summit was a "Client", well then was Kevin Padrick legally allowed to be a bankruptcy trustee via Bankruptcy Code 1104? Here are some research links for my Readers.
Patty Whittington Questioning Continued
Q. But you -- in your records of your business, there is -- there is documented proof that Obsidian Finance Group was under a contractual obligation, a contract agreement, and paid for those services with Summit Accommodators, Summit principals, those same four men.
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor, misstates her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I'm not -- I'm not sure I understand. Used their money? Whose?
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. My question is: Was Obsidian Finance Group under a contractual obligation? Was there -- I'm looking for, there was a possible breach of contract. Was Obsidian Finance -- you just testified that they took a $100,000 retainer for service, so that would mean that Summit was a client of Obsidian Finance Group.
Ok so then Obsidian Finance Group clearly violated this contractual obligation as far as I see it.
Q. And this was before Obsidian Finance Group took the job as trustee, which was taking that personal and privileged information and working for the creditors committee, which is essentially on the opposite side, against their client.
A. I'm not sure what you want me to say exactly. I don't --
Q. Okay. I just want you to tell us whether or not Obsidian Finance Group had a contractual obligation to their client, Summit Accommodators."
A. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Because I'm not sure -- I don't quite understand what you're asking,
Ok so now she does not know, but above she said Yes there was a Contractual Obligation. Guess she is a little mixed up.
Q. But your company took a $100,000 retainer, yes?
A. I confirmed that, yes.
Q. And this was taken onto the books as a service rendered?
A. Do you want to know what we did at first?
Q. No, just a yes or no, that it was a service rendered to a company, $100,000.
Q. And this company was Summit?
Q. So you agree there was a contractual agreement between Obsidian Finance Group and Summit?
A. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how you're using those terms, so I don't know how to answer that.
MS. COX: Can I have a minute to find that exhibit, that contract?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. COX: May I admit this contract into exhibits?
THE COURT: Not exactly just like that. But you may want to show that exhibit to the witness, and maybe the witness can identify it."
We continue on Page 115 Line 1, after the Contract is on the Screen for All to See
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. And Obsidian is your company?
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to this exhibit?
MR. AMAN: No, Your Honor. "
Can you believe that? A Judge asks an Attorney if he wants to object? He never asked me one time if I wanted to object and I was Pro Se.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Does this look like a familiar --
THE COURT: Hang on a second. The plaintiffs don't have any objection to this evidence. If you want
to offer that exhibit, why don't you tell us what number it is.
MS. COX: It's Exhibit 527.
THE COURT: 527 will be received. Now we can turn it on for the jury, and they can
THE CLERK: It's on.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. So this is your letterhead from your company?
Q. And this contract is a contract that you recognize as being, so far, from this first page, familiar with the contract within your company?
Q. This is the second page of the contract. Does this seem like a reasonable part of the contract?
A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. This is page 3.
A. Okay. I can't see the page numbers, but --
Q. It talks about conflicts of interest.
A. Okay. "
Q. And it's a contract basically between -- this is a contract between Obsidian Finance Group and Summit. And this is -- is this the signature of Kevin Padrick?
A. No. That's me.
Q. This is?
A. Yes, PLW.
Q. So you signed for Kevin Padrick?
A. Yeah. He may have been not in the office."
Wow, Patricia Whittington VP of Obsidian, Signs the name of Obsidian Principal Kevin Padrick and does not even know what the contract says or what services is to be provided, because ummmm she is not a lawyer?
Q. So you took a $100,000 retainer, which was taken in as a service. So you were under -- so Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Summit to prepare -- to provide financial services to help them restructure their debt?
A. Restructure their debt? They were in bankruptcy and they were liquidating, not restructuring."
Folks, look at the details of all this, they were NOT in bankruptcy as of the Date this contract was signed, Summit had not yet filed for Bankruptcy. She should have known what she was signing. This contract is dated December 18,2008. Per Schedule A of this Contract, Summit hired Obsidian Finance Group to help "Restructure", not to help in Liquidating the entire business:
Patricia Whittington, Obsidian VP Said, "They were in bankruptcy and they were liquidating, not restructuring" yet the contract clearly says that Obsidian Finance was hired to "Development of Restructuring Alternatives", "Implementing Critical Restructuring Alternatives", "Evaluating the assets and liabilities", Preparing a "Plan of Reorganization" and more.
So clearly Summit and Obsidian were in a situation to "Restructure" and NOT to flat out liquidate. Also it was to be a Debtor in a Possession, why else have a CRO, (Chief Restructuring Officer) as Terry Vance was?
