District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Randazza V. Cox, Docket Entry 89 States, “Defendant's Counter Complaint is STRICKEN. Defendant may only file her Counter Complaint as a separate lawsuit. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/22/13.” I, Pro Se Litigant Crystal L. Cox / Pro Se Defendant, Filed a "Separate Lawsuit As Per Court Order.
Here is that Filing, Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction
Plaintiff's Opposition to Docket Entry 91 / Opposition
to "RICO" Complaint Filing, Says;
"Defendant Cox’s request should be disregarded, as she has not properly filed her motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This Court already has held the above-captioned case to be
unrelated to Defendant Cox’s separate racketeering complaint and ordered that racketeering
complaint stricken from this suit. (ECF 89 at 3).
Cox’s filing the Motion serves only to waste Plaintiffs’ and this Court’s time, providing
further support that this Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Revoke Cox’s Electronic Filing
Privileges. (ECF 69) Cox has consented to the motion. (ECF 88) Furthermore, given that Cox is clearly now demonstrating herself to be a vexatious litigant, this Court should consider stronger corrective action beyond the motion filed in ECF 69.
Because Defendant Cox improperly filed her Motion for Leave to Continue In Forma
Pauperis, Plaintiffs respectfully requests the Court deny Cox’s Motion."
"Dated: February 25, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Ronald D. Green
Ronald D. Green, NV Bar #7360
Randazza Legal Group"
February 26th, 2013 Court Ruling to Allow Opening of New Civil Action
"Document Number:
94
Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro, on 2/26/2013. By Deputy Clerk: AMW.
Pursuant to the Court's Order (ECF No. [89]) Striking Defendant Crystal Cox's Amended Counter Complaint and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds that Defendant's Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. [91]) should be construed as a request to commence a separate civil action. Thus, the Court hereby directs the Clerk's Office to use Defendant's filing, ECF No. [91], to open a new civil action."
New Case Details
Cox vs. Randazza, et al., Assigned to: Judge James C. Mahan Referred to: Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe Demand: $100,000,000,000 Cause: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act Date Filed: 02/24/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Diversity
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Defined for Readers
"TheRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as theRICO Actor simplyRICO, is aUnited States federal lawthat provides for extended criminal penalties and a civilcause of actionfor acts performed as part of an ongoingcriminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically onracketeering, and it allows for theleadersof a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which theyorderedothers to door assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually do it.
RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named Rico. The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, refused to confirm or deny this.[1] G. Robert Blakey remains an expert on RICO;[2] his former student Michael Goldsmith also gained a reputation as one of the nation's leading RICO experts.[3]"
Public Notice: You have No Legal Rights in the District of Nevada,
if you are Sued there, you may want to Try for a Change of Venue.
Judge Gloria Navarro ACCEPTS what this One Attorney Says as FACT, over and Over and Defendants have No RIGHTS, the TRUTH, and actual Documented Facts are Irrelevant and Stricken from the Record.
Pattern and History Judge Gloria Navarro Connections Research Regarding our Courts, District of Nevada Public Information. Do your Homework, there is NO Justice, no Due Process, NO First Amendment Rights in the District of Nevada
for those who Are the Targets of the Puppet Master.
"ViaView, Inc. v. Chanson et al"
"Court Description: ORDER Granting 6 EX PARTE MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ViaView, Inc. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until 12/7/2012 to file Response to 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff shall file reply by 12/21/2021. Motion Hearing set for 1/2/2013 02:30 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/30/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)"
In the District of Nevada, the Most Important thing is the Attorneys Pay Check, and the Law, the Constitutional Rights of Defendants, Due Process.. well that's Just Irrelevant... Judge Gloria Navarro is THIS Nevada Attorneys SuperHERO.. it's all about the ATTORNEY making money and making a mockery of the courts on the Taxpayers Dime.. Suing Whoever they want.. then getting their attorney fees, intellectual property, fines paid to them and what ever they want in the MAGICALLY Land of the District of Nevada.. Wheee.. Living is Good if your the RIGHT Law Firm in the Fairy Prince Land of MONEY and Make Believe Called District of Nevada. Judge Gloria Navarro Gives Some More Magic.. http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/jul/09/attorneys-seek-fee-injunction-against-righthaven/
Research Links Regarding Ronald D. Green, Greenberg Traurig, Judge Navarro and More.
