In the case of In re Bucyrus the Wall Street attorney, John Gellene, from the firm Milbank & Tweed, lied under oath a couple of times and hid a conflict of interest of a (secret) client. This is classic Bankruptcy Fraud and obviously Perjury. It is what Wall Street Lawyers do - often; but getting caught and punished - almost never. Milbank & Tweed now has an excellent reputation; once those involved left the firm & John Gellen went to jail.
We all know some attorneys, judges and enforcers of our laws who abide by a separate set of standards; often existing in a realm "Above the Law". In order to keep the public snowed and assauged from their proper, righteous, indignation; bad faith parties argue by legal vernacular in a manner of haughtier. Inference that use layman are non legals and therefore dummie. They act as if the Law is a language above our comprehension; more complex than a Sanskrit & Rosetta Stone combined. Telling us conflicts of interest are never a crime and lying under oath is not Perjury. But, as you are all well aware, Marth Stewart, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens know that lying in legal situations is a personal liberty risk; when proper application of the Law desires to be forthright.
The Law & those who uphold it Honorably - Are Our Friends
.
To be blunt, this is not an attack of the legal professional or legal professionals as a whole. However, due to the hair raising on their necks, legal eagles and politicos go bonkers and tend to put their integrity at risk, like Cory Booker, defending issues, persons and entities like MNAT (Bain) , when they should use the "silence is golden" rule instead.
Due to the lack of common sense, good faith parties suffer the mobs angst. Many of use experience legal poundings, personal ad hominem attacks, wishes that we would shut the hell up and even the bad faith personal flogging of "Ritual Defamation" - seeking to force our silence.
Below the fold, I am going to show you why you should ignore such bad faith efforts and how justice can come to those who fight for it diligently. Bain and Goldman Sachs criminal acts have been defended by errant bad form. Yet, we are being blessed that the story is about to break; which will demonstrate a great lesson of "I told you so" - for those who seek to defend the John Gellene, Goldman Sachs or Bain bad faith mannerisms
Legal Professionals can be guilty of doing a Crime & Do Time
.
In the real world, you are in danger of suffering verbal slings & arrows, for even daring to think the notion that attorneys are people who should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us. However, the fact of the matter is,
Dickie Scruggs, Martin
Weisburg, Bill
Lerach and
Mel Weiss can show you that even the most powerful attorneys in our country do land in jail; when their bad faith acts are exposed.
Unfortunately, due to their being inside the system, the attorneys, federal agents, Bain, Goldman Sachs and firms like Xroads LLC - helped perpetrate a billion dollar fraud and have gotten away with it = Thus Far!
But, thanks to the hubris of them and their hope that the Bain pirate captain gets control of the Department of Justice. Hoping to get rich beyond their wildest dreams. The Presidential wannabe is about to join the ranks of the unemployed and the Bain disgorge and claw backed devoids.
John Gellene Bankruptcy Perjury & Fraud Explained
.
Why we are here, is so that this D can be a reference tool to educate everyone of the fact that attorneys at law - Don't know everything. They become part of the problem when they protect the bad faith acts of one of their own. There are enough legal eagles here that they have destroyed our following parties. That is why I have said to people, you need not comment or tip/ rec my D's on the Mitt Romney, Bain and Goldman Sachs frauds. Just Facebook like them, Tweet them and share them.
Spread the knowledge and you'll be set free!
John Gellene's case is so apropos to our eToys case, it is almost mind boggling. What transpired is real simple. He lied to hide the fact that his "dual" representation of a court approved client (Bucyrus) was also benefiting his (UN)disclosed (secretly hidden) clients of South Street, Greycliff Partners or Salvarro. He perpetrated a fraud upon the court, to become an approved "officer of the court". Doing so by filing an erroneous (false) Rule 2014 Affidavit. Stating by statute § 327(a) as a Professional Person - that he was by legal definition - a Disinterested Person - per Section 101(14).
Succintly - Lying Under Oath to Gain Legal Jogs is a Felony
.
Though the legal eagles wish to use their word twisting vernacular to become attorneys who achieve that lovely level of $1000 per hour of work (when most of us don't make $1000 per week), the sole 2 reasons they should be allowed to do so is that they are the best their is (and not just so in their own mind) and that they their ethics to preserve the integrity of the judicial process is beyond reproach.
