The debtors are Jack Miller, Rockwood Development Corp.
and Mark Miller.
Was this Before Pamela Griffith worked for the Department of Justice as a "Conflicted" Trustee
Counsel for the parties who
actively participated in the litigation should confer with one
another and submit an appropriate form of judgment disposing of
the case as to all Partnerships except those involving Wilshire
and those represented by Mr. Padrick.
______________________________
ELIZABETH L. PERRIS
Bankruptcy Judge
cc:
Leon Simson
Craig R. McMillin
Daniel F. Vidas
Peter C. McKittrick
Pamela J. Griffith
Charles F. Hudson
Dana R. Taylor
Kevin D. Padrick
Don A. Dickey
Allan A. Fulsher
Asa L. Lewelling"
Source and Full Document
http://www.orb.uscourts.gov/Judges/file_attachment/89-3433-elp_190508_161622.pdf
Conflict of Interest, Leon Simson, Pamela Griffith, Kevin D Padrick, Mark Miller, Jack Miller, Rockwood Development Corp.
Got a Kevin D. Padrick, Leon Simson, Pamela Griffith Tip?
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, Press Release on what she believes happened in the Summit Bankruptcy Part One
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/110162783/Kevin-Padrick-Summit-Bankruptcy-Questions-by-Crystal-L-Cox-Blogger
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger Questions Kevin Padrick's Role as Bankruptcy Trustee
"Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox has Questions for the Bankruptcy Courts, the
Department of Justice, and the Attorney General Regarding the Actions of Kevin
Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group in his role as a “Trustee” in a Federal Bankruptcy
Proceeding."
In the Summit 1031 / Summit Accomodators Bankruptcy based out of Bend Oregon
that involved creditors, investors, victims from many states, there are many questions
that investigative blogger Crystal Cox has regarding Kevin Padrick, the Bankruptcy
Trustee, whom was under contract with the Debtor (Summit) to Reorganize their Debt,
Before the Debtor filed for Bankruptcy in the Summit Bankruptcy, then Kevin Padrick
was later appointed Trustee, which was essentially on the opposite side of the best
interest of his own client.
In the Summit Bankruptcy there were conflicts of interest with the Creditors Attorney, Perkins
Coie, Steven Hedberg as he us to work under Kevin Padrick while they were both at Miller
Nash Law Firm. And there were conflicts with Pamela Griffith, Assistant US Trustee having
past connections with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp. Tonkon Torp David Aman and Leon
Simson have a lot to gain, or keep in aiding to silence blogger Crystal Cox on the Real Story
of the Summit Bankruptcy and the seemingly endless amounts of high finance connections
that led to a 40 Million dollar bankruptcy being under the control of one man, Kevin Padrick.
Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogging has been writing on the Summit Bankruptcy for 3 years
now. Crystal Cox has deeply researched the issues in this bankruptcy and has since been
exposed to inside information on the biggest bankruptcy cases in the US and the same
Model of Corruption that seems to be involved in most all bankruptcy cases.
Whereby the courts, the trustee, uses up the money and the Debtors take the fall for it and the Public
Persecution and the investors and creditors are at the mercy of the Trustee, the Courts as
they attorneys suck up millions in fees with no transparency or accountability.
Crystal Cox began writing on the Summit Bankruptcy Case in July of 2009, after she
extensively read documents, depositions, LLC management files, tax documents and
watched videos of meeting with the Debtors and their Financial Consultant Obsidian Finance
Group, Kevin Padrick. Of which she found links to these documents and this massive
information and videos at a blog that a Bankruptcy Whistleblower had exposing the inside
details of a $40 Million Dollar Oregon Bankruptcy.
This woman and other insiders, investors, creditors filed an Objection to the Fees against Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group and David Aman, Tonkon Torp as they charged the estate millions of dollars and with seemingly no accountability what so ever.
This Judicial Procedure, of Public Record is where Crystal Cox, Blogger got most of the
information for the post she was sued for 10 Million Dollars on by those wishing to silence
her. This information was not allowed to be introduce into evidence.
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox has Some Questions for the FBI, the Department of Justice and
anyone out there who actually provides any kind of Monitoring of the Bankruptcy Courts or in any way
Enforces the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger asks, Can a Department of Justice, Court Appointed Trustee be a Legally
Defined Insider? Was Kevin Padrick an “Insider” just because he was paid by the debtor to help them
reorganize debt and then took their books, spreadsheets and inside information and used it against them as the
bankruptcy trustee?
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger asks why did Judge Randall Dunn suggest that Kevin Padrick be the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy? Certainly Judge Randall Dunn, the Bankruptcy Judge in Summit Bankruptcy case, knew that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Obsidian to Advise them - there were press releases from Sussman Shank’s Attorney Susan Ford, the Attorney for the Debtor that discussed Obsidian being on board, the attorneys of the Principals knew that "Obsidian" was on board as you see in the transcription of the meeting BEFORE Kevin Padrick showed up to that Summit Meeting.
Is Judge Randall Dunn Liable ? Does Judge Dunn have any accountability?
Was Judge Randall Dunn Paid Off or got some secret deal for making Kevin Padrick the Trustee in what is said to be Oregon’s Biggest Bankruptcy Case at that time? Will the Oregon Tax Payers end up paying a huge settlement when possibly the Summit Creditors Sue Judge Randall Dunn Personally and Professionally?
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger fully believe that the Summit Creditor, Investors and Even Summit Principals can file a class action lawsuit against Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick, David Brown, Pamela Griffith and the Department of Justice, Judge Randal Dunn, the Bend DA Office, Perkins Coie, Sussman Shank, Susan Ford, Steven Hedberg, Annie Buell, the Tennant Family, Tonkon Torp, David Aman and Leon Simpson ~ As she believe they all acted in conspiracy to get Kevin Padrick the Trustee job and to divert the DOJ and FBI to focus on the Summit Principals while Kevin Padrick ran away with everyone's money.
Why did a Federal Bankruptcy Judge appoint what looks like a legally defined "Insider" as a Trustee" ?
Was Kevin Padrick an "Insider" an "Interested" party by law, and therefore NOT Legally Qualified to be the
Trustee of the Summit Bankruptcy? If so is all the actions of Kevin Padrick as Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy Null and Void?
Did the Department of Justice Trustee, Judge Randall Dunn, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie and Tom Stilley
of Sussman Shank, as well as Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp act in conspiracy to get Kevin Padrick this very
lucrative Trustee job? And if so, well then where was the real "Oversight" to provide any kind of transparency
and accountability for the Investors and Creditors?
Where was the Department Of Justice in making sure that Kevin Padrick was providing a service that was of
the "Highest Fiduciary Duty"?
The actions of the DOJ, the Bankruptcy Judge, the Attorneys for the Creditor and the Debtors makes no legal or ethical sense and is certainly not of the highest fiduciary duty, says blogger Crystal Cox. Crystal Cox says,in her opinion, that Judge Randall Dunn has some serious Explaining to do and possibly some Lawsuits of his own to face.
In looking at Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) it sure seems to be suggesting that,as a legally
defined Insider, under contract to advise the Debtor, that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was not
legally allowed to be "appointed" as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy, Not sure if this is Fact, However, if you dig deep, surely you would, at least have some questions in all this.
Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31)
"(14) The term "disinterested person" means a person that--
(A) is not a creditor, an equity security holder, or an insider;
(B) is not and was not, within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition, a director, officer, or
employee of the debtor; and
(C) does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or of any class of creditors or
equity security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the
debtor, or for any other reason.
Above Quoted from
http://doney.net/bkcode/11usc0101.htm
One thing that jumps out at blogger Crystal Cox is, property must be transferred to a "disinterested party"
right? And as above in the bankruptcy code we note the definition of "disinterested party" NOT an Insider,
and Kevin Padrick was an "Insider" from the way she sees it.
Wasn't Kevin Padrick in "control" of the "debtor" and thereby again an insider?
He seemed to have advised them on all this BEFORE he was the Trustee working against them, is this Legal?
Really? It certainly must be unethically for an Oregon Attorney to provide financial advice to a company, take
their personal financial data and use it against them. It must be a "breach of contract" at the very least, right?
As Kevin Padrick was under contract with Summit, though the Trial (Obsidian V. Cox) Defendant, Blogger Crystal Cox asked Kevin Padrick if he had a contract with Summit and he said he did not, of which others at Obsidian Finance Group, on the stand, later admitted they did have a signed contract, and took $100,000 of Summit's money.
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group was under contract to assist Summit to form a plan of reorganization and instead drove them further into problems, and took a workable situation financially and basically drowned his own clients ensuring they file bankruptcy and could not reorganize and therefore Kevin Padrick would get massive commissions on each asset SOLD and get HUGE fees for services with No Oversight, Transparency or Accountability.