"The Plaintiff has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims sufficient for the Court to issue a limited Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement and inducement of copyright infringement. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) To show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) it owns the copyright to which its infringement claims relate; and, (2) Defendants violated one of the Plaintiff's exclusive rights in the works. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (11th Cir. 2010); Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir 1977); Educational Testing Servs. v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533, 538 (3d Cir. 1977). These two factors have been clearly established by the Plaintiff."
So this SAME Plaintiff ALWAYS seems to show "substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim"? Really? Why is no FBI Agent, Dept. Of Justice Agent, the Nevada Attorney General, or the U.S. Attorney General Looking at all this? It sure seems to VIOLATE the Rights of the Targets, the Defendants in some sort of pattern of "shakedown", in my Opinion. Maybe authorities will take a look when I file my Complaints. Who knows, but someday, somehow, the TRUTH will Come Out, I Hope.
Some More Research on the Liberty Media Holdings LLC v. FF Magnat Limited and this Same Attorney, who sure is GOOD at Showing Alleged "merits" of winning, Before a Defendant has any First Amendment Adjudication or Right to Due Process.
Love this Part "Emergency MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Plaintiff Liberty Media Holdings LLC. Motion ripe 6/20/2012." I get threats of death, violence and Judge Gloria Navarro IGNORES my Real Emergency, talk about a racket... Las Vegas, the Land of Lawlessness, INDEED..
Frozen Accounts, Preliminary Injunctions, FORCED Attorney Fees? WOW, sure SEEMS like quite a racket to me, IN MY OPINION. http://www.scribd.com/doc/105188141/Liberty-Media-Holdings-v-FF-Magnat "Section 505 of the Copyright Act grants district courts discretion to award “
a reasonableattorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs" Don't ya just LOVE IT, they sue their MARK, and the Judge Forces the MARK aKa Defendant to PAY the ATTORNEYS outrageous Fee's. And if you Don't SHE will Freeze your Accounts. Pattern and History, I THINK SO.. in my NON-Attorney OPINION.
Don't Forget Liberty Media Holdings allegedly is infringing on the iViewit Technology and many companies owned, at least in part by Liberty Media Holdings are named in iViewit Technology
One named defendant that worked for iVeiwt and was named in a District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Counter Complaint now stricken, actually accepted service of Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox's Complaint, and this acceptance never made it to the Docket, why? Also this defendant spoke of conversations with Plaintiff and that the Complaint was close to closing and would be stricken, as if it was ALL pre-planned.. one day the TRUTH will Come Out, even if the Plaintiff in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Kills me, or his buddies do as threatened.
Lot's more coming Soon.. Be it the Nevada Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, the Department of Justice, the FBI, The SEC, or just the Internet Readers... somewhere, somehow the TRUTH will Stand where the Puppet Master has Firmly Placed the Evil Lie.. it's in God's Hands Now..
.. I am pretty sure it is illegal to IGNORE Counter Defendants accepting Service.. and Conspiring with a Judge ... It will all come out Eventually.. all the LAWS Violated in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL will come out when the Great Spirit Says so..
Regarding: Complaint - NOTICE of Liability; Notice of Claim Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel, INTC Shareholders and Others. Notice to all Intel Executives, Shareholders, Board Members, Insurance Providers, Auditors, and all financially connected to Intel Corp., INTC in any way.
This Open Letter Will Go to ALL Intel Corp. Board of Directors, Shareholders, Insurance Carriers and ALL Government Agencies Involved to serve as YET another Warning of what will happen to Intel Corp. Shareholders. Just as in the Madoff Scandal, they CANNOT Say they Did Not Know. There is a Whole lot of Fact, Proof that they Did Know and DO Know RIGHT NOW.
Please Forward this Letter to ALL Intel Corp. Investors, Shareholders, Directors, Executives that
You Know of. This is a VERY Big Deal Financially. It is NOT a Hoax, Look at the Fact yourself,
read the documents of the case and Warn Others.
The Stolen Iviewit Technology will Cost Intel Corp. Investors, Shareholders Billions.
CEO Paul Otellini of Intel Corp. KNOWS of this Massive Shareholder and is NOT Disclosing
to Intel Corps. Board of Directors, Shareholders or Insurance Carriers.