It doesn't matter how expensive your clothes are and how high up your office door is perched in the sky; if you don't tell the truth telling falsehoods under oath - to gain your high dollar payday - you are guilty of a Lie!
When liars get caught lying in our federal courts. You would think they should be immediately punished. But such is not the case. It takes years and years, if the lawyer is powerful enough - in most cases - to get justice done.
In our eToys case, not only did they confess to lying under oath (because we simply showed their own affidavit in another case providing irrefutable proof - the Smoking Gun). They also were instructed - NOT to do the Crime - by the Department of Justice; and then went ahead and did it anyway - by conspiracy clandestine.
Taking a look at another case in the 11th Circuit (In re: James Walker 515 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir 2008)) the Trustee said that her remarks under oath was not proof of perjury. But the judge replied saying this;
------------ Lying under oath is Lying Under Oath!
John Gellene worked for a powerful law firm - Milbank & Tweed. They have made untold millions in bankruptcy cases. Mr. Gellene simply wanted his share of the pie. So he lied to make sure he would get paid richly and = as an extra benefit = he could also protect his secret client.
Gellene's hidden Client left Goldman Sachs on $35 Million Loan to Bucyrus
.
Akin to our case, where Paul Traub and MNAT, having various conflicts of interest. Such as Bain, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. John Gellene's secret client of South Street had 2 Goldman Sachs formers who left Goldman Sachs and struck the deals that John Gellene himself tried to keep secret of a $35 million loan germane to the Bucyrus Bankruptcy case.
During our eToys case, everyone knew in the fall of 2000, that eToys was going to file bankruptcy. Paul Traub arranged for a client of his and Barry Gold's (President/ CEO of eToys) - specifically Wells Fargo sub division (Foothill Capital) - to loan eToys $40 million in November 2000. Wells Fargo/ Foothill loans transacted over $100 million. Paul Traub and Barry Gold - to this very day - are still lying and protecting their connections; refusing to let any independent party review that fraudulent, preferential - transfer.
The prosecutors of John Gellene
(Stephen Biskupic [whom I've emailed often])
- stated of Gellene's deal;
At that time, the major parties with an interest in Bucyrus included Goldman Sachs & Co., Bucyrus' largest equity shareholder, which held 49% of the Bucyrus stock; Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“JNL”), Bucyrus' largest creditor, which held approximately $60 million in unsecured notes; and South Street Funds, a group of investment entities, which held approximately $35 million in senior secured notes and leasehold interests.1 South Street Funds was managed and directed by Greycliff Partners, an investment entity which consisted of financial advisers Mikael Salovaara and Alfred Eckert, former employees of Goldman Sachs.
.
Mr. Gellene did not disclose any of Milbank's
of South Street, Greycliff Partners or Salovaara.
emphasis added
.
Sum Up of John Gellene Perjury & Fraud
.
It is a simple matter of law, that John Gellene HAD to disclose all of his relationships germane to the Bucyrus case. He did not do so from the outset. He supplied an erroneous Rule 2014 Affidavit and then continued to lie, to cover up the 1st set of lies. This resulted in a conviction, when the evidence was detailed to a jury. here is the conclusion of that trial;
Bankruptcy Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 152(3)1.
Mr. Gellene was found guilty of two counts of making false oaths in a bankruptcy proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(3). He was convicted specifically of “knowingly and fraudulently” making false declarations under oath in two Rule 2014 bankruptcy applications. Twice he applied for an order approving his employment as attorney for the debtor; first, on February 18, 1994, the day he filed Bucyrus' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and second, on March 28, 1994, after the hearing on his application, when he elaborated on potential conflicts of interest, as the bankruptcy court had requested. Those applications failed to list the senior secured creditor and related parties.
John Gellene lied under oath and repeated the lies. As a result he was convicted of lying under oath and Bankruptcy Fraud. It resulted, once the law firm refused to pay and the Court threatened to call back John Gellene as a witness - in Milbank & Tweed losing $1.9 million in fees and expenses and losing a malpractice type litigation for more than $20 million dollars. Several other partners leaving the firm (for never explained reasons)
John Gellene Tried to Babble Legal Bull [c]hit to the Court
.
They are so used to snowing people with legal vernacular and jargon obfuscative, that John Gellene tried to do such arguments with the court. He is lucky that the legal system protects its own, even when they did great frauds. He tried to explain away his Bankruptcy Fraud issues with
these remarks;
At trial, the district court instructed the jury on the elements of bankruptcy fraud 12 and specifically instructed that “[a] statement is fraudulent if known to be untrue and made with intent to deceive.” Jury Instructions at 18.