And clearly it is signed before Summit Filed for Bankruptcy, as per the Court Docket, Click Here.
Obsidian had met with Summit, gathered data, and discussed details for quite awhile, prior to this contract being signed on this date. Though it is a day, still it is signed before Summit Filed for Bankruptcy, and Obsidian was hired to advise Summit on Financial Matters. Sussman Shank was working for Obsidian, and put out the Press Release that discussed Terry Vance as CRO, and Obsidian. (Click Here)
Obsidian took financial data and privileged information and used it against Summit, in what sure looks like a breach of contract, and sold themselves to the Creditors, as we hear talk about in the Audio of Judge Dunn where he talks of Kevin Padrick's presentation to the Creditors, though in this court transcript, Kevin Padrick says he did not present to the Creditors, but instead interviewed with the Department of Justice.
Also note in my Trial Documents, Exhibit 535, ( Click Here ) there is a Bill to Summit for a Meeting with Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie, the Attorney for the Creditors whom used to work under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash Law Firm.
Kevin Padrick claimed in emails to Terry Vance CRO ( Click Here ) that he, Terry Vance had sent him to the Creditors Committee, yet he did not. Yet when I asked Kevin Padrick, under Oath at the Obsidian V. Cox Trial, Kevin Padrick said he interviewed with the Department of Justice but did not meet with the creditors committee. This was simply not true.
Kevin Padrick seemed to have had an "IN" with Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie and made a deal with the Creditor Committee, while under contract to help the Debtors in "Development of Restructioning Alternatives", "Implementing Critical Restructuring Alternatives" and other terms of their agreement. This sure seems to make Kevin Padrick an Insider, by bankruptcy code.
While working for the Debtor, Summit, Kevin Padrick's Client, and billing his client, Kevin Padrick had meetings with Tom Stilley and Steven Hedberg, why? He was not authorized by the CRO, Terry Vance nor by the Debtor.
Here is Some Billable Hours
This Press Release written by Sussman Shank, also talks about Obsidian being "Retained".
We continue with Ms. Cox questioning Patty Whittington, Obsidian Finance VP
Q. Was -- you're saying -- you're testifying that Obsidian -- that Summit was in bankruptcy when they hired Obsidian Finance Group.
A. To my knowledge, yes. We weren't -- we didn't work for them before."
What? She said we did not work for them? She had just testified above that Summit was client, and they took a $100,000 retainer. Obsidian Did work for "Them", for Summi,t and was under contract to do so. And Summit was NOT in bankruptcy when this contract was signed.
Q. Mr. Padrick testified earlier that he was -- talked to the Summit principals before they filed for
bankruptcy. The records show that he was under contract. This contract was before the Summit principals filed for bankruptcy. And you signed this contract?
A. We do those in connection with the bankruptcy. So I don't know the exact dates. It was about -- just about three years ago. But if we were working on it, it was just starting at the time of the bankruptcy filing. They were preparing to file or something like that."
Something like that? Well yes they were preparing and part of that preparing was hiring Obsidian to help restructure debt, NOT to hire Obsidian to participate in a hostile takeover, set up his clients, get everyone fired and seize assets, bank accounts, property and more. Obsidian was NOT involved to Liquidate in a way that Summit would cease to be.
The Summit Bankruptcy was debtor in possession, that is why they hired a Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO), Terry Vance. Though you see in the Mark Neuman Deposition that David Aman was leading the witness and calling it a liquidity crisis, it was not.
Summit did plan to "Go On".
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group made sure that the business only went on for his pay check, he drowned the Summit Business for his personal gain. And he set up his own clients to be indicted for it. This, using political, judicial and media connections provided a great smoke screen to where the money was really going.
Q. But you are in agreement that Obsidian Finance Group was in contract to represent Summit and took money for those services?
A. We had that agreement, yes.
Q. And that Summit was -- so Obsidian Finance had a contractual obligation to the Summit principals?
THE COURT: You've asked that question several times now, and it's already been answered several times.
MS. COX: Okay.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. What are the pros and cons between a liquidating trust versus a debtor in possession of reorganizing a debt, in your opinion, or your professional opinion and experience?
A. I think it's a legal question. If you would like my -- my understanding, debtor in possession
reorganization means the company goes on. Liquidating trust, the company is liquidating; it does not go on. "
Well it is my understanding that Summit was trying to "Restructure" debt so they could, as a company, go on. That was the only reason to hire Obsidian in the First Place. Obsidian Finance directly interfered with the companies ability to "go on". The only reason to have a CRO, Chief Restructuring Office such as Terry Vance, was to Restructure, NOT to Liquidate and Cease but to, instead "go on".