Stephanie DeYoung, Mark Knowles, Jim Hull filed an Objection to these Outrageous Fees, and serial Plaintiff
Kevin Padrick put them under so much duress they gave up, and though not based in law or bankruptcy code, Kevin Padrick, with his attorney David Aman ... well he got his way.
The Objection went away, yet Kevin Padrick was called out again over similar issues in the Summer of 2011,
in the Homestreet / Cascadia Project LLC legal battle where Homestreet bank objected to Kevin Padrick's fees and conflicts of interest. Homestreet WON, where bankruptcy whistleblower and mother of 3 Stephanie DeYoung was forced to stand down, though their Objection to the Fees was thorough, truthful and was a legitimate objection.
See Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group had the debtors books, had spreadsheets on the Debtors Assets and Personal Financial Information and WAS an Insider, it seems to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.
Therefore, In her Opinion, He had NO BUSINESS working for the Creditors in this Case nor being appointed as the Trustee, in my Opinion and the way I see the Laws, from my Non-Lawyer interpretation.
the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) ("insiders" include an 6 "officer","person in control of the debtor", "affiliate, or insider of an affiliate as if such affiliate were the debtor", and "managing agent of the debtor").
Bankruptcy Code on Duties of Trustee and Examiner
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_11_00001106----000-.html
This talks about investigations into debtors debt, see Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group already had this information in Great Detail, as he was an Insider, under contract, under "control" of the Debtors, yet he became Trustee and SEEMED to charge the estate to investigate what he was already paid to look into by the Summit Principals, his Client. And he had no Oversight, the DOJ Trustee just let Kevin Padrick do as he pleased and answer to no one.
This is for the Courts to Decide and to Look at But Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger Certainly Does Raise the Question:
Can a Legally Defined "Insider", Under Contract with the Debtor, before they filed bankruptcy
be Appointed as a Trustee in a 40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy Case?
Also Note that Sussman Shank, Attorney for the Summit Principals did not object and seemed in fact to agree with Judge Dunn in appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance when it looks like days before THIS SAME Attorney, Sussman Shank's Lead Attorney Susan Ford said in an email to Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), to Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank), to Jeanette Thomas ( Perkins Coie Attorney for Creditors' Committee), and to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group that """There was significant concern that such a proposal would be "dead on arrival" and might even lead to a Motion by the UST to appoint a Trustee, which would not benefit the creditors.""
So what happened, who is liable, where is the highest fiduciary duty ?
They ALL, surely seemed to know that Kevin Padrick Was Legally Defined in Bankruptcy Code as an Insider and yet they all looked the other way, why? And if it is not illegal then certainly Kevin Padrick should be filed against with the Oregon State Bar as an Ethics Violation, at the least, Right?
The Summit case involves victims (Creditors and Investors) in multiple states, who is really liable?
Accountable? I would say to start with, the Victims need to sue the Department of Justice and those personally involved in the oversight duties of the Summit Bankruptcy in which Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was allegedly to answer to.
Also think about this, as thought to consider, it is Tax Code, in a 1031 Exchange that Property, such as the Assets and LLC's involved in the Summit Bankruptcy that this be transferred to a "Disinterested Party" which it SEEMS that by Law Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group Was not. So is this a Violation of Tax Code regarding 1031 Exchanges?
Did Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group retain a "Qualified Intermediary" for the 1031 Exchange Transactions, seeings how it seems to me that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was NOT a "disinterested party" as I believe the law states that an intermediary must be ???
Does David Aman, Tonkon Torp know of this possible illegal activity and is therefore bullying, harassing an Investigative Blogger in order to hide what looks like something that David Aman, Leon Simson and Tonkon Torp knew since the begining of the Summit Bankruptcy.
And if an attorney knows of a possible crime, are they not by law or by attorney ethics bound to report this suspected behavior for investigation by the Proper Authorities? Also note that it sure seems that Leon Simson and David Aman are more then conflicted in the Summit case and are liable for some possible criminal activity of their own.
Did Kevin Patrick's past connection with Miller Nash and Working with Steve Hedberg there present a Legal Conflict of Interest in the Summit Bankruptc as Kevin Padrick being appointed by Judge Dunn to be the Trustee? Why did Sussman Shank agree to this appointment, when days before Lead Attorney Susan Ford of Sussman Shank flat out said that this was not in the best interest of the Creditors?
Why did Kevin Padrick bill the Summit Creditors for a meeting with Steve Hedberg, Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), and Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank) to discuss replacing Terry Vance as CRO? This can be seen discussed in Judicial Proceeding Case No. 08-37031 rld11 in Billable Hours.
Terry Vance was doing a fine job, from all I have read and Susan Ford Lead Attorney with Sussman Shank was allegedly out of town when Tom Stilley, Sussman Shank was involved in this. So, was Tom Stilley Connected in any Conflict of Interest Ways?
Why did Sussman Shank agree, knowing full well that Kevin Padrick was Legally Defined as an Insider by way of Contract with the Summit Principals to work for them?
Didn't Susan Ford, Sussman Shank talk about Obsidian being "retained" in this Press Release
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/summitwebsiteannouncement.pdf
Therefore Susan Ford of Sussman Shank knew full well that in Bankruptcy Code Kevin Padrick was Defined Legally as an Insider.
So why did Sussman Shank NOT object to Judge Randall Dunn appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy ?
Why did the courts appoint a trustee based on an
oral motion without any prior notice to parties in interest?
Why was an individual, Kevin Padrick appointed as a United States Trustee?
Certainly all these questions are of Public Concern?
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, seems to be a seriously conflicted Bankruptcy Trustee as he was an insider, legally defined, Crystal Cox, investigative blogger believes, and had conflicts of interest with the Creditors' Committee Attorney Steven Hedberg and Seemingly with Sussman Shank.
Kevin Padrick was under contract with the Debtor to give them financial advice, as noted in the Sussman Shank, Susan Ford Press Release, which makes him an "insider" right legally? This makes him NOT a "disinterested party" RIGHT?
Then, after this, he was "appointed" as Trustee by a Federal Bankruptcy Judge, Judge Randall Dunn, after Sussman Shank Attorney Susan Ford Advised that this is NOT in the Best Interest of the Creditors, Judge Randall Dunn Suggested the Kevin Padrick be appointed as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy and Sussman Shank made no objection to this, what seemsto be a serious conflict of interest, Why?
Also note that Tonkon Torp was making Tons of money and as this quote says "Kevin knew he could get Leon Simson on board and therefore, possibly Pamela Griffith."
Source of Quote -
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=1628
~ Pamela Griffith is the Department of Justice U.S. Trustee that was supposed to watch over the actions of the Trustee (Kevin Padrick) and in my opinion she was conflicted as she used to work with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Tonkon Torp Leon Simson and Tonkon Torp David Aman stood to make a whole lot of money from Kevin Padrick being the Trustee in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.
Lot's Of Questions and Seemingly No One in a Position of Authority to Ask them To.
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger believe that the law states that as someone with knowledge of a crime, or possible crime, you can file a Criminal Complaint, and Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger intends to file Judicial Complaints, Attorney Complaints, Department of Justice Complaints, and a Federal RICO Lawsuit over the actions of Tonkon Torp and Obsidian Finance Group in the Summit Bankruptcy Case.
And as those cases are filed, Blogger Crystal Cox will post them on her Investigative Blogger Network and expose all the government agencies that once again ignore corruption in the US Bankruptcy Courts and aid and abet the corruption in the US Courts by refusing to investigate what whistle blowers tell them.
It’s Time for Accountability and Transparency in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts.
The Debtors Financial Adviser becomes the Trustee working against the Debtor?
Does No One See an Issue with this???
And this Man, Kevin Padrick has a History of taking advantage of his own clients
and is seemingly accountable to no one.
In the news articles on the Summit Indictments you see this quote, “We will vigorously
investigate and prosecute anyone, especially licensed professionals, who cheat others to
enrich themselves,” said U.S. Attorney Holton.”
The thing is the Oregon Governor, the Attorney General, the SEC, the FBI, and all who govern white collar crimes and the US Bankruptcy Courts, they all seem to flat out ignore the activities of the Judges, Attorneys, DOJ Trustee and Bankruptcy Trustee after the money is turned over to the US Bankruptcy system and pilfered by the insiders, as the Creditors, Investors, Victims are at the mercy of the Bankruptcy Judge and the Trustee of which there is no real oversight and absolutely no transparency or accountability for their actions, their outrageous fees and their behind the scenes back scratching and favors owed, all at the expense of those with their whole lives wrapped up in the outcome of the bankruptcy.
This Summit case was allegedly being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Postal Inspectors, and the Oregon Division of Finance and Corporate Securities. Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Uram and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Helen Cooper, as part of a partnership venture between the Seattle Region, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel and the United States Attorney’s Office in Portland, Oregon.