Mr. Gellene submits that the court's definition of “fraudulent” as “with intent to deceive” is erroneous. In his view, the statute requires that the statement be made not simply with the intent to deceive but with the intent to defraud. He further claims that, because the government misapprehended the statutory requirement, it failed to present evidence that he made his declarations with an intent to defraud because it believed it needed to prove merely an intent to deceive. He submits that the distinction between the two terms is significant: To deceive is to cause to believe the false or to mislead; to defraud is to deprive of some right, interest or property by deceit. Therefore, under § 152 of the Bankruptcy Code, he contends, the defendant must have a specific intent to alter or to impact the distribution of a debtor's assets and not merely to impact the integrity of the legal system, as the government argued.
Court rejects John Gellene's notion that lying is not really fraud
.
Being as lenient as it can, the court explains the issues of being unable to accept the reach of logic by John Gellene;
We cannot accept Mr. Gellene's narrowly circumscribed definition of “intent to defraud” or “fraudulently.” Mr. Gellene would limit exclusively the statute's scope to false statements that deprive the debtor of his property or the bankruptcy estate of its assets. In our view, such a parsimonious interpretation was not intended by Congress.13
Detail Court explanation with case cites
First, the plain wording of the statute suggests no such limited scope. Rather, the plain wording of the statute punishes making a false statement “knowingly and fraudulently.” The common understanding of the term “fraudulently” includes the intent to deceive.14 Indeed, our case law has long acknowledged a broader scope for the statutory language than Mr. Gellene suggests. We have held that the section is designed to reach statements made “with intent to defraud the bankruptcy court.” United States v. Key, 859 F.2d 1257, 1260 (7th Cir.1988). In United States v. Ellis, 50 F.3d 419 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 849, 116 S.Ct. 143, 133 L.Ed.2d 89 (1995), we commented that § 152 has long been recognized as the Congress' attempt to criminalize all the possible methods by which a debtor or any other person may attempt to defeat the intent and effect of the Bankruptcy Code and that the expansive scope of the statute “reaches beyond the wrongful sequestration of a debtor's property and also encompasses the knowing and fraudulent making of false oaths or declarations in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding.” Id. at 423 (citing Key, 859 F.2d at 1259-60).
In addition, Ellis commented that the omission of material information in a bankruptcy filing “impedes a bankruptcy court's fulfilling of its responsibilities just as much as an explicitly false statement.” Id. (affirming § 152 conviction of debtor for omission of prior bankruptcies from petition); see also United States v. Cherek, 734 F.2d 1248, 1254 (7th Cir.1984) (holding that failure by corporation president to list asset on corporation's bankruptcy petition was omission of material information supporting a § 152 conviction), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014, 105 S.Ct. 2016, 85 L.Ed.2d 299 (1985); United States v. Lindholm, 24 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir.1994) (affirming § 152 conviction of debtor for omission of prior bankruptcy filings). Thus, whether the deception at issue is aimed at thwarting the bankruptcy court or the parties to the bankruptcy, § 152 is designed to protect the integrity of the administration of a bankruptcy case. As one commentator has put it:
The orientation of title 11 toward debtors' rehabilitation and equitable distribution to creditors relies heavily upon the participants' honesty. When honesty is absent, the goals of the civil side of the system become more expensive and more illusive. To protect the civil system, bankruptcy crimes are not concerned with individual loss or even whether certain acts caused anyone particularized harm. Instead, the statutes establishing the federal bankruptcy crimes seek to prevent and redress abuses of the bankruptcy system. Thus, most of the crimes do not require that the acts proscribed be material in the grand scheme of things, that the defendant benefit in any way nor that any creditor be injured.
Publications on John Gellene Case
Eat What You Kill - Fall of a Wall Street Lawyer by Milton C. Regan
.
As denoted - author Milton C. Regan wrote a book on the John Gellene case and his demise from power. It is entitled "
Eat What You Kill" 'The Fall Of A Wall Street Lawyer'". The book was priced above $100 - but you can get it now from Amazon (
here), for much less. You can also go to Google Books (
here) and get some out-takes - and Google Books fuller details (
here).
UNLV's Nancy Rapport - "- - 'Review of Eath What You KIll'"
.
