Skip to main content

 If attorneys lie under oath in bankruptcy, it is Lying Under Oath. Though some whacked justice and despot federal police are willfully blind to the facts, because they believed Romney would become POTUS, and reward their treachery; that doesn't turn wrongs into rights.

      Attorneys going to jail for betraying their clients is an extremely rare occurrence. So much so- in John Gellene's "Eat What You Kill" case, many papers were written; and Milton C Regan wrote the  Fall of a Wall Street Lawyer book.

    NYC Attorney John Gellene lied under oath and went to prison for it. Difference is, Gellene did his perjury & frauds in Wisconsin bankruptcy court, instead of Delaware. His victim was an insurance company with money & power. Whereas, in our eToys case, the money & power is the RICO boss Mitt Romney & his gang. As a result of Gellene's deception and two false affidavits he was prosecuted fully, by the U.S. Attorney's office in Wisconsin (specifically Stephen Biskupic).

     Attorney John Gellene's 2 lies in the Bucyrus bankruptcy

                   were acts of Perjury that put him in prison for over a year;

                             and his law firm (Milbank & Tweed) lost more than $20 million!

Goldman Sachs & Bain Capital's Organized Crimes makes Gellene's case look like child's play!


Attorneys Never Lie! Because They've Swore a Pinky Oath Not To Do So

    Yeah, I know, sounds real dumb huh. Of course lawyers lie; but only another lawyer can punish an attorney at law for perjury. Just like it takes a police authority to arrest a policeman who did wrong.

    Intolerably, there are adversaries of mine who try to obfuscate the issues at hand with babble & banter incongruous. Due to their bogus, diffusive ways, they are able to confuse and/or nix good faith discussions.

     They bark in hateful manners fiendishly, that yours truly is the one who is false. Arguing that a judge in the courtroom is not having a hearing - "it's a "status conference". Thus, this victim must be less than a mere human being. Victims are cow dung. Layman lacking intelligence and unable to grasp convoluted legalities. After all, aren't all attorneys at law Mensa Society Super Humans - - correct?


        Such talk is obvious skullduggery; and/or conversation killers. What the "reality" really is  - Bad faith parties are defending bad faith acts, via babbling waste's of time. Such as the "Blue Wall of Silence" trying to circle the wagons and say Police didn't Kill homeless Kelly Thomas. They were merely suppressing a potential threat by 150 pound mentally challenged man; with 200 lb men with Taser's that were used until the batteries ran out; and were turned over to be "lega" skull sledge hammers. Or the infamous case of the "vindicated" [sic] George Zimmerman who saved the world from the criminal Trayvon Martin (and GZ knew this cause he could read minds). After all, as a wannabe policeman, Zimmerman was armed with his "squeaky clean" record and bullets concealed.  These are morose efforts seeking to convince you cow dung chips are chocolate cream pies;

and that's just B@ll [c]hit - no matter have you slice it, say it or spell it!

     Regardless of what my adversaries say (and soon they may have the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity & Fox, among others making crap up); the fact of the matter is Paul Traub as Creditors counsel in eToys lied under oath and did fraud. MNAT as eToys Debtor's counsel also lied under oath and did fraud. They confessed it already. Why they weren't punished is an issue of federal corruption. In John Gellene's case there wasn't any federal corruption and justice prevailed.

Lying under oath in a federal proceeding, is Lying Under Oath

Florida Bankruptcy Case of - In re James Walker.
     What my adversaries always fail to address, what they won't admit, is that Paul Traub and the MNATlaw firm are guilty of lying under oath and intentional fraud on the court. It doesn't matter that Paul Traub and MNAT have confessed their discretions; nobody punished them. Therefore they MUST be innocent little lambs.

Bull [c]hit - B#ll Shy'it - B U L L  - SHIT!

     Martha Stewart went to jail for a single lie to a federal agent. They "tried" Barry Bonds and Clemens for lying. Even when the fact of the matter was Bonds and Clemens did nothing legally wrong. They did their hiding of "doping" for the sake of better contracts. We all know there's pressure in the professional sports to enhance. Vitamins are enhancing. Professional athletes just have more money to do it better than most.

Lies in any federal proceeding are crimes.
                             Either False Oaths/Declarations or Perjury.