The thing is they all turned a blind eye to inside documents and proof as to what the Trustee was doing, and to this day have simply pointed the finger at the Debtor and have not even questioned where the money went after Obsidian Finance Group stepped onto the Scene, which was BEFORE the Debtor Filed for Bankruptcy.
The Summit Bankruptcy was riddled with conflicts of interest. The Summit Bankruptcy and all
activities involving anything that Kevin Padrick did as the Trustee, should be null and void.
The Summit Indictments should be re-investigated as one man used powerful connections to ensure those indictment and to keep the eyes off him while he raked in million upon millions, and future favors galore, Kevin Padrick Bankruptcy Trustee did NOT offer the “Highest Fiduciary Duty” Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox is dedicated to exposing Kevin Padrick and Obsidian
Finance Group, as she believe they have created a trail of victims, of which she believes she
fights for by using the power of Internet marketing to get top search engine placement and
get these victims, these creditors and investors that are at the mercy of a corrupt and nontransparent
bankruptcy court system, found in the search engines in hopes of getting them justice and providing transparency and accountability where there is none.
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger Questions Kevin Padrick's Role as Bankruptcy Trustee
"Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox has Questions for the Bankruptcy Courts, the
Department of Justice, and the Attorney General Regarding the Actions of Kevin
Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group in his role as a “Trustee” in a Federal Bankruptcy
Proceeding."
In the Summit 1031 / Summit Accomodators Bankruptcy based out of Bend Oregon
that involved creditors, investors, victims from many states, there are many questions
that investigative blogger Crystal Cox has regarding Kevin Padrick, the Bankruptcy
Trustee, whom was under contract with the Debtor (Summit) to Reorganize their Debt,
Before the Debtor filed for Bankruptcy in the Summit Bankruptcy, then Kevin Padrick
was later appointed Trustee, which was essentially on the opposite side of the best
interest of his own client.
In the Summit Bankruptcy there were conflicts of interest with the Creditors Attorney, Perkins
Coie, Steven Hedberg as he us to work under Kevin Padrick while they were both at Miller
Nash Law Firm. And there were conflicts with Pamela Griffith, Assistant US Trustee having
past connections with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp. Tonkon Torp David Aman and Leon
Simson have a lot to gain, or keep in aiding to silence blogger Crystal Cox on the Real Story
of the Summit Bankruptcy and the seemingly endless amounts of high finance connections
that led to a 40 Million dollar bankruptcy being under the control of one man, Kevin Padrick.
Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogging has been writing on the Summit Bankruptcy for 3 years
now. Crystal Cox has deeply researched the issues in this bankruptcy and has since been
exposed to inside information on the biggest bankruptcy cases in the US and the same
Model of Corruption that seems to be involved in most all bankruptcy cases.
Whereby the courts, the trustee, uses up the money and the Debtors take the fall for it and the Public
Persecution and the investors and creditors are at the mercy of the Trustee, the Courts as
they attorneys suck up millions in fees with no transparency or accountability.
Crystal Cox began writing on the Summit Bankruptcy Case in July of 2009, after she
extensively read documents, depositions, LLC management files, tax documents and
watched videos of meeting with the Debtors and their Financial Consultant Obsidian Finance
Group, Kevin Padrick. Of which she found links to these documents and this massive
information and videos at a blog that a Bankruptcy Whistleblower had exposing the inside
details of a $40 Million Dollar Oregon Bankruptcy.
This woman and other insiders, investors, creditors filed an Objection to the Fees against Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group and David Aman, Tonkon Torp as they charged the estate millions of dollars and with seemingly no accountability what so ever.
This Judicial Procedure, of Public Record is where Crystal Cox, Blogger got most of the
information for the post she was sued for 10 Million Dollars on by those wishing to silence
her. This information was not allowed to be introduce into evidence.
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox has Some Questions for the FBI, the Department of Justice and
anyone out there who actually provides any kind of Monitoring of the Bankruptcy Courts or in any way
Enforces the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger asks, Can a Department of Justice, Court Appointed Trustee be a Legally
Defined Insider? Was Kevin Padrick an “Insider” just because he was paid by the debtor to help them
reorganize debt and then took their books, spreadsheets and inside information and used it against them as the
bankruptcy trustee?
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger asks why did Judge Randall Dunn suggest that Kevin Padrick be the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy? Certainly Judge Randall Dunn, the Bankruptcy Judge in Summit Bankruptcy case, knew that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Obsidian to Advise them - there were press releases from Sussman Shank’s Attorney Susan Ford, the Attorney for the Debtor that discussed Obsidian being on board, the attorneys of the Principals knew that "Obsidian" was on board as you see in the transcription of the meeting BEFORE Kevin Padrick showed up to that Summit Meeting.
Is Judge Randall Dunn Liable ? Does Judge Dunn have any accountability?
Was Judge Randall Dunn Paid Off or got some secret deal for making Kevin Padrick the Trustee in what is said to be Oregon’s Biggest Bankruptcy Case at that time? Will the Oregon Tax Payers end up paying a huge settlement when possibly the Summit Creditors Sue Judge Randall Dunn Personally and Professionally?
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger fully believe that the Summit Creditor, Investors and Even Summit Principals can file a class action lawsuit against Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick, David Brown, Pamela Griffith and the Department of Justice, Judge Randal Dunn, the Bend DA Office, Perkins Coie, Sussman Shank, Susan Ford, Steven Hedberg, Annie Buell, the Tennant Family, Tonkon Torp, David Aman and Leon Simpson ~ As she believe they all acted in conspiracy to get Kevin Padrick the Trustee job and to divert the DOJ and FBI to focus on the Summit Principals while Kevin Padrick ran away with everyone's money.
Why did a Federal Bankruptcy Judge appoint what looks like a legally defined "Insider" as a Trustee" ?
Was Kevin Padrick an "Insider" an "Interested" party by law, and therefore NOT Legally Qualified to be the
Trustee of the Summit Bankruptcy? If so is all the actions of Kevin Padrick as Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy Null and Void?
Did the Department of Justice Trustee, Judge Randall Dunn, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie and Tom Stilley
of Sussman Shank, as well as Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp act in conspiracy to get Kevin Padrick this very
lucrative Trustee job? And if so, well then where was the real "Oversight" to provide any kind of transparency
and accountability for the Investors and Creditors?
Where was the Department Of Justice in making sure that Kevin Padrick was providing a service that was of
the "Highest Fiduciary Duty"?
The actions of the DOJ, the Bankruptcy Judge, the Attorneys for the Creditor and the Debtors makes no legal or ethical sense and is certainly not of the highest fiduciary duty, says blogger Crystal Cox. Crystal Cox says,in her opinion, that Judge Randall Dunn has some serious Explaining to do and possibly some Lawsuits of his own to face.
In looking at Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) it sure seems to be suggesting that,as a legally
defined Insider, under contract to advise the Debtor, that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was not
legally allowed to be "appointed" as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy, Not sure if this is Fact, However, if you dig deep, surely you would, at least have some questions in all this.
Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31)
"(14) The term "disinterested person" means a person that--
(A) is not a creditor, an equity security holder, or an insider;
(B) is not and was not, within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition, a director, officer, or
employee of the debtor; and
(C) does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or of any class of creditors or
equity security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the
debtor, or for any other reason.
Above Quoted from
http://doney.net/bkcode/11usc0101.htm
One thing that jumps out at blogger Crystal Cox is, property must be transferred to a "disinterested party"
right? And as above in the bankruptcy code we note the definition of "disinterested party" NOT an Insider,
and Kevin Padrick was an "Insider" from the way she sees it.
Wasn't Kevin Padrick in "control" of the "debtor" and thereby again an insider?
He seemed to have advised them on all this BEFORE he was the Trustee working against them, is this Legal?
Really? It certainly must be unethically for an Oregon Attorney to provide financial advice to a company, take
their personal financial data and use it against them. It must be a "breach of contract" at the very least, right?
As Kevin Padrick was under contract with Summit, though the Trial (Obsidian V. Cox) Defendant, Blogger Crystal Cox asked Kevin Padrick if he had a contract with Summit and he said he did not, of which others at Obsidian Finance Group, on the stand, later admitted they did have a signed contract, and took $100,000 of Summit's money.
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group was under contract to assist Summit to form a plan of reorganization and instead drove them further into problems, and took a workable situation financially and basically drowned his own clients ensuring they file bankruptcy and could not reorganize and therefore Kevin Padrick would get massive commissions on each asset SOLD and get HUGE fees for services with No Oversight, Transparency or Accountability.
Stephanie DeYoung, Mark Knowles, Jim Hull filed an Objection to these Outrageous Fees, and serial Plaintiff
Kevin Padrick put them under so much duress they gave up, and though not based in law or bankruptcy code, Kevin Padrick, with his attorney David Aman ... well he got his way.