Q. So Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Summit when they were trying to reorganize their debt; and a liquidating trust, then, is part of a bankruptcy, which happens later?
A. I -- I don't know what the contract says. I don't remember it ever as a reorganization. I always recall it as a liquidation."
Well that is not what the contract seems to say. The contract, in Schedule A seems to say that "Services" are all about restructuring alternatives, forming plans to reorganize, and more. Did Patty Whittington not even read this contract she signed for Obsidian Principal Kevin Padrick?
Q. This contract with Obsidian Finance Group wasn't to help them reorganize?
A. Unless it says that. In bankruptcy, you can be in Chapter 11 and be liquidating."
Oh now she says, well if it says that. What?
Q. I'm not an attorney either --
Q. -- or a CPA. I'm not sure what this contract means, that Obsidian Finance Group was obligated to Summit. Can I -- can you tell me what this contract says the obligation from Obsidian to Summit is?
A. I would have to read the whole thing, think about it. I don't know. It was three years ago. It is what it
says. I'm telling you my memory is it was a liquidation, not a reorganization."
It is what it Says. Hmmm, it sure does not look like it is what it says, as Obsidian sure did Breach this contract for "Reorganization".
Q. Are you aware of any privileged or financial information that Summit -- that Summit provided Obsidian Finance Group before their bankruptcy?
A. Privileged? No.
Q. Did -- was there any software, any database at all that Summit turned over to Obsidian, where Obsidian would know any financial information about them before they were involved as a trustee?
A. Before trustee?
Q. Before they were appointed --
A. Trustee wasn't until February. So yes, after the bankruptcy."
So yes then NO. She seems to be saying that the information was given after the filing for bankruptcy, after Kevin was a Trustee, however this is simply NOT TRUE.
Q. Do you feel that Obsidian Finance Group ethically and legally honored their contract with Summit?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have any proof that this exact blog post caused any financial damages on your books to --
caused -- that anybody told you this exact blog post caused a certain amount of provable financial damage to Obsidian Finance?
A. I can't prove what people looked at.
MS. COX: Thank you. No further questions."
That Concludes the part of this Post where Patty Whittington, Obsidian Finance Group VP is under oath.
Here is What David Brown, Obsidian Principal had to Say
Here is a Bit about the Contract that Kevin Padrick had to Say Under Oath
Here is Mark Neuman's Deposition
Note in this Depostion, as it starts, David Aman says, "it's going to be turned into a transcript, which is basically a book that you'll have an opportunity to review. If for some reason there's an asnswer that you think is incomplete or inaccurate, you'll have an opportunity to make a note of that on an errata sheet. "
Why was I denied this same basic right in a Trial for 10 Million Dollars that affected every aspect of my life. I was not told this, nor was I given a chance to check for any errors before this document, my Deposition was given to the jury. The Trial was the very next day, this schedule set by the Judge. I had no rights to Due Process, yet again. There were lot's of errors and misunderstandings.
Anyway a Bit about the Mark Neuman Deposition.
Page 13 line 14, WOW, Mark Neuman is a Journalist and would be protected by Shield Laws, right? It says that he had a radio/televisions news degree. So I guess if I were Mark Neuman then I would be protected as "Media" Right?
Page 20 line 1 talks of Mark Neuman's position at Moss Adams, yet Patricia Whittington recommended Moss Adams to do the accounting on the bankruptcy? What?
Line 1, page 43, David Aman talks of a Liquidity problem, and Mark Neuman says I didn't think we had a liquidity problem.
Page 44 Line 8, you see that David Aman keeps referring to a liquidity problem, and Mark Neuman keeps saying that it was not a liquidity problem. Mark insists that David Aman stop putting words in his mouth. They wanted loans, they had no liquidity crisis.
The Bend Market was not illiquid at that time, as David Aman Insisted. Property was still moving. Bend Oregon held on longer as it is a Resort Town. I had, then been a Broker Owner in Oregon since 2004. David Aman was lying and putting words in the witnesses mouth to make it look like they were in a liquidity crisis when really they were not.
In fact Summit got offers for real estate that Kevin Padrick refused until his commission was in place. David Aman led the witness and put words in his mouth. See, they needed a record of "Not Liquid", this way it would justify having a trustee, which was simply not justified.
A bit about David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, in his Testimony Under Oath
Below is a Link to the Contract Obsidian Finance Group had with Summit BEFORE they filed for Bankruptcy. December 18th 2008 is the Date of this Contract. Kevin Padrick was appointed Trustee on February 17th 2009.