     It is a fact of Law, in bankruptcy court cases, just the same as it is in the rest of the world; that lies under oath are Lies Under Oath. As a matter of fact an 11th Circuit Justice stated that very thing. When a Bankruptcy "Trustee"  (Linda J. Walden) was caught lying in a bankruptcy matter (the Chapter 7 liquidation case of James Walker) - Trustee Walden attempted B.S. to escape her culpability & accountability by the bogus premise that;


     Walden also asserts that because she was not required to submit a verified statement, the fact that she lied in that statement should not be held against her.
In rebuttal of the erroneous contention - the Court stated;
        The idea that false testimony when offered to the court voluntarily is immune to the consequences of lying under oath is absurd.  

          Lying under oath is lying under oath.

                It does not matter if the false statement is voluntary.

emphasis styling added...

       Lies are Lies - Deception in Federal Proceedings is Fraud - Plain & Simple

                  Only the guilty and those sympathetic of them say different!

Until eToys plethora of cases

- - - John Gellene's Bankruptcy Fraud Was THE Most Famous case

        Now that we established - beyond all doubt - that lying under oath, is lying under oath (damn shame we have to provided vast proof of such a basic concept); we'll turn our attention to the Wisconsin bankruptcy case of In re Bucyrus 94-20786 and lies/deceptions of a bankruptcy court by an approved lawyer - are criminal acts.  

     You will come to see & understand that Paul Traub & MNAT's frauds in the eToys group of cases, are not only the same exact violations as those of John Gellene; they are magnified many times over. With the added compounding factors of doing such in multiple cases, many courts, various states. With the super duper pooper scooper of federal corruption on top. If you or I did these crimes, we'd get hundreds of years in prison. Because they racketeers partnered up with Goldman Sachs & Bain Capital -until now - they've been Above the Law.

What Gellene did was Criminally Wrong

        Like our eToys case, Bucyrus Erie was a legitimate business engaging in interstate commerce. Our eToys sells toys, gifts, sporting goods and baby products. Bucyrus Erie was a manufacturer of mining equipment.

         Milbank & Tweed law firm had represented Bucyrus on corporate matters since the 1980s. Between 1988 and 1992, Bucyrus was engaged in a leveraged buy-out transaction that put the company in heavy debt burden (more than $200 million).

          The head of Milbank's Mergers & Acquisitions was Lawrence Lederman, who handled the Bucyrus account. 1n 1993, Ledermen brought John Gellene on board to do the bankruptcy and financial restructuring of Bucyrus.

         Just like in eToys, Goldman Sachs was swimming around the case. Goldman Sachs was Bucyrus' largest shareholder at 49% of the stock. Jackson National Life Insurance Company ("JNL") was the largest creditor (about $60 million in unsecured notes). South Street Funds, was like Bain, it included various investment entities that held $35 million in senior secured notes and leaseholds. South Street was managed directed by Greycliff Partners, an investment entity that had a financial adviser named Mikael Salovaara. He, along with Alfred Eckert, were former employees who recently left Goldman Sachs.

          On February 18, 1994, Bucyrus filed its Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As per the Bankruptcy Code & Rules that were changed in 1978 to stop "Bankruptcy Rings" of bad faith attorneys devouring federal estates for themselves, Milbank & Tweed had to submit a Bankruptcy Rule 2014 affidavit declaring "Under Penalty of Perjury" that the court was informed of everything it needed to know.

        Unlike our bankruptcy case, where Paul Traub and the MNAT law firm hid everything under the sun from the court, creditors, shareholders and yours truly; in the Bucyrus case Milbank disclosed its connections to Goldman Sachs and JNL. However, John Gellene intentionally failed to disclose Milbank & Tweed's connections to South Street, Greycliff Partners and/or Salovaara.

       When the United States Trustee and JNL Objected to Gellene's Bankruptcy Rule 2014 declaration; they sought additional information and question whether or not -there were any conflicts of interest. (NOTE: In our eToys case shareholder Robert Alber actually questioned attorney Paul Traub and eToys post-bankruptcy President Barry Gold - on the stand - at the bankruptcy court in October November 2002). When the bankruptcy court in Wisconsin held a hearing on the matter, Gellene made "some" additional disclosures.

But Gellene hid its representation of Southstreet, Greycliff and Salovaara.