The Objection went away, yet Kevin Padrick was called out again over similar issues in the Summer of 2011,
in the Homestreet / Cascadia Project LLC legal battle where Homestreet bank objected to Kevin Padrick's fees and conflicts of interest. Homestreet WON, where bankruptcy whistleblower and mother of 3 Stephanie DeYoung was forced to stand down, though their Objection to the Fees was thorough, truthful and was a legitimate objection.
See Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group had the debtors books, had spreadsheets on the Debtors Assets and Personal Financial Information and WAS an Insider, it seems to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.
Therefore, In her Opinion, He had NO BUSINESS working for the Creditors in this Case nor being appointed as the Trustee, in my Opinion and the way I see the Laws, from my Non-Lawyer interpretation.
the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) ("insiders" include an 6 "officer","person in control of the debtor", "affiliate, or insider of an affiliate as if such affiliate were the debtor", and "managing agent of the debtor").
Bankruptcy Code on Duties of Trustee and Examiner
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_11_00001106----000-.html
This talks about investigations into debtors debt, see Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group already had this information in Great Detail, as he was an Insider, under contract, under "control" of the Debtors, yet he became Trustee and SEEMED to charge the estate to investigate what he was already paid to look into by the Summit Principals, his Client. And he had no Oversight, the DOJ Trustee just let Kevin Padrick do as he pleased and answer to no one.
This is for the Courts to Decide and to Look at But Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger Certainly Does Raise the Question:
Can a Legally Defined "Insider", Under Contract with the Debtor, before they filed bankruptcy
be Appointed as a Trustee in a 40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy Case?
Also Note that Sussman Shank, Attorney for the Summit Principals did not object and seemed in fact to agree with Judge Dunn in appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance when it looks like days before THIS SAME Attorney, Sussman Shank's Lead Attorney Susan Ford said in an email to Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), to Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank), to Jeanette Thomas ( Perkins Coie Attorney for Creditors' Committee), and to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group that """There was significant concern that such a proposal would be "dead on arrival" and might even lead to a Motion by the UST to appoint a Trustee, which would not benefit the creditors.""
So what happened, who is liable, where is the highest fiduciary duty ?
They ALL, surely seemed to know that Kevin Padrick Was Legally Defined in Bankruptcy Code as an Insider and yet they all looked the other way, why? And if it is not illegal then certainly Kevin Padrick should be filed against with the Oregon State Bar as an Ethics Violation, at the least, Right?
The Summit case involves victims (Creditors and Investors) in multiple states, who is really liable?
Accountable? I would say to start with, the Victims need to sue the Department of Justice and those personally involved in the oversight duties of the Summit Bankruptcy in which Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was allegedly to answer to.
Also think about this, as thought to consider, it is Tax Code, in a 1031 Exchange that Property, such as the Assets and LLC's involved in the Summit Bankruptcy that this be transferred to a "Disinterested Party" which it SEEMS that by Law Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group Was not. So is this a Violation of Tax Code regarding 1031 Exchanges?
Did Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group retain a "Qualified Intermediary" for the 1031 Exchange Transactions, seeings how it seems to me that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was NOT a "disinterested party" as I believe the law states that an intermediary must be ???
Does David Aman, Tonkon Torp know of this possible illegal activity and is therefore bullying, harassing an Investigative Blogger in order to hide what looks like something that David Aman, Leon Simson and Tonkon Torp knew since the begining of the Summit Bankruptcy.
And if an attorney knows of a possible crime, are they not by law or by attorney ethics bound to report this suspected behavior for investigation by the Proper Authorities? Also note that it sure seems that Leon Simson and David Aman are more then conflicted in the Summit case and are liable for some possible criminal activity of their own.
Did Kevin Patrick's past connection with Miller Nash and Working with Steve Hedberg there present a Legal Conflict of Interest in the Summit Bankruptc as Kevin Padrick being appointed by Judge Dunn to be the Trustee? Why did Sussman Shank agree to this appointment, when days before Lead Attorney Susan Ford of Sussman Shank flat out said that this was not in the best interest of the Creditors?
Why did Kevin Padrick bill the Summit Creditors for a meeting with Steve Hedberg, Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), and Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank) to discuss replacing Terry Vance as CRO? This can be seen discussed in Judicial Proceeding Case No. 08-37031 rld11 in Billable Hours.
Terry Vance was doing a fine job, from all I have read and Susan Ford Lead Attorney with Sussman Shank was allegedly out of town when Tom Stilley, Sussman Shank was involved in this. So, was Tom Stilley Connected in any Conflict of Interest Ways?
Why did Sussman Shank agree, knowing full well that Kevin Padrick was Legally Defined as an Insider by way of Contract with the Summit Principals to work for them?
Didn't Susan Ford, Sussman Shank talk about Obsidian being "retained" in this Press Release
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/summitwebsiteannouncement.pdf
Therefore Susan Ford of Sussman Shank knew full well that in Bankruptcy Code Kevin Padrick was Defined Legally as an Insider.
So why did Sussman Shank NOT object to Judge Randall Dunn appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy ?
Why did the courts appoint a trustee based on an
oral motion without any prior notice to parties in interest?
Why was an individual, Kevin Padrick appointed as a United States Trustee?
Certainly all these questions are of Public Concern?
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, seems to be a seriously conflicted Bankruptcy Trustee as he was an insider, legally defined, Crystal Cox, investigative blogger believes, and had conflicts of interest with the Creditors' Committee Attorney Steven Hedberg and Seemingly with Sussman Shank.
Kevin Padrick was under contract with the Debtor to give them financial advice, as noted in the Sussman Shank, Susan Ford Press Release, which makes him an "insider" right legally? This makes him NOT a "disinterested party" RIGHT?
Then, after this, he was "appointed" as Trustee by a Federal Bankruptcy Judge, Judge Randall Dunn, after Sussman Shank Attorney Susan Ford Advised that this is NOT in the Best Interest of the Creditors, Judge Randall Dunn Suggested the Kevin Padrick be appointed as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy and Sussman Shank made no objection to this, what seemsto be a serious conflict of interest, Why?
Also note that Tonkon Torp was making Tons of money and as this quote says "Kevin knew he could get Leon Simson on board and therefore, possibly Pamela Griffith."
Source of Quote -
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=1628
~ Pamela Griffith is the Department of Justice U.S. Trustee that was supposed to watch over the actions of the Trustee (Kevin Padrick) and in my opinion she was conflicted as she used to work with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Tonkon Torp Leon Simson and Tonkon Torp David Aman stood to make a whole lot of money from Kevin Padrick being the Trustee in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.
Lot's Of Questions and Seemingly No One in a Position of Authority to Ask them To.
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger believe that the law states that as someone with knowledge of a crime, or possible crime, you can file a Criminal Complaint, and Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger intends to file Judicial Complaints, Attorney Complaints, Department of Justice Complaints, and a Federal RICO Lawsuit over the actions of Tonkon Torp and Obsidian Finance Group in the Summit Bankruptcy Case.
And as those cases are filed, Blogger Crystal Cox will post them on her Investigative Blogger Network and expose all the government agencies that once again ignore corruption in the US Bankruptcy Courts and aid and abet the corruption in the US Courts by refusing to investigate what whistle blowers tell them.
It’s Time for Accountability and Transparency in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts.
The Debtors Financial Adviser becomes the Trustee working against the Debtor?
Does No One See an Issue with this???
And this Man, Kevin Padrick has a History of taking advantage of his own clients
and is seemingly accountable to no one.
In the news articles on the Summit Indictments you see this quote, “We will vigorously
investigate and prosecute anyone, especially licensed professionals, who cheat others to
enrich themselves,” said U.S. Attorney Holton.”
The thing is the Oregon Governor, the Attorney General, the SEC, the FBI, and all who govern white collar crimes and the US Bankruptcy Courts, they all seem to flat out ignore the activities of the Judges, Attorneys, DOJ Trustee and Bankruptcy Trustee after the money is turned over to the US Bankruptcy system and pilfered by the insiders, as the Creditors, Investors, Victims are at the mercy of the Bankruptcy Judge and the Trustee of which there is no real oversight and absolutely no transparency or accountability for their actions, their outrageous fees and their behind the scenes back scratching and favors owed, all at the expense of those with their whole lives wrapped up in the outcome of the bankruptcy.
This Summit case was allegedly being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Postal Inspectors, and the Oregon Division of Finance and Corporate Securities. Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Uram and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Helen Cooper, as part of a partnership venture between the Seattle Region, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel and the United States Attorney’s Office in Portland, Oregon.
The thing is they all turned a blind eye to inside documents and proof as to what the Trustee was doing, and to this day have simply pointed the finger at the Debtor and have not even questioned where the money went after Obsidian Finance Group stepped onto the Scene, which was BEFORE the Debtor Filed for Bankruptcy.
The Summit Bankruptcy was riddled with conflicts of interest. The Summit Bankruptcy and all
activities involving anything that Kevin Padrick did as the Trustee, should be null and void.