It is Your Money, You Have a Right to Know that Billions will be Paid By Intel Corp. in
the Iviewit Technology Theft. It is not a Matter of IF, the Proof is ALL there. It is a Matter of When. Here is Proof that Intel Corps. CEO Paul Otellini and then Intel Corp. General Counsel Bruce Sewell
knew of the Stolen Iviewit Technology and have Yet to Disclose to Intel Corps. Board of Directors,
Shareholders or Insurance Carriers to this day.
Links to Documents proving this massive Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, Intel Financially for any reason.
Liability Notice to Be Sent out to all CEO's, Shareholders, Board Members, Managing Attorneys, Auditors, Liability Carriers, Insurance Providers, and all financially connect to Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Coming Soon.
Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Whistleblower Media Crystal Cox News Anti-Corruption Media Crystal Cox PressCrystal@CrystalCox.com
Don't Let the University of Montana and the Missoula Montana Police EVER let you think they taking stalking or rape seriously. They DO NOT, no matter how much proof they have.
The Department of Justice was at the University of Montana investigating massive rapes, and whether the University of Montana POLICE or the Missoula Police had done enough to protect the women. I, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, Montana Native, KNOW that they CERTAINLY did NOT do enough to help these victims, or to even LISTEN to them.
Rape is Legal in Montana It Seems, especially in Lincoln County, Ravalli County and Missoula County. The authorities have the evidence and do nothing. They protect the RAPIST, it seems to be a State of Montana Tradition.
I had been reporting on the Montana Rape Epidemic for YEARS before this investigation. The University of Montana Police and the Missoula Police, as well as countless other Montana Counties ignored the story. They also IGNORE serious stalking, many lead to Death.
They have let this man taunt me, threaten me, harass me and impersonate me for years. And have valued his rights to quality of life over mine, a Montana Native, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.
Below is today's events, SHOWING yet again, How I prove what happens and how Law Enforcement, the FBI, the University of Montana Police, the Missoula Police, and the Montana Attorney General DO NOTHING.
State Of Montana Servers Hit Web Post where the 3 year and counting University of Montana Stalker Sean Boushie continues to, Illegally, Impersonating Crystal Cox , as he has done in large amounts of online comments, hate groups, videos and more. The Montana Authorities KNOW and DO Nothing, or Can Do Nothing.
Here is a Link to the Blog Post Comment where University of Montana Servers show Web Stats of the Person using a University of Montana Server to commit a Felony, by AGAIN, impersonating Crystal Cox.
Web Stat Proving, Crystal Cox Impersonation Came from University of Montana Servers. And Showing Web Stat of where the Same University of Montana Web Server DELETED the Comment AFTER the State of Montana Server Went to the Blog Post. http://www.royceengstrom.com/2013/02/showing-web-stat-of-where-same.html
More on the story of Montana Law Enforcement, County Attorneys, Commissioners, Cops, Attorney General, Judges, University of Montana and more PROTECTING a man who threatened to Kill me three years ago. They have the evidence and they hide it. They protect Sean Boushie's RIGHTS over mine. WHY? I am a 4th generation Montanan, exposing corruption in the Montana Judicial System, and they are protecting this man to intimidate me, harass me, threaten me, defame me, attack me and all to try and discredit my investigative reporting and to SCARE me, intimidate me into SILENCE.
Let's discuss the David Brown Declarationand the David Brown Court Testimonya bit, in regard to this supposed Bank VPand theAllegedloss of millions. Under the Penalty of Perjury and Wit Of BULL.
I call this Blog Post
"David Brown LIAR Liar,
Pants ON Fire"
Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011, even though at Obsidian V. Cox, the "Trial, David Brown did not seem to remember some of this, the truth gets muddled sometimes, you see, if you forget the lie. So Let's Take a Look..
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group talks about a Bank VP who refused to tesify or even swear to this being fact, yet apparently is the reason for this whole hullabaloo.
David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Obsidian Renewables, Sage Renewables, Energetics Solar and many other Oregon Solar Companies, was allowed in a Federal Court of Law, to simply state that his company lost millions over my ONE Blog Post. And between the date of the post which was December 25th 2011 and the Date that the Obsidian V. Cox Lawsuit was filed, which was January 14th, less then 20 days later.