      Just like in our eToys, concerning Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Mattel and Bain Capital; where "if" the attorneys had told the truth on those issues - they would have been prevented from working the bankruptcy case. In the same fashion, had John Gellene told the truth, Milbank & Tweed would have been disqualified and the $1.9 million in fees it was to receive in the Bucyrus case; would have gone to a rival firm.

     Unlike our eToys case, attorneys inside Milbank & Tweed kept raising questions about the conflict of interest issues. Gellene and Lederman ended their relationships with Salovaara. Not only are Conflict of Interest issues a bankruptcy court problem, attorneys are forbidden by the BAR Professional Code of Conduct Rules to represent competing interests.

     Late in 1996, JNL discovered the bogus issues and filed a motion in the Wisconsin bankruptcy court in December of 1996. Like our eToys group of cases (such as Kay Bee Toys), John Gellene knew he was caught and would not lie any further. So Gellene simply failed to respond to JNL's motion. With Lederman gone, Gellene had other partners at Milbank & Tweed to deal with. When they asked him about the issues, he lied to them too. As in our eToys case, where the dockets are missed with, forgeries are submitted and entire cases are placed under SEAL to hide the crimes; in the Bucyrus case, Gellene altered a JNL filing to change the date. When that deception was uncovered - that is when all hell in the Bucyrus case broke loose; forcing Gellene to confess to his partners that he lied.

     Finally, in March 1997, John Gellene filed a third declaration with the bankruptcy court of Wisconsin. In it he cheekily admitted he made "errors" in judgment and had failed to disclose Conflicts of Interest.

That is when Federal Criminal Charges were filed on John Gellene

Conviction of John Gellene For Perjury & Fraud

      Lawyers are educated in the Law and the procedures of legal proceedings. Our Constitutional Codes & Rules are well discussed, thought through and vetted by many processes before they become the Law of the Land. Statutes break down issues into the literate minutiae necessary to get to the heart of the matters. Yours truly loves the LAW, it is our friend that makes our lives able to live in civility.

     Unfortunately, there are those who seek to twist, pervert and skirt the Code & Rules of Law for the sake of unjust enrichment. John Gellene is one such abuser of the Law. He claimed that he simply made a mistake, had made bad judgments; but had done nothing criminal. Neither the jury, nor subsequent appeals allowed those endeavors to justify statutory violations.

John Gellene was convicted on 2 Counts of Bankruptcy Fraud & 1 Count of Perjury.

      It was a year in prison for John Gellene. It could have carried more by going consecutively, instead of concurrent. Court's also have authority to punish a convicted party with reduced sentences. Making a year plus guaranteed a proper penalty for Gellene He had laid waste the courts ability to proceed by due process. Costing the parties and court time/expense to ferret out his bad faith acts. John Gellene went to jail for his disturbing of the integrity of the judicial process; which is paramount above all else.

     Our eToys case has an exact on point issue like Gellene's burying of the loan in Bucyruss. Paul Traub, Barry Gold, Xroads LLC and MNAT are hiding the fact that Foothill Capital loaned eToys $40 million in November of 2000. Before eToys filed bankruptcy on March 7, 2001, the loaned transacted over $100 million into a Wells Fargo lock box.

     Unfortunately, the fraud in eToys doesn't stop at that $100 million fraud. Why the parties engaging in bad faith are fighting so hard - Not to be Accountable for Bankruptcy Fraud & Perjury - is that Traub, Gold and MNAT also violated many other laws. There's Bribery, Scheme to Fix Fees, Conspiracy, False Oath/Declaration, Retaliation Against Victim/Witness, MisPrision of a Felony (knowledge before, during and after the fact), Collusion, Intimidation Victim/Witness, Federal Corruption, Bankruptcy Fraud, Securities Fraud and much more/worse. Plus Paul Traub, Barry Gold and MNAT did their crimes in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, New York Supreme Court, Delaware District Court, California Courts and Third Circuit Court of the United States.

    Just like John Gellene, our eToys culprits claim it is really no big deal. Even though they were "forewarned" by the United States Trustee - In ADVANCE - not to do the crimes they went ahead and did in secret; the court ruled it was no big deal. John Gellene probably wishes he had done his crimes for the Traub, Bonacquist & Fox ("TBF") law firm; instead of Milbank & Tweed. Be that as it may, Gellene tried his best to obfuscate the issues at hand with babbling banter incongruity.