The Summit Indictments should be re-investigated as one man used powerful connections to ensure those indictment and to keep the eyes off him while he raked in million upon millions, and future favors galore, Kevin Padrick Bankruptcy Trustee did NOT offer the “Highest Fiduciary Duty” Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox is dedicated to exposing Kevin Padrick and Obsidian
Finance Group, as she believe they have created a trail of victims, of which she believes she
fights for by using the power of Internet marketing to get top search engine placement and
get these victims, these creditors and investors that are at the mercy of a corrupt and nontransparent
bankruptcy court system, found in the search engines in hopes of getting them justice and providing transparency and accountability where there is none.
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Kevin Padrick was under contract with the Debtor in the Summit Bankruptcy, then Was appointed Trustee, is this Legal?
Can a Department of Justice, Court Appointed Trustee be a Legally Defined Insider?
Stephanie DeYoung, Mark Knowles, Jim Hull filed an Objection to these Outrageous Fees, and serial Plaintiff Kevin Padrick put them under so much duress they gave up, and though not based in law or bankruptcy code, Kevin Padrick, with his attorney David Aman ... well he got his way. The Objection went away, yet Kevin Padrick was called out again in the Homestreet / Cascadia Project LLC legal battle where Homestreet bank objected to Kevin Padrick's fees and conflicts of interest. Homestreet WON, where bankruptcy whistleblower and mother of 3 Stephanie DeYoung was forced to stand down, though their Objection to the Fees was thorough, truthful and was a legitimate objection.
This talks about investigations into debtors debt, see Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group already had this information in Great Detail, as he was an Insider, under contract, under "control" of the Debtors, yet he became Trustee and SEEMED to charge the estate to investigate what he was already paid to look into by the Summit Principals, his Client.
This is for the Courts to Decide and to Look at But I Certainly Do Raise the Question:
Also Note that Sussman Shank, Attorney for the Summit Principals did not object and seemed in fact to agree with Judge Dunn in appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance when it looks like days before THIS SAME Attorney, Sussman Shank's Lead Attorney Susan Ford said in an email to Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), to Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank), to Jeanette Thomas ( Perkins Coie Attorney for Creditors' Committee), and to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group that """There was significant concern that such a proposal would be "dead on arrival" and might even lead to a Motion by the UST to appoint a Trustee, which would not benefit the creditors.""
Click Here for a link to that email.
So what happened, who is liable, where is the highest fiduciary duty ?
They ALL, surely seemed to know that Kevin Padrick Was Legally Defined in Bankruptcy Code as an Insider and yet they all looked the other way, why? And if it is not illegal then certainly Kevin Padrick should be filed against with the Oregon State Bar as an Ethics Violation, at the least, Right?
The Summit case involves victims (Creditors and Investors) in multiple states, who is really liable? Accountable? I would say to start with, the Victims need to sue the Department of Justice and those personally involved in the oversight duties of the Summit Bankruptcy in which Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was allegedly to answer to.
Did Kevin Patrick's past connection with Miller Nash and Working with Steve Hedberg there present a Legal Conflict of Interest in the Summit Bankruptc as Kevin Padrick being appointed by Judge Dunn to be the Trustee? Why did Sussman Shank agree to this appointment, when days before Lead Attorney Susan Ford of Sussman Shank flat out said that this was not in the best interest of the Creditors?
Why did Kevin Padrick bill the Summit Creditors for a meeting with Steve Hedberg, Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), and Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank) to discuss replacing Terry Vance as CRO? This can be seen discussed in Judicial Proceeding Case No. 08-37031 rld11 in Billable Hours.
Terry Vance was doing a fine job, from all I have read and Susan Ford Lead Attorney with Sussman Shank was allegedly out of town when Tom Stilley, Sussman Shank was involved in this. So, was Tom Stilley Connected in any Conflict of Interest Ways?
Why did Sussman Shank agree, knowing full well that Kevin Padrick was Legally Defined as an Insider by way of Contract with the Summit Principals to work for them?
Didn't Susan Ford, Sussman Shank talk about Obsidian being "retained" in this Press Release
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/summitwebsiteannouncement.pdf
Therefore Susan Ford of Sussman Shank knew full well that in Bankruptcy Code Kevin Padrick was Defined Legally as an Insider.
So why did Sussman Shank NOT object to Judge Randall Dunn appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy ? Why did the courts appoint a trustee based on an oral motion without any prior notice to parties in interest? Why was an individual, Kevin Padrick appointed as a United States Trustee? Certainly all these questions are of Public Concern?
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Trustee had past close working connections with Steve Hedberg, Perkins Coie who in the Summit Bankruptcy was / is Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee. Steven Hedberg, it is my understanding at one time worked under Kevin Padrick when they were both at Miller Nash Law Firm.
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Trustee also seems to have past affiliations with the founder of Sussman Shank, as shown here http://www.sussmanshank.com/gtruths.asp . Yes represented against as with Miller Nash, thing is there is certainly reason to question a Conflict of Interest, a History with Sussman Shank in some way and YET again, in My Opinion, had no legal right to be appointed as Trustee and if so, certainly no Ethical Reason, Right?
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, seems to me to be a seriously conflicted Bankruptcy Trustee as he was an insider, legally defined, I believe, and had conflicts of interest with the Creditors' Committee Attorney Steven Hedberg and Seemingly with Sussman Shank.
Kevin Padrick was under contract with the Debtor to give them financial advice, as noted in the Sussman Shank, Susan Ford Press Release, which makes him an "insider" right legally? This makes him NOT a "disinterested party" RIGHT?
Then, after this, he was "appointed" as Trustee by a Federal Bankruptcy Judge, Judge Randall Dunn, after Sussman Shank Attorney Susan Ford Advised that this is NOT in the Best Interest of the Creditors. And Sussman Shank made no objection to this, what seems to me to be a serious conflict of interest, Why?
Also note that Tonkon Torp was making Tons of money and as this quote says "Kevin knew he could get Leon Simson on board and therefore, possibly Pamela Griffith." Source of Quote - http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=1628 ~ Pamela Griffith is the Department of Justice U.S. Trustee that was supposed to watch over the actions of the Trustee (Kevin Padrick) and in my opinion she was conflicted as she used to work with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Tonkon Torp Leon Simson and Tonkon Torp David Aman stood to make a whole lot of money from Kevin Padrick being the Trustee in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.
Lot's Of Questions and Seemingly No One in a Position of Authority to Ask them To.
I believe that the law states that as someone with knowledge of a crime, or possible crime, you can file a Criminal Complaint, more on that Soon, if I can I will be filing Criminal Complaints and Stating the Codes Violated and why I believe it to be so.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_11_00001106----000-.html
http://www.chapter11trustee.com/2011/01/possible-bankruptcy-code-violations-in.html
http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/bankruptcydictionary.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_11_00001106----000-.html
Here are research links to More on the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, Kevin Padrick, David, Aman, Tonkon Torp, Perkins Coie, Judge Randall Dunny, Steven Hedberg.
My Blog on Obsidian Finance Group
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/
Stephanie DeYoung Summit Bankruptcy Whistle Blower Blog, NOT Mine
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/
Documents I gave the courts to prove the source of the post
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-cox-i-provided.html
Here is Exhibit 520 that I gave Judge Marco Hernandez, Portland Oregon
Obsidian V. Cox Trial Transcripts
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117800653/Obsidian-V-Cox-Trial-Transcripts
Meeting Videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick
Court Filing Against Tonkon Torp and Obsidian Finance Group
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/98076240/David-Aman-Tonkon-Torp-for-Obsidian-Finance-Group-Trustee-Kevin-Padrick
Posted Here Proudly
by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox has Some Questions for the FBI, the Department of Justice and anyone out there who actually provides any kind of Monitoring of the Bankruptcy Courts or in any way Enforces the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.I Believe the Summit Creditor, Investors and Even Summit Principals can file a class action lawsuit against Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick, David Brown, Pamela Griffith and the Department of Justice, Judge Randal Dunn, the Bend DA Office, Perkins Coie, Sussman Shank, Susan Ford, Steven Hedberg, Annie Buell, the Tennant Family, Tonkon Torp, David Aman and Leon Simpson ~ As I believe they all acted in conspiracy to get Kevin Padrick the Trustee job and to divert the DOJ and FBI to focus on the Summit Principals while Kevin Padrick ran away with everyone's money.
Certainly Judge Dunn, the Bankruptcy Judge in this case, knew that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Obsidian to Advise them - there were press releases from Sussman Shank Attorney Susan Ford that discussed Obsidian being on board, the attorneys of the Principals knew that "Obsidian" was on board as you see in the transcription of the meeting BEFORE Kevin Padrick showed up to that Summit Meeting. Is Judge Dunn Liable ? Will the Oregon Tax Payers end up paying a huge settlement when possibly the Summit Creditors Sue Judge Dunn Personally and Professionally?