I gave the Courts over 547 pages of my source for the post I was on trial for and it was thrown out as "Hearsay" , yet all David Brown, and Patricia Whittington of Obsidian Finance Group had to do was simply state that they lost millions with no proof what so ever, Clearly violating the Federal Rule of Evidence and seriously discriminating against Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox.
This, on top of the fact that both David Brown, and Patricia Whittington of Obsidian Finance Grouphad admitted under Oath that they did not read the subject blog post during that time frame, and seem to have no way to really prove that this blog post had anything to do with any decision making at all.
David Brown was allowed to simply state a loss, though it was hearsay, and though the Bank VP did not show up, and with no documents, spreadsheets, or sworn statement of any kind. Even though, at my hearing the Day Before the Trial, Called "PreTrial Conference", Judge Marco Hernandez clearly told David Aman, Tonkon Torp attorney for the plaintiff, that David Brown would not be able to simply state a loss and that the Bank VP would have to Testify. Here is the Court Transcript:
**Hearing November 28th 2011, Day Before Obsidian V. Cox Trial**
Page 11,12 and part of 13
{ This is Judge Hernandez, "the Court Speaking"
to David Aman, Attorney for Obsidian Finance Plaintiff. }
The Court: (aKa Judge Hernendez)
"The next thing that I know that I took a look at
and that was raised -- actually, I don't know if this one
was raised or not, but it is an issue that's been
floating around, and it's an issue that I consider to beso obvious that I have to raise it,
and that has to do with a couple of your witnesses
that are going to be testifying to conversations they had either with --
I think one was with a bank, or perhaps they both were to
lenders, about how the effects -- or how the blog posts
have affected their business relationships with your
client.
And to the extent that that testimony is in therealm of hearsay, it's not coming in.
And I recognize that you reported a difficulty, in that the people that
you would like to subpoena and have come testify don't
want to do that because they don't want to incur the
wrath of defendant in this case, but that's not an
exception to the hearsay rule. It still is hearsay.
So unless you can point to some exception, it'snot coming in.MR. AMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
It's being offered for a non-hearsay purpose,
which is the effect on the listener and the listener'sstate of mind.
So in these cases, the third parties arereporting that they have a certain reaction tostatements, and they're reporting their state of mind.
It's not being offered for the
truth of the matter asserted.
It's being offered for the state of mind ofthe third parties who are reporting the information to the witnesses who are going to come testify.
THE COURT:
No. You haven't convinced me.
It's not admissible.
If you want them, subpoena them, get them inhere.
Then the defendant has the opportunity to
cross-examine on the issue which you really want, and
that is "We've lost business as a result of this."You need to have a person come in and testify that they madea business decision based on that blog, and that businessdecision is "We're not going to Obsidian," and that's whyyou're entitled to damages.
And I'm giving this to you now, so if you want torush out and put a subpoena in those individuals' hands,
go ahead and get that done.
As to her other objections, they're overruled.
Let's look at the -- as far as witnesses go. " **
It was about ONE Blog post, sounds here like Judge Hernandez also is leading the direction that this is about more then one post when the trial was about one post.
I was not told I could "rush out" and subpoena another witness. This Bank VP did not show up to testify, did not sign a sworn statement, and yet the very next day Obsidian Finance Group witnesses David Brown and Patricia Whittington were, indeed, allowed to speak in the "realm of hearsay"
"The Court: No. You haven't convinced me. It's not admissible."
And the Very Next Day it Happened Anyway.
What Changed Overnight?
Was there an "exception" pointed to that I was not involved in. Did David Aman meet with Judge Hernandez that night and talk about Defamation laws that would allow only stated loss and that it was applied, Judge Hernandez seemed to have an exact opposite view of that subject the next day.
"the third parties are reporting that they have a certain reaction to statements", says David Aman, so 4th Party David Brown is going to Testify that 3rd Party Bank VP had a "Certain Reaction"? What a Crock?
I, Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox was not given another night to round up a "witness" that was previously undisclosed, yet David Aman, Tonkon Torp attorney for the Plaintiff was
The "listeners state of mind", yet my "state of mind" when I posted was not allowed and actual malice, as Judge Hernandez specifically said, did not apply to me in this case.