Gellene failed to delude the jury & courts.

                His appeal & bogus arguments were rebuffed by the court that stated;

 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

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.  

This reflection of the Ellis case,

                               by the Gellene justice

                                                   - is certainly apropos to our eToys;


As the justice/ commentator has put it in this "Opinion":

     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.


      As is established by the 11th Circuit case of Trustee Walden, from the bankruptcy case of James Walker - when a party has lied under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding, it is a LIE UNDER OATH. Lying is lying - pure and simple (see the full court opinion - HERE).

      In the same disingenuous manner of Paul Traub, Barry Gold and the MNAT law firm (among many other culprits) - in our eToys bankruptcy case; John Gellene sought to deceive the bankruptcy court, creditors and parties of interest via Perjury & Fraud. In the same manner of our eToys case, John Gellene got "caught" during and after the fact and continued to lie - in an attempt to cover up his crimes. That is Perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

Unlike our eToys case, were the crooks are getting away; John Gellene was prosecuted/convicted!

     Gellene tried to make an incongruous argument with the justice in the Bucyrus case that disparaged the courts laxity in application of laws "back east". John Gellene stated "this is the way we do it in New York". To which the court replied - that if such is true;


   “New York is different from Milwaukee․
          Professional things like conflicts [of interest] are taken very, very seriously.  

                 And for better or worse you're stuck in Wisconsin.”   Tr. 916.


Penalties paid by Milbank & Tweed for John Gellene's Crimes

       In bankruptcy, once a law firm is paid, the judge doesn't have the powers in the "civil bankruptcy" court to hold a party in Contempt of Court. A bankruptcy judge may only sanction firms, parties for doing bad faith before it and require those parties to return ("Disgorge") the monies the court previously awarded the parties - prior to the court being informed of the bad faith acts. Milbank & Tweed law firm had earned $1.9 million during the Bucyrus bankruptcy. The judge ruled the offense was serious enough that the firm had to return the entire $1.9 million. When the firm resisted, the court persuaded Milbank & Tweed to do the right thing; because the court could always compel John Gellene to come forth and be a witness on who knew what - when.

Here's the technical issues of John Gellene's crimes (and of our eToys case also);

Based on Mr. Gellene's false statements, the bankruptcy court subsequently directed Milbank to return the $1.8 million to the bankruptcy estate.

10.   § 152.  Concealment of assets;  false oaths and claims;  bribery. A person who-․(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury ․ in relation to any case under title 11;  ․ shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

       Additionally, Milbank & Tweed was sued for the firms Breach of Fiduciary Duty loyalty to its Court Approved Client. The conflict of interest issue is about betraying the most sacrosanct promise of an attorney - Loyalty to Your Client ONLY.

       As it is obvious that many parties were hurt, including John Gellene's court approved client; Milbank & Tweed lost (or their insurance carrier did) - for the Malpractice - a purported $20 to $50 million.

        That is for John Gellene's two lies and deception about a LOAN.

       In our eToys case we already have confessions by Paul Traub and the MNAT law firm - where Traub represents the Creditors and MNAT was court approved to represent the eToys Debtor - where the firms admit that 34 of their Bankruptcy Rule 2014/ 2016 Affidavits contain false information.

         It is now over 100 acts of Perjury & 200 Crimes in our eToys case.!

        Every time someone comes into any of my D's and tries to confuse the reader about the fact that crimes didn't transpire in eToys; they are usually attacking me (and avoiding the Perjury/Fraud Facts) via "ritual defamation". With disingenuous banter that lying under oath is really no big deal; because the "back east" judge in Delaware said so. I'm going to link back to this particular Diary about the Walden and John Gellene case. There are hundreds of papers written about John Gellene's bad faith acts; solely due to the glaring fact that attorneys hardly ever get "caught" much less punished (sent to prison). In our eToys case yours truly doesn't care whether they go to prison or not (unless they had a hand in the mayhem & murders also connected to eToys). We just want Capone's (Romney) - and his plethora of Frank Nitti's (Traub, Gold & MNAT) to get the hell out of the bank vault they are fleecing - and give back what they stole.