Why did a Federal Bankruptcy Judge appoint what looks to me like a legally defined "Insider" as a Trustee" ? Was Kevin Padrick an "Insider" and "Interested" party by law and therefore NOT Legally Qualified to be the Trustee of the Summit Bankruptcy?Did the Department of Justice Trustee, Judge Randall Dunn, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie and Tom Stilley of Sussman Shank act in conspiracy to get Kevin Padrick this very lucrative Trustee job? And if so, well then who was the real "Oversight" to provide any kind of transparency and accountability for the Investors and Creditors? Where was the Department Of Justice in making sure that Kevin Padrick was providing a service that was of the "Highest Fiduciary Duty"?
The actions of the DOJ, the Bankruptcy Judge and the Attorneys for the Creditor and the Debtors makes no legal or ethical sense to me and is certainly not of the highest fiduciary duty. I would say, in my OPINION that Judge Randall Dunn has some serious Explaining to do and possibly some Lawsuits of his own to face.Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group was under contract to assist Summit to form a plan of reorganization and instead drove them further into problems, and took a workable situation financially and basically drowned his own clients ensuring they file bankruptcy and could not reorganize and therefore Kevin Padrick would get massive commissions on each asset SOLD and get HUGE fees for services with No Oversight.
I am not claiming I know Law, thing is Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) sure seems to me to be suggesting that as a legally defined Insider, under contract to advise the Debtor, that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was not legally allowed to be "appointed" as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy, I don't Know this for Fact, I am not a Bankruptcy Attorney. However, I will point you to some links of interest to do your own homework.
Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31)
"(14) The term "disinterested person" means a person that--
Above Quoted from(A) is not a creditor, an equity security holder, or an insider;(B) is not and was not, within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition, a director, officer, or employee of the debtor; and(C) does not have an interest materially adverse to the interest of the estate or of any class of creditors or equity security holders, by reason of any direct or indirect relationship to, connection with, or interest in, the debtor, or for any other reason.
http://doney.net/bkcode/11usc0101.htm
One thing that jumps out at me is property must be transferred to a "disinterested party" right? And as above in the bankruptcy code we note the definition of "disinterested party" NOT an Insider, and Kevin Padrick was an "Insider" from the way I see it.
Wasn't Kevin Padrick in "control" of the "debtor" and thereby again an insider? He seemed to have advised them on all this BEFORE he was the Trustee working against them, is this Legal? Really? It certainly must be unethically for an Oregon Attorney to provide financial advise to a company, take their personal financial data and use it against them. It must be a "breach of contract" at the very least, right? As Kevin Padrick was under contract with Summit, though at my Trial (Obsidian V. Cox) I asked Kevin Padrick if he had a contract with Summit and he said he did not, of which others at Obsidian later admitted they did have a signed contract, and took $100,000 of Summit's money.
Stephanie DeYoung, Mark Knowles, Jim Hull filed an Objection to these Outrageous Fees, and serial Plaintiff Kevin Padrick put them under so much duress they gave up, and though not based in law or bankruptcy code, Kevin Padrick, with his attorney David Aman ... well he got his way. The Objection went away, yet Kevin Padrick was called out again in the Homestreet / Cascadia Project LLC legal battle where Homestreet bank objected to Kevin Padrick's fees and conflicts of interest. Homestreet WON, where bankruptcy whistleblower and mother of 3 Stephanie DeYoung was forced to stand down, though their Objection to the Fees was thorough, truthful and was a legitimate objection.
See Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group had the debtors books, had spreadsheets on the Debtors Assets and Personal Financial Information and WAS an Insider, it seems to me. Therefore, In my Opinion, He had NO BUSINESS working for the Creditors in this Case nor being appointed as the Trustee, in my Opinion and the way I see the Laws, from my Non-Lawyer interpretation.Bankruptcy Code on Duties of Trustee and Examinerhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_11_00001106----000-.html
the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) ("insiders" include an 6 "officer","person in control of the debtor", "affiliate, or insider of an affiliate as if such affiliate were the debtor", and "managing agent of the debtor").
This talks about investigations into debtors debt, see Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group already had this information in Great Detail, as he was an Insider, under contract, under "control" of the Debtors, yet he became Trustee and SEEMED to charge the estate to investigate what he was already paid to look into by the Summit Principals, his Client.
This is for the Courts to Decide and to Look at But I Certainly Do Raise the Question:
Can a Legally Defined "Insider" of the Debtor be Appointed
as a Trustee in a 40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy Case?
Also Note that Sussman Shank, Attorney for the Summit Principals did not object and seemed in fact to agree with Judge Dunn in appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance when it looks like days before THIS SAME Attorney, Sussman Shank's Lead Attorney Susan Ford said in an email to Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), to Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank), to Jeanette Thomas ( Perkins Coie Attorney for Creditors' Committee), and to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group that """There was significant concern that such a proposal would be "dead on arrival" and might even lead to a Motion by the UST to appoint a Trustee, which would not benefit the creditors.""
Click Here for a link to that email.
So what happened, who is liable, where is the highest fiduciary duty ?
They ALL, surely seemed to know that Kevin Padrick Was Legally Defined in Bankruptcy Code as an Insider and yet they all looked the other way, why? And if it is not illegal then certainly Kevin Padrick should be filed against with the Oregon State Bar as an Ethics Violation, at the least, Right?
The Summit case involves victims (Creditors and Investors) in multiple states, who is really liable? Accountable? I would say to start with, the Victims need to sue the Department of Justice and those personally involved in the oversight duties of the Summit Bankruptcy in which Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was allegedly to answer to.
Also think about this, as thought to consider, it is Tax Code, in a 1031 Exchange that Property, such as
the Assets and LLC's involved in the Summit Bankruptcy that this be transferred to a "Disinterested Party"
which it SEEMS that by Law Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group Was not. So is this a Violation of
Tax Code regarding 1031 Exchanges?
the Assets and LLC's involved in the Summit Bankruptcy that this be transferred to a "Disinterested Party"
which it SEEMS that by Law Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group Was not. So is this a Violation of
Tax Code regarding 1031 Exchanges?
Did Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group retain a "Qualified Intermediary" for the 1031 Exchange
Transactions, seeings how it seems to me that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was NOT
a "disinterested party" as I believe the law states that an intermediary must be ???
Transactions, seeings how it seems to me that Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was NOT
a "disinterested party" as I believe the law states that an intermediary must be ???
Did Kevin Patrick's past connection with Miller Nash and Working with Steve Hedberg there present a Legal Conflict of Interest in the Summit Bankruptc as Kevin Padrick being appointed by Judge Dunn to be the Trustee? Why did Sussman Shank agree to this appointment, when days before Lead Attorney Susan Ford of Sussman Shank flat out said that this was not in the best interest of the Creditors?
Why did Kevin Padrick bill the Summit Creditors for a meeting with Steve Hedberg, Perkins Coie (Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee who at one time worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash), and Tom Stilley (Assistant Attorney for Sussman and Shank) to discuss replacing Terry Vance as CRO? This can be seen discussed in Judicial Proceeding Case No. 08-37031 rld11 in Billable Hours.
Terry Vance was doing a fine job, from all I have read and Susan Ford Lead Attorney with Sussman Shank was allegedly out of town when Tom Stilley, Sussman Shank was involved in this. So, was Tom Stilley Connected in any Conflict of Interest Ways?
Why did Sussman Shank agree, knowing full well that Kevin Padrick was Legally Defined as an Insider by way of Contract with the Summit Principals to work for them?
Didn't Susan Ford, Sussman Shank talk about Obsidian being "retained" in this Press Release
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/summitwebsiteannouncement.pdf
Therefore Susan Ford of Sussman Shank knew full well that in Bankruptcy Code Kevin Padrick was Defined Legally as an Insider.
So why did Sussman Shank NOT object to Judge Randall Dunn appointing Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy ? Why did the courts appoint a trustee based on an oral motion without any prior notice to parties in interest? Why was an individual, Kevin Padrick appointed as a United States Trustee? Certainly all these questions are of Public Concern?
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Trustee had past close working connections with Steve Hedberg, Perkins Coie who in the Summit Bankruptcy was / is Lead Attorney for the Creditors Committee. Steven Hedberg, it is my understanding at one time worked under Kevin Padrick when they were both at Miller Nash Law Firm.
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Trustee also seems to have past affiliations with the founder of Sussman Shank, as shown here http://www.sussmanshank.com/gtruths.asp . Yes represented against as with Miller Nash, thing is there is certainly reason to question a Conflict of Interest, a History with Sussman Shank in some way and YET again, in My Opinion, had no legal right to be appointed as Trustee and if so, certainly no Ethical Reason, Right?
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, seems to me to be a seriously conflicted Bankruptcy Trustee as he was an insider, legally defined, I believe, and had conflicts of interest with the Creditors' Committee Attorney Steven Hedberg and Seemingly with Sussman Shank.