Sure Looks Like David Brown Testified to Hearsay to Me, and that David Brown stated a loss that did not truly exist from December 25th 2010 to January 14th 2011 and in fact David Brown testified that he had not even read the blog post they sued me on during that time, so how did he come to believe that particular blog post caused any financial damage? Was that not Hearsay? Yet Judge Hernandez allowed this Testimony in, Why?
Judge Hernandez Said, { The Court: "it is an issue that's beenfloating around, and it's an issue that I consider to beso obvious that I have to raise it,
and that has to do with a couple of your witnesses
that are going to be testifying to conversations they had ..."}
Guess it was not as "obvious" at Judge Hernandez said it was.Again Discriminating against Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal L. Cox.
David Brown's Declaration of July 22nd 2011
Under Penalty or Perjury
David Brown says he makes this statement on personal knowledge, and if called to testify he could attest to the facts herein, yet on the stand when called to testify, he ummm, forgot what he was saying... or had said or... so he just went into poetic definitions and drawn out stories for the jury to love him, be hypnotized by his charming bullshit and they seemed to believe ever lie that came out of his blathering, snake oil salesman double talking, deceiving mouth..
Oh, sorry a Tangent.. anyway..
the First page (Page 2, Document 30 of Obsidian V. Cox), of the Declaration of David Brown of Obsidian Finance Group is the, I swear it's true and personal knowledge bullshit ( though he not even read the blog post during the time he alleged it cost Obsidian Millions).. anyhoo...
He says he is focused on Solar Power Projects, thing is folks, it seems to me that, David Brown did not have a clue what Kevin Padrick was really up to as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy, all he knew is mass amounts of money was coming into his company, Solar connections were being made and whether Obsidian Finance was an "Insider" or not was the farthest thing from David Brown's mind, in my Opinion and assessment of the situation.
Corporate Greed
David Brown says "in particular projects using solar tax credits as a primary vehicle to assist in obtaining finance", well first of all folks in using "tax credits" for anything, well that makes you of public concern right? It is public tax dollars that fund such and it is the public who use the wattage that pays for the wattage contracts that Obsidian Finance Group has with PG and E, Bonneville, Pacific Power and Such, as far as I can see.
They get tax breaks and they get huge money loaned at great rates and get tax credits, so essentially they set up Solar Farms for free and sell you back the Electricity with Bonneville, PG &;E, Energy Northwest, Pacific Power and others,seemingly, benefiting in the process. Getting these FREE tax credits is more then just a tax write off folks, it is an asset, one they can get loans, leverage on and was given to them free by your Tax Dollars, your State Programs, Government Programs
Also note that Tax Credits are bought and sold, they are an asset like real estate or other assets and you can get loans via this asset, and in this case the "asset" was given by a FREE Government Program given by the State of Oregon, even though David Aman, flat out lies in his Objection for a New Trial in saying that Obsidian Finance Group was not involved in a Government Program and thereby not a public figure that is a Flat Out LIE, as a Bankruptcy is a Federal Program and so is the Oregon BETC Solar Tax Program.
Kevin Padrick, Patricia Whittington, and David Brown grow richer daily while they lie to federal judges, charges huge fees, sue anyone who disagrees with them and cause havoc wherever they go and create victims of hard working American citizens. While they rake in the money, as PUBLIC tax dollars, Public Utility Dollars, Solar Loans, Bankruptcy Crisis, Government Handouts, and seizing other people's property and lives.
So as number 3, page 2 of David Brown's Declaration says he uses Tax Solar Credits to fund solar projects. What that says to me is that the Oregon Government Gives them an Asset for FREE, that Asset is a "Tax Credit" and this is used to get a loan from a bank to further fund their Solar Projects to get energy from the SUN for FREE and sell it back to you in the form of a public utility, electricity VIA wattage contracts with Bonneville, PG and E, Energy Northwest, Pacific Power or Some other Party in that Business.
And remember David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group / Obsidian Renewables wanted to get all the tax credits they could, whether based in law or not, and they even sued the State of Oregon for not letting them cheat the system.
The Oregon SOS site has David W. Brown owning several solar business names, this seems to me, to be, so that he can apply to the State of Oregon in different names of different companies to attempt to get 10 Million in Solar Credits for each business name he starts, yet all owned by the same entity.