(Download this and you can see it Better)
Summit Filed for Bankruptcy on December 19th 2008, this negotiation to get Obsidian to HELP Summit, by providing Financial Consulting, was BEFORE Summit Filed Bankruptcy. They had been gathering data, spreadsheets, priviliged information for weeks before this. Then Obsidian, allegedly works for Summit, then in February, all of the Sudden Obsidian Finance Group, pitches themselves to the Creditors Committee to be the "Trustee", even though Susan Ford, Sussman Shank ( attorney for the Debtors ) had already stated why this was bad for the Creditors. And even though Kevin Padrick sure seemed to be an "Insider" and not a "disinterested party" as bankruptcy code stipulates.
Below is the Summit Press Release of Summit Bankruptcy Filing was on December 19th 2008
Full Summit Press Release, Written by Sussman Shank, December 19th, 2008
Mark Neuman Deposition, Summit Principle, Owner, Shareholder
Oct 7th 2009
Kevin Padrick Was under Contract with the Debtor BEFORE they Filed Bankruptcy
Feb. 12th 2009 presentation, meeting with the Debtors, which is in video at http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick
So it seems to me that at the time of the Meeting in this video, the Judge Dunn Hearing of February 11th 2009 already took place, and it looked like a push to get Obsidian as Trustee as per the court audio, (Click Here ) this was by a Federal Bankruptcy Judge who seemed to be pushing the Department of Justice Trustee Trustee to appoint "Obsidian" as Trustee as in the Audio of the Hearing we clearly hear, though Obsidian could not legally be the Trustee, as this must be an individual.
Also at this hearing Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung speaks out about Obsidian and the $100,000 fee paid to them, Judge Dunn says that the fee had not been approved yet, then days later Judge Randall Dunn did seem to approve the "Fees". Obsidian worked for Summit, and was under contractual obligation with them at this time.
This contract, and the appointing of a CRO, to me, means that the company, Summit would go on after this reorganization. Yet instead Obsidian Finance Group drove their own clients into liquidation and the company thereby would cease to exist. Yet Obsidian was hired to help Summit so they would not have to go into a full blow bankruptcy that would make Summit cease to exist, that is my understanding.
David Aman of Tonkon Torp, and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group used all means necessary to harass Stephanie Deyoung into removing these February 12th 2009 videos from her blog (http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick ), though they existed on my blog.
See, the videos show that Obsidian was advising the Debtor. This video may also show anti-trust violations and many other infractions that I just don't see. I do know that David Aman of Tonkon Torp, and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group sued people, filed criminal complaints, and fought as hard as they could with whatever means necessary to get the videos down. So they certainly must prove some "bad behavior" or why fight so hard to not be "Transparent"?
Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn, Portland Oregon Hearing for Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, Feb. 11th 2009
Objection to Fees that was Filed On July 2nd 2009
The PDF Document Below is the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Court Docket
Application by Debtor to Employ Obsidian
David Aman, Roberta Opera Emails
This is February 13th 2009, whereby Judge Dunn says based on the hearing of Feb. 11th., a Trustee WILL be appointed. Now the day before was the infamous meeting that was video taped (Click Here), and we know that via the Court Audio, Judge Randall Dunn insisted that Obsidian Finance Be a "Trustee", even though an Entity cannot legally be a Trustee.
And even though, Attorneys inside the Summit Bankruptcy pointed out that appointing a Trustee was costly and would be bad for the Creditors ( Click Here for the Susan Ford, Sussman Shank Email ). So, even though all knew that Obsidian Finance was hired by the Debtor, and in the court audio you clearly here Stephanie DeYoung question Judge Dunn in this regard, and he clearly says he had not yet approved Obsidian's fee's for that, as if it was a Mute point.
He then, days later, approved those fees, it seems. It was an IMPORTANT point, as clearly a bankruptcy judge should know that this made Kevin Padrick an Insider, and not a "disinterested party" per bankruptcy code 1104. Surely Judge Randall Dunn should have known Kevin Padrick should not be the "Trustee".
Here is that February 13th 2009 Court Order to appoint a Trustee
Application for Order Approving Trustee, 2-17-2009
Approval of Obsidian Finance Fees, $470,000 as of December 2009
Kevin Padrick Vaguely Admits some Possible Conflicts of Interest
Tonkon Torp Fees, SOME of
Tonkon Torp Billing SEALED, Where is the Transparency.
As you note in the Court Docket, Tonkon Torp is still making MONEY from the Summit Bankruptcy. Leon Simson as seen on February 14th 2012.