Nancy Rapport is from the University of Nevada - Las Vegas - William S. boyd School of Law. Though I've emailed her many times, she has refused to discuss the matters of John Gellene or eToys (as do all College Professors etc). Nancy Rapport has this piece (
here) where she quotes this remark;
Gellene was convicted, and he served time for his misconduct.7 The law firm at which he
had been a partner—Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy (“Milbank”)—was required to disgorge almost $2 million in fees and eventually settled a $100 million malpractice lawsuit
While Nancy Rapport quotes Professor Milton' C Regan's book and discusses John Gellene, she states she is looking at other aspects. Such as how much wrong was there needed to transpire, before Milbank & Tweed realized that John Gellene was as much a liabity as anything else. She points out her other questions and the fact that Milbank & Tweed had to disgorge its $1.9 million in fees/ expenses and settle a $100 Million lawsuit while asking the apropos question of - "what caused this";
I’m [Rapport] interested in a slightly different question: what was there about Milbank that caused the partners to overlook such warning signs as (1) Gellene’s failure to complete his paperwork to become admitted to the New York bar, which caused him to practice without a New York law license for several years; (2) his failure, as an experienced bankruptcy partner, to disclose a “potential”10 conflict of interest to the bankruptcy court; (3) his failure to file timesheets unless he was fined for non-submission; and (4) his tendency to hunker down, take on all of the work himself, without asking for help or keeping others apprised of his workload? How many red flags did Milbank need to understand that Gellene was a liability as well as an asset?11 In other words, was Milbank’s failure to rid itself of Gellene an isolated instance of greed overcoming common sense, or was the failure a more systemic problem of how people in organisations behave?
Lou Jones Breakfast - Gellene Talk
.
With a slightly different introspec, Lou Jones Breakfast has a to the point discussion with this article "
Gellene Talk (Lou Jones Breakfast) Materials". The article gets straight to the point. What is even more neat (in our eToys case) - is the paper discusses the fact that John Gellene lied and paid a price. That law firms competing for large fee cases create this problem. Then it denotes UCLA Law Professor Lynn LoPucki (more on him later) and cites the other bad faith lawyer Marc Dreier ( Paul Traub [pictured far right], was connected to Bain, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Mitt Romney's various enterprises and eToys. Traub was also a partner with Marc Dreier[pictured inside DOJ circle]).
Article denotes lying in Bankruptcy Court is a material issue
.
The article denotes the question "Is failure to disclose -- material". Then it answers in the affirmative, detailing the proper logic as to why - stating;
Yes. Materiality requires that the false oath or account relate to some significant aspect of the bankruptcy case in which it was given, or that it pertain to the discovery of assets or to the debtor’s financial transactions. Materiality does not require proof of the potential impact on the disposition of assets. No doubt that misstatement about other affiliations is a material misstatement. Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a) requires disclosure of any connections with debtor, creditors, and any other party in interest.
Jones Article Details Proof of Bankruptcy Felony Guilt
.
Keeping it simple still, the Lou Jones article post's the question; "
Was there sufficient proof of Gellene's guilt to convict"? Then the answer was;
Yes. Gellene was an expert in bankruptcy and the disclosure requirements. Lichstein asked him twice about the potential conflict of interest. He withheld the info for over 2 years.
The Irreverant Lawyer on Muppet Eat What You Kill
.
A Blog entitled the Irreverant Lawyer, by attorney Mauricio ("
Mo") Hernandez ties in the John Gellene theme of Eat What You Kill with the Goldman Sachs associate who left and wrote a letter of disdain for the evil soul systemic of Goldman Sachs. The title of the specific entry is "
On 'Muppets,' dissing customers and 'eating what you kill'". The tone of the Blog is visible by the picture of a desert rose with 2points on each side and 1 center point very tall.
Mo's Blog links directly to the New York Times "The Opinion Pages" and details Goldman Sachs associate - Greg Smith's - letter lambasting the sinister character traits. The NY Times story is entitled "Why I am Leaving Goldman Sachs". Mr Smith denotes Goldman Sachs ire as thus;
When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. I truly believe that this decline in the firm’s moral fiber represents the single most serious threat to its long-run survival.