Kevin Padrick was under contract with the Debtor to give them financial advice, as noted in the Sussman Shank, Susan Ford Press Release, which makes him an "insider" right legally? This makes him NOT a "disinterested party" RIGHT?
Then, after this, he was "appointed" as Trustee by a Federal Bankruptcy Judge, Judge Randall Dunn, after Sussman Shank Attorney Susan Ford Advised that this is NOT in the Best Interest of the Creditors. And Sussman Shank made no objection to this, what seems to me to be a serious conflict of interest, Why?
Also note that Tonkon Torp was making Tons of money and as this quote says "Kevin knew he could get Leon Simson on board and therefore, possibly Pamela Griffith." Source of Quote - http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?p=1628 ~ Pamela Griffith is the Department of Justice U.S. Trustee that was supposed to watch over the actions of the Trustee (Kevin Padrick) and in my opinion she was conflicted as she used to work with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Tonkon Torp Leon Simson and Tonkon Torp David Aman stood to make a whole lot of money from Kevin Padrick being the Trustee in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.
Lot's Of Questions and Seemingly No One in a Position of Authority to Ask them To.
I believe that the law states that as someone with knowledge of a crime, or possible crime, you can file a Criminal Complaint, more on that Soon, if I can I will be filing Criminal Complaints and Stating the Codes Violated and why I believe it to be so.
The Debtors Financial Adviser becomes the Trustee working against the Debtor?
Does No One See an Issue with this???
Links and Resources to this Post
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_11_00001106----000-.html
http://www.chapter11trustee.com/2011/01/possible-bankruptcy-code-violations-in.html
http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/bankruptcydictionary.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_11_00001106----000-.html
Here are research links to More on the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, Kevin Padrick, David, Aman, Tonkon Torp, Perkins Coie, Judge Randall Dunny, Steven Hedberg.
My Blog on Obsidian Finance Group
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/
Stephanie DeYoung Summit Bankruptcy Whistle Blower Blog, NOT Mine
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/
Documents I gave the courts to prove the source of the post
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-obsidian-v-cox-i-provided.html
Here is Exhibit 520 that I gave Judge Marco Hernandez, Portland Oregon
To Show the Source of the Post I was on Trial For.
Obsidian V. Cox Trial Transcripts
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117800653/Obsidian-V-Cox-Trial-Transcripts
Meeting Videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick
Court Filing Against Tonkon Torp and Obsidian Finance Group
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/98076240/David-Aman-Tonkon-Torp-for-Obsidian-Finance-Group-Trustee-Kevin-Padrick
Posted Here Proudly
by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Jeanette Thomson Perkins Coie Perception of the Case. Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick, David Aman, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, and Stephanie DeYoung Bankruptcy Whistle Blower Blog.
"To: “Jeanette L. Thomas” JThomas@perkinscoie.com
Leon Simson | Tonkon Torp LLP
We still believe that it is still best to communicate directly with either someone at Tonkon or at Obsidian. Under the plan, the Committee only stays in place until all fee application objections have been resolved. We think that we will have all our fee application objections resolved by week’s end, in which case our client actually disappears and our work on behalf of the Committee ends. Please feel free to confirm this fact with one of the attorneys for the other shareholders. It is contained in Section 13.11 of the Plan. We suggest that you direct your communications directly to Leon Simson. He has been copied on this email and his email address is leon.simson@tonkon.com
With regards to the comments on the turnover of assets, as the lawyers who were involved well know, we were unable to reach agreement on the terms of the documents and the scope of the transfer. We were not involved in the case until January 9th, so we don’t know the reason for the initial delay. After the committee was formed and we became involved the delay in part was caused by the schedules of your and the other shareholders’ attorneys.
Although we circulated documents for review, we did not receive timely responses or comments. Ultimately we understood that your lawyer and the other shareholders’ attorneys refused to advise any of you to turn over the assets because of the threat of legal action that had been made against you and them. As a result, it was necessary for the estate to bring legal action against you and the other shareholders.
Jeanette:
Apparently the folks at Obsidian and Tonkon Torp do not fully understand my position. You may have to explain it to them once again.
I will not deal directly with either of them on any of the property issues due to their use of documented untruths in executing what Obsidian and Tonkon Torp are supposed to be doing in the Summit case. I will not aid and abet them in efforts to hurt innocent people that have been sucked into the Summit bankruptcy. I also will not deal directly with them because they have shown that they will twist anything the principals say to trump up the Summit situation in an effort to bolster the profits of their own company/firm.
I don’t believe it is in the best interests of myself and neither is it in the best interests of the creditors to continue do this as Obsidian and Tonkon Torp rape the bankruptcy estate of the creditors’ cash with little gain as they torture innocent parties.
I don’t believe it is in the best interests of myself and neither is it in the best interests of the creditors to continue do this as Obsidian and Tonkon Torp rape the bankruptcy estate of the creditors’ cash with little gain as they torture innocent parties.
I think I’ve made this very clear, yet (as you can see below) Tonkon Torp keeps attempting to deal with me directly on such property matters. Tonkon does this despite the fact that Mr. Padrick said he would not have any further communications with me “under any circumstances”.
An additional little tidbit, if I remember correctly, Mr. Vanden Bos told me that was Leon Simson’s position as well. I will have to check with Mr. Vanden Bos for verification on that. I know your advice was “We still believe that it is still best to communicate directly with either someone at Tonkon or at Obsidian.” Unfortunately, you are not my advisor or legal counsel.
An additional little tidbit, if I remember correctly, Mr. Vanden Bos told me that was Leon Simson’s position as well. I will have to check with Mr. Vanden Bos for verification on that. I know your advice was “We still believe that it is still best to communicate directly with either someone at Tonkon or at Obsidian.” Unfortunately, you are not my advisor or legal counsel.
As per my previous two emails, I suggested that all communications from me in regard to Obsidian’s work would need to go through you so that the creditors were fully aware of the truth regarding my communications or actions with Obsidian or Tonkon Torp.
Since you will no longer be involved in the bankruptcy, it will now need to be some other party that is completely neutral. As soon as we can agree on a neutral party that will be acceptable to both sides, I will be happy to help with what is needed. Until then, please tell Mr. Simson not to contact me in regard to this issue again.
Since you will no longer be involved in the bankruptcy, it will now need to be some other party that is completely neutral. As soon as we can agree on a neutral party that will be acceptable to both sides, I will be happy to help with what is needed. Until then, please tell Mr. Simson not to contact me in regard to this issue again.
I also find it interesting that you didn’t deny that there was any deceit or harm, you just said that you believe that “no deceit or harm was intended”. Is that how you always explain it when you stumble over your own deceit and harm in the lawyer business? Just curious.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Neuman
PS- It’s fascinating that you are now laying blame on the principals’ individual bankruptcy attorneys as the reason for the delay in the case. You state “Although we circulated documents for review, we did not receive timely responses or comments”. I can’t blame you for doing everything to deflect blame from Perkins Coie and the other attorneys that were involved in this. However, let me help jog your memory Jeanette.
1) The principals’ bankruptcy attorneys waited for weeks for the debtor (Summit) or the creditors committee to provide a proposed structure. During that period the principals were looking for ways to get the property transferred. There is overwhelming evidence of this. But we were told that no transfer could occur until the “structure” was worked out.
2) On the afternoon of February 19th, we finally received the “structure” documents. There was a hearing on the morning of the 20th and we were told that Mr. Padrick demanded the documents be signed before the hearing. This was the demand, even knowing full well that my individual bankruptcy attorney was gone on vacation. No, they weren’t signed on the 20th because no attorneys had the proper amount of time to review the documents. Tell me Jeanette, would you allow your client to sign something of that magnitude with less than 24 hours to review it? You know the answer!
3) A new hearing was scheduled for a week later and to give time for all four attorneys to review. Again, they had much less time to review than the weeks on end Perkins Coie took to come up with a “structure”. The “structure” did not address any of the LLC issues, due on sale clause issues, loan default issues and innocent party issues that Mr. Padrick said he would be addressing in a meeting held February 12th with the principals.
4) There was not enough time to get agreement by the new hearing date of February 26th, so Judge Dunn rescheduled the hearing for March 5th and on and on.
I remember getting documents from you with:
1) all or almost all of the suggested changes deleted
2) new language that was very detrimental to the innocent parties
3) documents with no redlines making it near impossible to figure out what changes had been made
4) a demand for signatures for a scheduled hearing the following day.
You think Perkins Coie was doing its part to get things settled timely in the best interest for the creditors (before legal fees got out of hand)? You answer.
Attached is an email I sent to Kevin Padrick on February 22nd after review of the documents. Since the documents weren’t addressing many issues that were critical to retaining value for the creditors, I made suggestions that I though would be helpful. In a telephone conversation with Kevin Padrick a week later, he stated that the suggestions were wonderful (especially the three tranches of assets idea).