After all, Romney has many Off Shore Accounts

                         he, Bain Capital & Goldman Sachs can afford the eToys penalties!


Too Big to Fail & Too Big to Jail

        As this group is titled, our eToys case (thus far) proves the point. Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital are benefiting from the intentional destruction of our public company eToys; and the intentional fleecing of the bankruptcy estate of eToys.

        What makes the crimes extensively heinous and egregious is the fact that the United States Trustee has (in essence) testified that the parties were FOREWARNED not to replace any of the eToys executives with anyone connected to the court approved professionals of the bankruptcy estate (see Disgorge Motion of Traub's firm for $1.6 million - parts 18 & 19 - HERE). The bad faith parties of MNAT, Barry Gold and Paul Traub disobeyed that warning and did their crimes in secret.

        As a matter of Law - Unequivocal - the Delaware Bankruptcy Court was required to remove the parties after MNAT confessed it lied about Goldman Sachs and Paul Traub (creditors counsel) confessed he lied about Barry Gold (whom Traub & MNAT inserted inside as a Post-Bankruptcy Petition President & CEO of eToys). Thus Traub as creditors counsel, MNAT as Debtor's counsel and Barry Gold (who is a confessed partner of Paul Traub) -are all one and the same. But the LAW forbids that to occur. Debtor & Creditor are supposed to be "arm's" length opponents (sort of like Democrat v Republican).

       It is also a fact that the Delaware Bankruptcy Court admitted MNAT was supposed to be Disqualified (removed from the case); but the court stated "since the case is now over - it wouldn't be prudent to do so" (See page 29 of the courts Opinion - HERE)

That was back in October 2005. Obviously eToys is Not Over - even now!

      Being that the fraudsters have already committed 300 acts of Perjury & Fraud - what harm would it do - to make it 311 crimes total. So these past few weeks they attempted to bury the crimes and cover it all up with a Settlement that neither Barry Gold, Paul Traub and MNAT are legally allowed to settle (as it is with Goldman Sachs). But they are attempting to do it anyway; because they are not really "caught" yet.

Gellene got caught because he was in Wisconsin - eToys has to go elsewhere too!

Here's a list of Links of Papers, Book & Study of Gellene's Case

  1. Gellene's 7th Circuit Appeal - and resulting Opinions
  2. A good paper (here) on issue that "competition" kills Ethics for greed sake.
  3. Milton C Regan wrote the Gellene book "Eat What You Kill"
  4. Review (here) of Eat What You Kill by UNLV Nancy Rapport
  5. UCLA Law Professor Lynn LoPucki on Big Bankruptcy cases Corrupting Courts (here)
  6. NY Times points out Names that Lawyers call clients (here)
  7. Rolling Stone Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs being a Vampire Squid
  8. The Blog "The Irreverent Lawyer" has many of these Gellene links (here)
  9. Lawyer at Jenner Block "Criminal Liability for the Bankruptcy Practitioner"
  10. Famous Shakespeare quote "Kill All the Lawyers" 1st
  11. NY Times DealB%k "Punishing Lawyers for Corporate Fraud" cases + Gellene's
  12. Texas Attorney Blog on "Poor John Gellene"
  13. Project Muse call Gellene excellent example of Cognitive Dissonance (here)
  14. Laser's previous Diary discusses Gellene case.

    For the absolute best review, including explanation of the bankruptcy Code & Rules of Law violated by John Gellene - I've always admired Lou Jones analysis (here).

     There are many (MANY) more papers - and we can discuss them all in comments.


Do you understand bankruptcy fraud & perjury better now?

83%5 votes
0%0 votes
16%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes

| 6 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Brian B
    Hidden by:
    Old Left Good Left

    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 08:04:23 AM PDT

  •  No matter how I try, I find it (4+ / 0-)

    Impossible to read and comprehend your posts. Between angry declarations, conclusory statements, I tried in vain to get to your point, a task I gave up because of poor, disorganized writing.

    If you made your point first, gave us facts in a manner which mere mortals can follow, and then went to your example, perhaps you would have more success. As it is, all I have is a headache and no good information.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 09:15:11 AM PDT

    •  That's okay - there are plenty other D's for you (0+ / 0-)

      to read.

      Have a great day.....