Perkins Coie Payday Approval
From Judge Randall Dunn to Leon Simson Tonkon Torp , Keep in mind that this 256k was well over 2 years ago, just imagine how much more Tonkon Torp Law Firm made in the Summit Bankruptcy, and this seems to be only one Tonkon Torp Lawyer, Leon Simson, the one whom had prior connections to Pamela Griffith, the Department of Justice Trustee. Wonder what David Aman and David Peterson's final paycheck was.
Trustee Bond, Regarding the Summit Bankruptcy Trustee, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Say didn't Kevin Padrick sue those guys too, allegedly on behalf of the Creditors?
January 18th Proceeding
Was Kevin Padrick an Insider? Was Kevin Padrick within the law to be a Bankruptcy Trustee?
If you cannot see a document, or a document is missing, email me at WhistleblowerMedia@Gmail.com with a clear subject, or SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
Summit 1031 Exchange Bankruptcy Court Docket
Crystal Cox Obsidian V. Cox Exhibit List
Note Exhibit 535, where Kevin Padrick billed his Client, Summit to Meet with the Attorney for the Creditors Committee. Exhibit 523 you See where Umpqua Bank says there was NO Ponzi, and lots more rejected by Judge Marco Hernandez to Protect Judge Randall Dunn, Tonkon Torp, Perkins Coie, Sussman Shank Miller Nash, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Ron Wyden and more.
Exhibit 523, "Kevin Padrick Ignores Our Rights" David Aman, Tonkon Torp knew all along
Trial Memorandum, Explanation of Trial Documents
Trial Documents I was denied the Use of, all except the Summit Contract, and that one the Judge Asked Aman if he objected, as shown in the Trial Transcripts
How a Federal Judge Set up a Pro Se Defendant for a Crime in a Civil Trial in order to provide a smoke screen to protect Portland Oregon Judges and Attorneys, and to Protect Big Media.
I had been asking the Courts the whole year, since the Email came up, for the Plaintiff's Attorney to stick to the facts. I was being accused of a crime, and I was not given a criminal trial. Now, a Motion to deny a new trial, the Judge has the whole world thinking I have been proven guilty, with his accusing me of the Crime of Extortion in a Motion to Deny a New Trial in a Civil Case.
Here are a Few Highlights of the Obsidian V. Cox Case Regarding this Matter.
Also Note in the Trial Transcripts ( Click Here ) that I, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox claimed I was being accused of a Crime and asked for a Public Defender, Judge Hernandez said, as you see in the Trial Transcripts, "your not being accused of a crime, if you are, plead the Fifth".
Then you see at the Beginning of the Obsidian V. Cox Trial Proceedings and at the End, Judge Marco Hernandez makes sure that the Jury knows this is not a criminal trial, and that it is a civil trial. Yet in Judge Hernandez's motion to deny a new trial, he clearly accuses me of the the crime of extortion in such a way where I have no defense, no way to plead the fifth, and I was not charged with a crime. This violates my rights to Due Process.
On Page 17, Line 15 through Line 24 of the Obsidian V. Cox Court Transcripts
Judge Marco Hernandez knew that the email was sent after the Lawsuit was filed, yet he seemed to have other motives to set me up and suppress information.
And thereby protecting the Portland Oregon Judicial System who I was Exposing in the Summit Bankruptcy Case. Below you see the Trial Transcript where Judge Hernandez Clearly Says this is a Civil Trial.
Yet He Accuses me of a Crime in a Motion to Deny a New Trial, this was seemingly to create "Better" law for clients and agendas of Marc Randazza and to suppress Information on corruption allegations of Portland Oregon Lawyers and Judges, including David Aman, and Tonkon Torp Law Firm, whom my blog was and is EXPOSING. Yes I do believe that First Amendment Attorney, Marc Randazza worked with the Plaintiff's Attorney and Judge Marco Hernandez in wording the Motion to Deny a Trial a Certain way, each for their own Agenda.
Here is that Trial Transcript Part that the judge makes sure the Jury Know it is a Civil Trial.
"THE COURT: Go ahead and have a seat.
Your job as jurors is to apply the facts to the law which I will give you. This is a civil case. It's
not a criminal case. You may have seen criminal cases on television or in the movies and know that in a criminal case the prosecutor is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are different. In civil cases the party who has to prove something only has to prove that it is more likely true than not true. "
I had stated in numerous court filings that the Plaintiff's Attorney was accusing me of a crime, and pleading with the courts to stick to the facts of the case. I filed this, just before the Trial
Motion to Move the Courts November 25th
there were many such motions throughout the year. I wanted to address the Extortion allegations and I was ignored on this matter.