But he claimed he had just received the email and it was just too late to do anything with those ideas. Another untruth. Of course the email record shows exactly when it was sent and it was obviously not too late.
But he claimed he had just received the email and it was just too late to do anything with those ideas. Another untruth. Of course the email record shows exactly when it was sent and it was obviously not too late.
Isn’t it a wonder that it is almost impossible for anyone to recognize any cooperation whatsoever from Perkins Coie, Kevin Padrick/Obsidian or Tonkon Torp? Why would they have no interest in working through cooperative efforts for the benefit of the creditors? I suggest that the outrageous fee applications to the bankruptcy court might explain all that. The lack of cooperation continues as Obsidian and Tonkon Torp try to hammer innocent parties into the ground. It certainly isn’t very productive as the values of real estate, especially in Bend, continue the downward spiral. All the delay continues the injury to the creditors. Your firm is supposed to fight for the creditors’ best interests. Don’t you think that you have some culpability in the shrinkage of the bankruptcy estate assets? I’ll leave that for you to ponder.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Leon Simson <leon.simson@tonkon.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
To: “Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie)” JThomas@perkinscoie.com
Mr. Neuman,
As far as I know, you have never signed the consent that would authorize Chase to speak directly with Obsidian to ascertain the precise amount of the debt. Please correct me if I am wrong. This information is important to facilitate the successful marketing of the house. Will you sign the consent? Thanks.
Leon Simson | Tonkon Torp LLP
1600 Pioneer Tower | 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
503.802.2067| FAX 503.972.3767
——————————————————————————–
From: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie) mailto:JThomas@perkinscoie.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35 PM
To: Mark Neuman
Subject: RE: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Mr. Neuman,
We understand your frustration at this situation but believe that no deceit or harm was intended. In our experience, the attorneys at Tonkon have always been very professional and trustworthy. Our experience with Obsidian has been the same.
We still believe that it is still best to communicate directly with either someone at Tonkon or at Obsidian. Under the plan, the Committee only stays in place until all fee application objections have been resolved. We think that we will have all our fee application objections resolved by week’s end, in which case our client actually disappears and our work on behalf of the Committee ends. Please feel free to confirm this fact with one of the attorneys for the other shareholders. It is contained in Section 13.11 of the Plan. We suggest that you direct your communications directly to Leon Simson. He has been copied on this email and his email address is leon.simson@tonkon.com
With regards to the comments on the turnover of assets, as the lawyers who were involved well know, we were unable to reach agreement on the terms of the documents and the scope of the transfer. We were not involved in the case until January 9th, so we don’t know the reason for the initial delay. After the committee was formed and we became involved the delay in part was caused by the schedules of your and the other shareholders’ attorneys.
Although we circulated documents for review, we did not receive timely responses or comments. Ultimately we understood that your lawyer and the other shareholders’ attorneys refused to advise any of you to turn over the assets because of the threat of legal action that had been made against you and them. As a result, it was necessary for the estate to bring legal action against you and the other shareholders.
All of that is now water under the bridge. The transfer has occurred and Obsidian and Kevin Padrick are currently in the process of liquidating these properties for the benefit of the estate and the exchange creditors. We would hope that you will provide the necessary assistance to maximize the value to the creditors.
Regards,
Jeanette
Jeanette L. Thomas | Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
(: 503.727.2075
7: 503.346.2075
——————————————————————————–
From: Mark Neuman
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:01 PM
To: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie)
Subject: Re: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Jeanette:
As you can see from Mr. Rose’s email response below, David Petersen’s referral to “following up on e-mail correspondence you received from Ewan Rose at Obsidian Finance Group” was just another untruth. It may seem small, but there is overwhelming evidence that shows that Obsidian and Tonkon Torp do everyday business in this way. It apparently is easier to use deceit to get business done, under cover of bankruptcy law, instead of having an ethical approach to doing bankruptcy work. I hope your firm does not engage in such tactics.
Mr. Rose suggests, as you do, that I work directly with him. The suggestion only comes when Obsidian needs something from me. When anyone needs something from Mr. Rose, the principals or any of the 106 other innocent parties, Mr. Rose and the other folks at Obsidian either don’t respond or use deceit, threats,intimidation or just plain ignore the requests in order to make these people go away.
I have had no contact with Obsidian since Mr. Padrick proclaimed that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances” with the exception of letting Mr. Rose know that the Macalpine house had been vacated, cleaned and ready for Obsidian. Do you think it was in the best interests of creditors for Mr. Padrick to decide that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances”? I’ll let you and the creditors answer that. I doubt it is a position he should have taken as trustee.
I have had no contact with Obsidian since Mr. Padrick proclaimed that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances” with the exception of letting Mr. Rose know that the Macalpine house had been vacated, cleaned and ready for Obsidian. Do you think it was in the best interests of creditors for Mr. Padrick to decide that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances”? I’ll let you and the creditors answer that. I doubt it is a position he should have taken as trustee.
So we have a problem. There is no working relationship because of the disrespect and the continuous flow of untruths coming from Obsidian and its counsel. I am fully willing to cooperate, but you will need to be the person that I cooperate with or you’ll simply have to find someone else that is acceptable to me. There is no value to Obsidian/Tonkon Torp working with me or me working with Obsidian/Tonkon Torp at this point in regard to any of the property. They simply misrepresent the truth on any of my actions and I personally cannot afford that.
As a sidebar, please note that the principals wanted to hand over all of this real estate since December. I told Susan Ford at Sussman Shank that I personally wanted to start transferring some property in January. She said that wasn’t possible at that time. Really? So as Sussman, Obsidian and your firm racked up the legal fees, it took months to get the property transferred. That all meant a delay in getting the properties listed and sold for the benefit of the creditors.
Even more salt in the wound for the creditors and the principals, the real estate market continued the downward spiral during this wasted time. Now Obsidian is working hard to try to save these properties from foreclosure. Don’t you think it would’ve been in the creditors’ best interest to have put your efforts into getting the property transferred and listed quickly instead of using your legal expertise to do everything to delay the transfer? Just a sidebar for you to consider.
Even more salt in the wound for the creditors and the principals, the real estate market continued the downward spiral during this wasted time. Now Obsidian is working hard to try to save these properties from foreclosure. Don’t you think it would’ve been in the creditors’ best interest to have put your efforts into getting the property transferred and listed quickly instead of using your legal expertise to do everything to delay the transfer? Just a sidebar for you to consider.
Since you are the counsel for the creditors, I know that you’ll find a way to resolve this since it is in their best interest to have a party that knows how to be eithical and can work with mutual trust for the benefit of the creditors. I will wait for your further input.
Mark Neuman
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ewan Rose <erose@obsidianfinance.com> wrote:
Mark:
Dave Petersen’s statement in his email that I had previously sent an email to you regarding the Chase loan on your MacAlpine Loop house was incorrect — I don’t believe we’ve had any prior correspondence with you on this matter. Could you please execute the attachment to Dave’s letter and return it to us?
As to future communication, I agree with Jeanette that you should either direct communications to Obsidian or to David Aman and Leon Simson at Tonkon Torp.
Thank you,
Ewan
Ewan W. Rose
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC
10260 SW Greenburg Road Suite 1150
Portland, Oregon 97223
503.488.6149 Work
503.679.5568 Cell
503.245.8804 Fax
erose@obsidianfinance.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you receive this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by replying to this message or telephoning us, and do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute it. Thank you.
—–Original Message—–
From: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:JThomas@perkinscoie.com]
Sent: Wed 7/29/2009 6:02 PM
To: Mark Neuman
Subject: RE: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Mr. Neuman,
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately I cannot produce the requested emails because I do not have them. Ewan Rose generally only copies me on matters that I am directly involved in. We are not copied on correspondence relating to asset disposition issues.
As I stated in my prior email, we think that in order to maximize the value of the assets for the benefit of creditors, it is important that you communicate directly with Obsidian rather than communicating through me, as counsel to the committee. If this is unacceptable, at the very least it would be more appropriate to communicate directly with either Leon Simson or David Aman at Tonkon Torp, as they are counsel to Kevin Padrick.
Regards,
Jeanette
Jeanette L. Thomas | Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
(: 503.727.2075
7: 503.346.2075
________________________________
From: Mark Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:55 PM
To: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie)
Subject: Fwd: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Jeanette:
Please produce the email Mr. Rose alleges he sent to me.
Mark
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Rita Bell <rita.bell@tonkon.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Subject: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
To: Mark Neuman
Cc: Ryan Norwood, David Petersen <david.petersen@tonkon.com>, David Aman <david.aman@tonkon.com>
Mr. Neuman,
Please see the attached letter with attachment. “Click Here for Attachment”
Thank you,
Rita Bell
Legal Assistant to David Petersen"
Source of Quote
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)