      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 09:18:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's pretty simple, really (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laserhaas, virginislandsguy

      Professionals hired in bankruptcy cases and paid by the assets of the company in bankruptcy (which we call the "estate") must have their employment approved by the court. Such professionals include the attorneys who represent the company and the official representative of the unsecured creditors, called the creditors committee.  

      In this story, that's the MNAT and Traub firms, respectively.

      Before being employed, the professionals have to disclose all interests that are connected to the case, whether or not the interest is adverse to the estate or there is a conflict of interest. The rule is to disclose and let the court decide if there's adversity or conflict.

      In eToys, MNAT and Traub separately failed to make the required disclosures and, with respect to MNAT, there was an actual conflict of interest. (I haven't yet studied the Traub part enough to comment.) At the time of the eToys bankruptcy, Goldman Sachs was a client of MNAT and the estate had a claim against Goldman Sachs. That's the conflict; MNAT was concurrently Goldman Sachs' advocate and its opponent's counsel.

      The court ordered MNAT to disgorge somewhere around $750,000 as a result.

      That's basically it, at least in terms of the repeated allegations of perjury and fraud. The disclosure failures certainly aren't minor; adversity and conflicts are a big deal. But there were no crimes. The failures involve the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 of the United States Code) and the Bankruptcy Rules, neither of which has criminal provisions. There are bankruptcy crimes, but those are set forth in Title 18 along with the rest of the federal criminal statutes.

      From there it's all spin, hyperbole, and conspiracy.

      •  Sorry, you got your facts wrong and "spin" (0+ / 0-)


        It is not hyperbole that the firms are to be disqualified.

        The conspiracy is MNAT, Traub, Gold, Connolly, Glazer, Romney, Goldman Sachs and Bain.

        Your' finding of fact" is correct that;

        "the disclosure failures certainly aren't minor; adversity and conflicts are a BIG DEAL"
        EMPHASIS added

        That being said, your "conclusion of law" is erroneous. You state the right fact find that it is serious; then you do the same thing my other adversaries do - saying it is of no consequence.

        Attorney at Law John Gellene and Trustee Linda Walden cases clearly demonstrate that lies under oath and deceptions in federal cases ARE a big deal.

        Gellene's case proves it is criminal.

             In John Gellene's case he had 2 lies and did not confess.

        Of our eToys case, the parties were FOREWARNED not to do the crimes that they went ahead and did in secret. Making it extensively heinous and egregious.

        and highly illegal - Thus CRIMINAL

        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

        by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:33:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  BTW - your finding of fact that MNAT was (0+ / 0-)

        fined $750,000 is also bogus.

        Paul Traub's firm was the one sanctioned (disgorged) $750,000.00.

        MNAT was allowed to choose how little it wanted to give back - on its own accord - and that amount has never been publicly disclosed.

        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

        by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:35:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hey, if the $750k was Traub... (0+ / 0-)

          then my mistake. I had connected that figure with MNAT, which was ordered to disgorge all fees earned for services related to the Goldman Sachs claim.

          But thanks for finally acknowledging that Traub was given a pretty stiff sanction.

          •  Nope- Wrong again. Now you are putting words (0+ / 0-)

            in my mouth and demonstrating your incongruity massive.

            Yes, Traub's TBF firm was sanctioned a $750,000.00; but even he - himself - laughed at that amount and said it was weekend chump change.

            It is hardly a "stiff" penalty, when you toss out the bank manager and give Al Capone's gang permission to keep stealing; while tossing them the keys to the vault illegally.

            This remark of yours - this time - is no where near even close to be 1/2 decent logic.

            Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

            by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:02:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Got proof? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yes, Traub's TBF firm was sanctioned a $750,000.00; but even he - himself - laughed at that amount and said it was weekend chump change.
              Do you have any proof of this? (Hint: linking to the Petters or Dreier cases doesn't count.)

              Or is this another of those assertions you just expect people to believe, like your allegation of a bribe, that Jack Abramoff's partner was after your eToys companion, Robert Alber, or your contradictory statements about eToys employees?

              •  You are comparing apples to oranges. (0+ / 0-)

                Like a petty lit nit picker, you "think" you got your opponent in a vice. What you really are doing (now that I've been instructed by venerates of this realm in how to deal with these attacks) - you are making my case for me - that you care not about the paramount issues.

                you only seek to assault this Diarist.

