So why is there no investigation into the Summit Bankruptcy and what sure looks to clearly be violations of Bankruptcy Code?
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox CONTINUES to Allege that it is Not Legal to be "hired by the debtor" in regard to a "potential" bankruptcy, another words an "insider", the way I understand it, and then work AGAINST your clients you were under contract with and be a Trustee
Keep in mind there never needed to be a Trustee, as liquidation was underway.
And there are documented emails between parties, including the Department of Justice that flat out say it is NOT in the Creditors best interest to have a Trustee.
Also keep in mind, that the "debtor" that hired Obsidian Finance Group went to or is going to PRISON due to the actions of Kevin Padrick and Obsidian, in my opinion setting up their own client so they could run away with the LOOT that really should have went to Creditors right away. Summit was hired Obsidian to help them restructure debt as per the signed contract between Summit and Obsidian that is an Exhibit on the docket of my case Obsidian v. Cox.
Also keep in mind per the testimony of Patricia Whittington, who actually signed Kevin Padrick's name to the now infamous contract between Obsidian and Summit, she believed that Obsidian was hired to liquidate Summit and well seems to not understand the contract said Obsidian was to help restructure debt and not destroy, bankrupt and jail their own clients.
More on that story
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-summit-bankruptcy-was-debtor-in.html
A Bit on Bankruptcy Code
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/search?q=1104
"Regarding Bankruptcy Code 1104(a). There was no lawful, ethical reason to appoint a Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy, it was common knowledge with parties, attorneys, US Trustees, that it was NOT in the Best Interest of the Creditors to Appoint a Trustee, Yet Judge Randall Dunn pushed the US Trustee's Office to Do So Anyway. And US Trustee Pamela Griffith went along with it, I believe, because she had worked for and with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group on prior "deals".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/1104
The Appointment of a Trustee was a Documented FACT that it was NOT in the Best Interest of the Creditors Period.
Here are insider emails from Sussman Shank Susan Ford to Steven Hedberg Perkins Coie, and including Kevin Padrick, Ewan Rose, Ryan Norwood, and Patty Whittington of Obsidian Finance Group. And Jeanett L. Thomas of Perkins Coie, Tom Stilley of Sussman Shank, Terry Vance CFO.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/118821982/Emails-from-Sussman-Shank-Susan-Ford-to-Steven-Hedberg-Perkins-Coie
Also Keep in mind in regard to Bankruptcy Code 1104(a), I Believe that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was not a disinterested trustee as in section (b)."
Source
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/10/during-obsidian-v-cox-trial-kevin.html
Why am I still Yappin' about this? Well because I still have a 10 Million Dollar lawsuit PENDING for one. For two, Kevin Padrick, David Aman and Obsidian lied to reports, lied about an Attorney General Investigation, lied about being extorted and have broke the LAW, yet they have made me, Crystal Cox look to be the Evil One, the Bad Guy, when in TRUTH I was exposing their true and correct actions in the Summit Bankruptcy to the best of my ability based on massive amounts of information I read and did not make up to extort the evil assholes and they knew as they interviewed my main source 3 years before suing me.
Here is the Article the Title came from, pretty much PROVES that there is FOUL Play, So why NOT investigate the Summit Bankruptcy or Obsidian instead of Targeting the Messenger exposing them, Crystal Cox? Hmmmm
"Citation: No. 12-35238 / D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057-HZ (for publication)
Ruling:
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for new trial the District Court’s granting judgment in favor of the bankruptcy trustee against a blogger on one count for defamation, and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of all remaining defamation counts based on First Amendment protected speech.
Procedural context:
The District Court entered judgment against the defendant blogger on the one remaining count for defamation, and dismissing all other defamation counts.
The judgment awarded the plaintiff trustee and his firm $1.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively, in compensatory damages. Defendant blogger appealed the judgment, and plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of all other causes of action.
Facts:
The debtor hired Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group, LLC and its principal, Kevin Padrick, in connection with a potential bankruptcy. After the debtor filed its chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, the Bankruptcy Court appointed Padrick as the chapter 11 trustee.
Following Padrick’s appointment, Defendant Crystal Cox commenced publishing blog posts on various websites accusing Padrick of criminal and wrongful conduct including, inter alia, fraud, corruption, money-laundering, deceit on the government, tax crimes, and fraud against the government. Plaintiffs filed a defamation suit against Cox.