Hearing, The Day Before Obsidian V. Cox Trial
On Page 16 Line 8, through line 25 I say this to the Courts:
"I do have one question about tomorrow, what he's allowed to bring. He's accusing me of extortion over and over and over. And if he's allowed to put in e-mails and accuse me of extortion, which is a crime, do I have any rights on that tomorrow in a criminal justice system?
THE COURT: This isn't a criminal case.
MS. COX: But extortion is a crime.
THE COURT: That's right. And you have the right to remain silent if you think you may be subject to criminal prosecution, which means that you don't have to testify if you don't want to, by the way. He may call you as a witness; and if you raise that as a defense in this case, then you take the Fifth Amendment, and we'll see what happens at that point.
MS. COX: The jury -- my concern is what the jury will think with him accusing me of extortion.."
Then Fast Forward to March 27th 2012, and in a Motion to Deny a New Trial in a Civil Case, a Federal Judge accuses me of Extortion, to say that some bloggers are journalists, just not this one, because she is guilty of extortion, which I was not charged with nor on trial for.
Here is a Link to that Document, I will discuss this at length in a Future Post.
There had been many reasons the Judge Said that I, as a blogger, was not media.
However, in this final smack down, the reason became seemingly, because I was guilty of Extortion in which I was simply not guilty of. Nor was I even charged with.
Many sites have names that imply bad things of those on the Site, such as RipOffReport, and many folks offer Search Reputation Management. This is a skill set that goes right along with Investigative Blogging, it just is. And I offered this service as a cease fire, a Settlement Communication, after the Lawsuit was filed. And I have been lied about over and over in order for Big Media to keep their hold over their Alleged authority as the "Real News".
In This Denial of a New Trial Motion, Judge Hernandez seems to also be saying he addressed the Shield Law only because I did, which you can clearly see that the Plaintiff's Attorney brought it up in the Pre-Trial Hearing, and he had it in his Trial Memorandum ( Click Here for Plaintiff Trial Memorandum, Shield Law is Page 7 ). This was in order to specifically deny me the right to use Anti-Slapp laws, Retraction Laws, Shield Laws and more. ( If document is blurry, download to see)
Judge Hernandez said this in his motion to deny Blogger Crystal Cox a New Trial.
" In addition, the uncontroverted evidence at trial was that after receiving a demand to stop posting what plaintiffs believed to be false and defamatory material on several websites, including allegations that Padrick had committed tax fraud, defendant offered "PR," "search engine management," and online reputation repair services to Obsidian Finance, for a price of $2,500 per month. Ex. 33. The suggestion was that defendant offered to repair the very damage she caused for a small but tasteful monthly fee. This feature, along with the absence of other media features, led me to conclude that defendant was not media. "
"Uncontroverted" means "of which the truth or validity is not disputed".
I disputed this over and over. Also this email was taken out of context, this email was sent after a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit was filed against me. And it was a series of emails. This was not Extortion. (Click Here )
Also I objected to Exhibit 33 and with good reason, it had NOTHING to do with the Trial or whether the Post was true or not and it had NOTHING to do with whether I was protected under the same laws as Traditional Media. If the Judge thought I was guilty of extortion, why not charge me and let me have a defense. There certainly was no Innocent Until Proven Guilty in this Set Up.
I had already pointed out the many Settlement Communications where they demanded I pay $5000 every time I mention their name, and this was after I was granted a Summary Judgement to Do So. This was not an eye catcher, but my offer to Cease Fire was?
And what does tasteful mean? I have had people tell me they pay $30,000 a month to Reputation Defender. It was not out of line, it was Win Win, in a Settlement Negotiation between me, Pro Se Defendent in my Pro Se Capacity and David Aman, the Attorney for the Opposing Council.
Judge Hernandez said, "The suggestion was that defendant offered to repair the very damage she caused for a small but tasteful monthly fee. This feature, along with the absence of other media features, led me to conclude that defendant was not media." What? I did not suggest any such thing, and I did not cause their damage, their action did. And what does this have to do with me not being media? What? How can a Federal Judge imply that I "Suggested" anything? That is not the facts of the case. And if Judge Marco Hernandez really believes this then why ignore the issue for the prior year every time it was brought up? Why not file charges against me, and give me a fair trial with an impartial judge.
This Motion to Deny a New Trial was to Protect Corruption and to Protect the Stronghold of Big Media.