Then, Mo's Blog goes on to point out a politico worker and writer extra ordinary; one
Susan Mary Riley. As Mo' points out many things, linking to Greg Smith and even Nancy Rapport on Gellene (article above). Mo also makes a reference to Bain and Susan's thoughts as Mo states;
And from across the aisle, law professor and liberal pundit Susan Estrich viewed Smith’s public resignation through the periscope of November’s presidential election battle as “a fight in which Wall Street and the 1 percent are pitted against everyone else.” And all too hopefully, she suggested it may even hurt the former head of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney. I rather think she’s stretching.
So, Mo thinks Susan Estrich was "stretching" in her remarks on Romney & Bain.
Boy, is he going to eat those words.
John Gellene Name is Removed From New York's Attorney Register
.
In 1998, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department addressed the matter of Lawyer John Gellene, being removed from the "Roll" of Attorneys listed in NY. Though there was some suggestion that - in fact - Mr. Gellene never even had been approved to practice law; this pleading makes it all moot. John Gellene was removed from the Roll list of attorneys in the State of New York on July 30, 1998 per;
IN RE: John G. GELLENE
IN RE: John G. GELLENE, an attorney. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, John G. Gellene, Respondent.-- July 30, 1998
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILONAS, NARDELLI, WALLACH and SAXE, JJ.
Raymond Vallejo, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, attorney), for petitioner.Carl H. Loewenson, Jr., of counsel (Morrison & Foerster LLP, attorneys), for respondent.
Respondent John G. Gellene was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on March 26, 1990. On March 3, 1998, he was convicted, after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, of two counts of bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. § 152) and one count of false sworn declaration (18 U.S.C. § 1623), both of which are felonies under the United States Code.
By petition dated May 1, 1998, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b), which provides for automatic disbarment where an attorney has been convicted of a felony in this State or elsewhere, so long as the underlying conduct constitutes a felony in this State. Respondent's convictions for bankruptcy fraud and false sworn declaration are similar, respectively, to the crimes of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, a class E felony under Penal Law § 175.35 (see, Matter of Knoll, 181 A.D.2d 136, 586 N.Y.S.2d 73), and perjury in the first degree, a class D felony under Penal Law § 210.15 (see, Matter of DeSalvo, 189 A.D.2d 322, 597 N.Y.S.2d 2). On the basis of his convictions, respondent consents to the petition.
Accordingly, the petition to strike respondent's name from the roll of attorneys in this State is granted, and respondent's name is so stricken effective immediately.
PER CURIAM.
All concur.
Conclusion
- Lawyers Lying in Bankruptcy Cases is a Perjury Crime
,
As Martha Stewart, Dicky Scruggs and John Gellene can tell you from their own experience and jail times; lying in a federal case is a serious matter. Like the 11th Circuit said of the case of In re James Walker v Walden. Lying under oath is Lying Under Oath. In John Gellene's case, he did it only a couple of times, by himself, in just 1 court - concerning one client issue of the $35 million dollar (ex Goldman Sachs person) loans in the Bucyrus case. That cost him his ability to practice law, his wealth, his liberty and prominent career.
In the cases of Stage Stores, Kay Bee Toys and eToys. We have a total - Organized - effort to perpetrate intentional fraud on the court. Not only will attorneys go to jail and lawsuits the size of small countries total GDP transpire, once the 1st investigation "Legitimately" begins. It will also cause the demise of several more law firms, the FBI raids of Bain & Goldman Sachs and the permanent end to a Presidential wannabe's hopes and his politico career.
They have a problem, the evidence is all public docket records. Their laxity and arrogance, due to the fact that they believed they had gotten away with it all; provides the proverbial end of the hubris realm stay.
John Gellene got caught because the opponent was an investor with $50 million involved and enough power/ clout - in Wisconsin. If it had happened in New York or Delaware, where this stuff happens day in and day out; Gellene would have been fined a few hundred thousand dollars and that is it.
In our eToys case - Laser Haas and the eToys shareholders and creditors are just peons. Pieces on the Wall Street Monopoly board of life. Collateral Damage of Bain and Goldman Sach's greed. That is why they are able to break Every Single Bankruptcy Fraud Code & Rule there is. Not enough power to force an investigation.
However, that has all changed now. Mitt Romney and his cohorts believe they are UN-touchable. So far above the Law that they can never even be served a warrant. Simply because those they stole from were insignificants. Now they are planning to steal from the United States. They may have just bitten off - more than they can chew.
Lying Under Oath is Perjury and Stealing From Your Clients is Fraud.
Do You Hear Me - "Dealaware"?
Justice is Knocking!