The District Court dismissed all but one of the Plaintiff’s claims holding that Cox’s blog posts were expressions of opinion and, therefore, protected under the First Amendment. On the Plaintiff’s cross-appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that while opinions are protected speech, a statement that “may . . . imply a false assertion of fact” is actionable.
Applying a three-prong test to determine if a statement contains an “assertion of objective fact,” the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Court did not commit an error in dismissing all but one of the defamation causes of action.
Addressing the remaining count on which the District Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Plaintiff Padrick was not a “public figure,” and because Cox’s blog posts addressed “matters of public concern,” Cox could not be liable for defamation unless she was found to have acted negligently. Further, “presumed damages” could not be awarded unless Cox was found to have acted with actual malice.
Since the District Court failed to instruct the jury accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial.
Judge(s): SMITH, ALARCÓN AND HURWITZ, Circuit Judges."
Source of Above Quote
http://volo.abi.org/obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox
More on the Crystal Cox Case
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ninth-Circuit-Crystal-Cox/1427423480823829
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/
Archive of Stephanie Studebaker Deyoung's Blog
https://web.archive.org/web/20140207180322/http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/
Why am I still Yappin' about this? Well because I still have a 10 Million Dollar lawsuit PENDING for one. For two, Kevin Padrick, David Aman and Obsidian lied to reports, lied about an Attorney General Investigation, lied about being extorted and have broke the LAW, yet they have made me, Crystal Cox look to be the Evil One, the Bad Guy, when in TRUTH I was exposing their true and correct actions in the Summit Bankruptcy to the best of my ability based on massive amounts of information I read and did not make up to extort the evil assholes and they knew as they interviewed my main source 3 years before suing me.
Here is the Article the Title came from, pretty much PROVES that there is FOUL Play, So why NOT investigate the Summit Bankruptcy or Obsidian instead of Targeting the Messenger exposing them, Crystal Cox? Hmmmm
"Citation: No. 12-35238 / D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00057-HZ (for publication)
Ruling:
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for new trial the District Court’s granting judgment in favor of the bankruptcy trustee against a blogger on one count for defamation, and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of all remaining defamation counts based on First Amendment protected speech.
Procedural context:
The District Court entered judgment against the defendant blogger on the one remaining count for defamation, and dismissing all other defamation counts.
The judgment awarded the plaintiff trustee and his firm $1.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively, in compensatory damages. Defendant blogger appealed the judgment, and plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of all other causes of action.
Facts:
The debtor hired Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group, LLC and its principal, Kevin Padrick, in connection with a potential bankruptcy. After the debtor filed its chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, the Bankruptcy Court appointed Padrick as the chapter 11 trustee.
Following Padrick’s appointment, Defendant Crystal Cox commenced publishing blog posts on various websites accusing Padrick of criminal and wrongful conduct including, inter alia, fraud, corruption, money-laundering, deceit on the government, tax crimes, and fraud against the government. Plaintiffs filed a defamation suit against Cox.
The District Court dismissed all but one of the Plaintiff’s claims holding that Cox’s blog posts were expressions of opinion and, therefore, protected under the First Amendment. On the Plaintiff’s cross-appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that while opinions are protected speech, a statement that “may . . . imply a false assertion of fact” is actionable.
Applying a three-prong test to determine if a statement contains an “assertion of objective fact,” the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Court did not commit an error in dismissing all but one of the defamation causes of action.
Addressing the remaining count on which the District Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Plaintiff Padrick was not a “public figure,” and because Cox’s blog posts addressed “matters of public concern,” Cox could not be liable for defamation unless she was found to have acted negligently. Further, “presumed damages” could not be awarded unless Cox was found to have acted with actual malice.
Since the District Court failed to instruct the jury accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and remanded the case to the District Court for a new trial.
Judge(s): SMITH, ALARCÓN AND HURWITZ, Circuit Judges."
Source of Above Quote
http://volo.abi.org/obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox
More on the Crystal Cox Case
http://www.crystalcoxcase.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ninth-Circuit-Crystal-Cox/1427423480823829
http://ninthcircuitcrystalcoxappeal.blogspot.com/
Archive of Stephanie Studebaker Deyoung's Blog
https://web.archive.org/web/20140207180322/http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.