A Few More Research Links, and Trial Tidbits on the Obsidian V. Cox Case
I have a right to a fair and impartial Judge. As do each of you. Yet Illegally, and certainly unethically, Judge Marco Hernandez refused to sign a Conflict of Interest Disclosure. This is in the Judicial Canons and will be in my Criminal Complaint, and My Judicial Complaint. Judge Hernandez has lots of Conflicts of Interest, yet I am Denied the Signing of this Disclosure for a whole year and counting as Judge Hernandez via the Plaintiff's Attorney David Aman is Still Harassing me.
Check Out pat 46 line 9 through page 48 line 9 of the Obsidian V. Cox Trial Transcripts.
This is where Judge Hernandez says if you enter the cease and desist, the email it enters her state of mind and that is irrelevant. See I was told, then if I testify then he can enter the "state of mind" factor, so I did not testify so we could stick to the merits of the case.
Then David Aman got to enter the Cease And Desist and the email anyway, which you see clearly in the Closing Statements. On page 188 Line 7, you see clearly that I objected.
You see Judge Marco Hernandez had firmly stated why the Cease and Desist should not be entered, then he let David Aman, Attorney for the Plaintif enter the document and rejected my Objection.
On Page 4 of the Trial Transcripts, Line 2-9, we see that again Judge Marco Hernandez says that this issue is not of public concern when clearly it is.
Page 7 Line 5 - 9 of the Obsidian V. Cox Transcripts David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney for the Plaintiff Says "Second, any evidence about why she made the posting in terms of the factual support for it, based on the Court's ruling yesterday, is inadmissible, because under the standards in Oregon, it's a strict liability for defamation." How does this work, I as not allowed to present anything I thought to be Factual, but they simply brought one CPA to the stand to give his opinion? He says I can't testify to what "Ms. Studebaker" allegedly told me, thing is it was documents of proof of my source, NOT HEARSAY. It was emails, depositions, audios, videos, contracts, tax documents and more. And I was denied use of these ( Click Here For Trial Memorandum ) and for full document ( Click Here )
I believe there was Jury Tampering and was denied an investigation. I gave the courts lots of document of why I suspected Jury Tampering and filed a motion, I was Denied.
Here is that Motion, For Full Documents with 26 documents and Exhibits, Email me if interested, SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com.
Document Where I Demanded an Investigation into Jury Tampering, I Was Denied
Obsidian V. Cox, Motion to Compel Regarding Suspected Jury Tampering
If you want all Exhibits I included, Email me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com or WhistleblowerMedia@Gmail.com
Plaintiff Exhibit List
To see clearly download this document
Obsidian V. Cox, Plaintiff Trial Memorandum
To see clearly download this document
Plaintiff Witness Write UP
Pro Se Defendant Ably and Correctly Identified the Laws
Obsidian V. Cox Motion for New Trial
EFF Amicus in Support of Cox Motion for New Trial
David Aman's Feeble Objection
Defendant's Reply to Objection
A Bit More Research Links on the Summit Bankruptcy and the Role of Tonkon Torp David Aman and Obsidian Finance Group.
David Aman Chain of Events and More. This talks about Obsidian hiring Summit to Restructure, yet Patricia Whittington in her Testimony under oath just could not remember that.
This document was filed on July 21st 2009. Also Note David Aman is lying about emails with Stephanie and good faith attempts to work this out, he did this often in my case as well.
David Aman's Background information in this court filing says this about Summit Hiring Obsidian "to provide financial advisory, and consulting services to assist Debtor in its Restructuring Efforts" Yet this raises no red flags? The Trustee was working for the debtor to restructure and is now seizing all assets and bank accounts in a hostile take over, a liquidation? WHAT? And why did David Brown, Patty Whittington and Kevin Padrick seem to strongly deny having a contract to assist Summit, the Debtor, in Restructuring Efforts?
Below is the Court Filing I am Discussing.
Blogger Crystal Cox on the Summit Bankruptcy
Research Links from Old Posts of Mine, and other Documents
Steven Hedberg Perkins Coie Biography
February 12th, 2009 Order to Approve Terry Vance as CRO
March 2011 Billing
Email from Terry Vance CRO to Annie Buell, Tenant Family, Creditors Committee - In Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group's Declaration.
Emails from Sussman Shank Susan Ford to Steven Hedberg Perkins Coie
This is the Subject Blog Post
Bullet Points of the Summit Bankruptcy
More to think about in the contract Obsidian Finance Group had with Summit
Order Approving Terry Vance, CRO, February 12
Yet a Push to Remove Terry was on Feb. 11th
More Research Links Terry Vance CRO, the Videos and Other
Regarding Terry Vance CRO and Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Emails
Kevin Padrick has more Power then the Judge?