                That is bad form - in any proceeding...

                Stick with the facts detailed in this D;
                or you will be ignored.

                Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:29:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  This seems like a personal attack on someone (4+ / 0-)

    who doesn't appear to be a public figure.  Can't recommend.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:12:04 AM PDT

  •  This diary is unreadable. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laserhaas, serendipityisabitch, rubyr

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:15:23 AM PDT

  •  This D is a foundation of Evidence to counter (0+ / 0-)

    those who seek to defend Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital frauds; while also attacking yours truly -

    who is a victim of organized crime.

    It is okay to find fault with me, my writing style and what have you. This D is not here for the fault finders. Once the Federal Complaint if filed - most likely - Romney's entire support group will join the Laser hater club.

    Why this D is here, is for those who never comment and never rec' etc a D. So that they may see the REAL issues and cut through the B.S.

    As remarked above, what Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital did in our federal related cases; makes what John Gellene did in Bucyrus

    look like child's play...

    And child's be a playin....

    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:23:35 AM PDT

  •  Kos, put an end to this crap (0+ / 0-)
    Intolerably, there are adversaries of mine who try to obfuscate the issues at hand with babble & banter incongruous. Due to their bogus, diffusive ways, they are able to confuse and/or nix good faith discussions.

         They bark in hateful manners fiendishly, that yours truly is the one who is false. Arguing that a judge in the courtroom is not having a hearing - "it's a "status conference". Thus, this victim must be less than a mere human being. Victims are cow dung. Layman lacking intelligence and unable to grasp convoluted legalities. After all, aren't all attorneys at law Mensa Society Super Humans - - correct?

    Go on, you chickenshit:  name your "adversaries."  Let's see how long you last.

    "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

    by Old Left Good Left on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:57:11 AM PDT

    •  you seem to take it personally (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to hide rate this seems a little over the top; the author has been allowed to set up a group, and should be allowed to express his opinion re: the stated subject matter. We're all free to express our disagreement in the comments. You asking that he be banished seems a bit much

      when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

      by bunsk on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:20:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's an obvious subtext to the diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      but, you undermine any potential argument you may have by resorting to personal attack:

      Go on, you chickenshit
      HR'able imo. But, have a ball.

      And I say that fully realizing diarist has done much the same.

  •  well (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    it shouldn't surprise anyone that rmoney and his ilk would play the courts and work with crooked lawyers; if it's someone's quest to expose/oppose this, what's the harm? If you don't agree, don't read it.

    Perhaps the author writes in a different language and runs it through a translator. Being annoyed with this isn't the same as being unable to read it. It shouldn't be hard to read what the author is getting at, nor, for that matter, to sympathize with his outrage at the apparent injustice.

    when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

    by bunsk on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:18:15 AM PDT

  •  Congress & 3rd Circuit warned of "Bankruptcy RINGs (0+ / 0-)

    by attorneys at law who steal bankruptcy estates for themselves.

    Thus, the premise that Conspiracies to do Fraud - do indeed occur - is not my theory. It is the theory of Congress and was affirmed by the 3rd Circuit Court of the United States.

    That just so happens to be the very same Circuit of eToys.

    Here is what the Third Circuit affirmed - on what Congress had to say about collusion of attorneys to BETRAY their position of trust, for the sake of unjust enrichment

    via a BANKRUPTCY RING of organized criminals;


      “It is significant that Congress chose to place the requirement of court approval for the employment of an attorney, accountant, or other professional by the creditors committee directly in the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. 11 U.S.C. § 1103(a). The legislative history makes clear that the 1978 Code was designed to eliminate the abuses and detrimental practices that had been found to prevail. Among such practices was the cronyism of the “bankruptcy ring” and attorney control of bankruptcy cases. In fact, the House Report noted that “in practice . . . the bankruptcy system operates more for the benefit of attorneys than for the benefit of creditors.” H.R. No. 595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 92, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 5963, 6053”  

    The Laws were changed to force attorneys to apply to the court and inform the court of ANY conflict of interest by lawyers. Failure to do so is a crime; because attorneys swear - Under Penalty of Perjury - that they told the court everything.

    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 01:20:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site