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group - Terry Vance CRO eMails
Emails from Kevin Padrick To Sussman Shank and Terry Vance
Joint Motion of Debtors and Creditor Commitee filed 2/10/2009. Clearly Labeling Sussman Shank as Attorneys for Debtor in Possession, yet above in this post, in the Patricia Whittington Testimony you see that she claims it was not a Debtor in Possession and that the company was to "not go on". Obsidian Finance Group planned all along to liquidate Summit for their own personal gain, and they used Judge Randall Dunn and Pamela Griffith of the Department of Justice, as well as their elite connection in the Portland Oregon Judicial System to do it.
Robert Opera, Attorney Emails David Aman Tonkon Torp with Concerns, one such issue was Capital Gain, Deferred Gain. I gave all this to the courts in my Source of the Blog Post, and was denied due process.
A Note about the Final Moments of the Trial, and the Injunctive Relief.
Here is the Transcript after the Jury Awarded the Plaintiff $2.5 Million Dollars
(The jury leaves the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Is there anything else from the plaintiffs' perspective?
MR. AMAN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything else from your perspective?
MS. COX: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then you will prepare a judgment. I guess we need to talk about -- you asked for
injunctive relief. Do we need to address that issue, given the size of the award in this case?
MR. AMAN: We will -- we will follow up with the Court about that. We'll look at the matter. We may
still seek a permanent injunction.
THE COURT: Well, I don't like leaving doors open. So you need to prepare -- if you're not going to
seek injunctive relief, you need to prepare a judgment. If you are, what I want you to do is prepare what it is you want me to do, your argument explaining to me why you're entitled to the relief. So explain why you're entitled and tell me what you want. Have that filed -- I'm going to give you 10 days from today.
MR. AMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. You will have an opportunity to respond, to say why they're not entitled. And if you
disagree with the relief they are requesting, explain to me what it is you think ought to happen in the
alternative. And I'll give you five days after you have gotten their request to respond. If they don't request within 10 days, you can assume they're not making such a request and that that issue is no longer before the Court.
So why did David Aman not seek injunctive relief? Why not seek a permanent injunction? I mean they knew I had no money, and they had the power to stop me from posting about any of them. So why not?
See they never did file that document and 10 days later, instead they simply filed their $2.5 Million Dollar Judgement. And then after this, David Aman, Tonkon Torp, the Plaintiff's attorney, even though he had WON his case, he then emails Seattle Weekly with the Infamous Email and accuses me of Extortion. I assume he also emailed Forbes and the New York Times. But Seattle weekly is the only one I can prove.
Why do this after he had already WON? What purpose did it have?
Then in the beginning of January, David Aman and his Client Kevin Padrick flew to L.A. to meet one of my Attorneys, even thought the other one was right in Portland. They seemed to have went there to put me in bad light, I assume, and anyway they pitched an offer that would take around 20 Domain Names, I would stop posting on them, and they would hold the $2.5 Million Judgement, unless I ever post on them again. And a few more juicy details. Thing is with this I gave up the right to appeal and thereby, in my opinion, "bad law" would be set for all anti-corruption bloggers. All who provide search engine reputation management, all citizen journalists and all whistle blowers. So I said No.
Then In the Beginning of March 2012 I was deposed by David Aman, to discuss domain names and possible assets, however this deposition was really a witch hunt to set me up for extortion. He asked tons of past revenue and nothing really of future revenue. Much more on that will be posted soon. After this deposition came the Motion Denying my New Trial, and then the Kenneth P. White of PopeHate.com and Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group lynching, seemingly to provide massive pressure, fear and stress to intimidate and harass me.
After this was well under way, I was given a way out by the Plaintiff's Attorney, again contacting my Attorney and offering the same deal, this was April 2nd. And it was an easy way out, thing is it would STOP the Appeal and it is a much needed Appeal for Anti-Corruption Bloggers, Bloggers who Really are Reporters and Journalists and for Whistle Blower and Citizen Journalists, so I said No.
Now the Plaintiff's Attorney is pressuring me again and is attempting to now take over 600 Domain Names, that he plans to liquidate and not even return if I win the Appeal. All of this, including Marc Randazza, Forbes and the New York Times, is simply to intimidate me, scare me and force me to Stand Down, so that Bloggers are NOT treated Equal as Journalists and to Protect Corruption among the Portland Oregon Elite.
Posted Here by
Blogger Crystal Cox