According to the Oregon SOS site, David W. Brown has the business name, LOST FOREST SOLAR LLC, Sage Renewables, Energetics Solar, Obsidian Renewables, Outback Solar, and probably many others if I was to dig deeper. And this is just Oregon. Also keep in mind that the MN Services that is the Registered Agent is at a Miller Nash address and believed to be their Lobbyist Brian Doherty.
Yes it seems that Obsidian Finance Group even have Brian B. Doherty of Miller Nash Lobbying for them, and Its seems that Ewan Rose and David Brown are now registered Lobbyists, that's the way I read it.
And David Brown acts, claims under Oath that I am the only one with an issue and that they are not of public concern, this all involves the public at large and even public utilities and public tax dollars.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on to say that earlier this year.., so earlier in 2011 which rules out the time between December 25th 2010, which was the Exact Date of the Blog Post I was on trial for, and the 31st of December, being the end of the year. So that leaves January 1st to January 14th, 2011 for this to have actually happened, as January 14th is when Obsidian Finance Sued me, and January 19th was when I emailed them to offer my services to "Settle" and not spend a year in court and waste public dollars on a frivolous, year long legal battle that is still going. AFTER the Lawsuit was Filed, yet daily they accuse me of extortion, in this offer, even though they flat out asked me to commit a crime in one of their "offers to settle", "Settlement Communications".
So, this is number 3 page 2 is saying to me that, that there were on going discussions, the whole year, and that the bank decision was not about the blog post they sued me on and that this is a flat out lie or at least a serious stretching of possible facts.
What does Earlier this Year mean exactly?
They sued Jan. 14th over a blog post of December 25th 2010.
And this alleged loss of million in revenue, allegedly caused by the blathering of some blogger named Crystal Cox interfered with a Loan against free tax dollars, where is the Loss in that?
See, the real reason that after writing on Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick for 3 Years the Solar Tax Credits and using this asset, paper commerce, of Tax Credits as an asset, was, they went to a lender and was denied a loan and so they attacked a penniless blogger who was in fact, exposing inside documents, videos, emails, depositions and legal cases that, ya, made them look oh so bad, thing is, a thinking person could clearly see the source of the information and decide for themselves.
And to me, anyone with reading abilities can see that there is Plain and Obvious, Clear reason to investigate Obsidian Finance Group and all their Cronies involved in cover ups, scandals, and dirty, secret deals regarding the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy originating out of Bend Oregon.
They sued me years after they new my "intentions", 1.5 years after an August 24th 2009 deposition whereby Plaintiff's Attorney David Aman, and Obsidian Finance Group's Ewan Rose, deposed Stephanie DeYoung Summit Bankruptcy Insider and Whistle Blower and asked her about me, knowing full well my "intentions" and why I, blogger Crystal Cox was "doing what I was doing", though they ignored this for years and never contacted me,
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on in number 4 page 2, to say: " 4. During the discussions, the VP contacted me and raised serious concerns about the statements that Ms. Cox had made about Obsidian on her websites, particularly the allegations of criminal misconduct, including those involved alleged solar tax credit crimes.
I had an approximately 45-minute conversation with the VP in an effort to persuade him that the statements were false, and the material on the websites should not be of any concern.
The VP expressed concern that this information was "out there", and that there seemed to be no constraints or limits on what Ms. Cox would allege and publish."
David Brown says, "including those involved alleged solar tax credit crimes" yet you see below in his under oath trial testimony he said the bank VP was not concerned with tax fraud.Ok so, in regard to this David Brown Deposition, the concern was, not if the information was true or not, because simply contacting me or reading documents could prove that, it seems the Information being "Out There" was the alleged concern, of the "Supposed" Bank VP.
And it seems that David Brown, in his effort "to persuade him that the statements were false", seemed to fail and that led him to blame me, Crystal Cox Blogger, aKa "the Messenger".
The Bank VP could not be persuaded of the alleged "statements are false", so David Brown obviously had no proof the statements were false, and this is my fault? All anyone has to do is read the documents, the proof and there it is, suspected tax fraud, suspected bankruptcy code violations and more and NOT by me but by a group of people involved and not all investors, creditors but attorneys, and insider emails, documents and contracts and even videos of Kevin Padricks aggressive lying mouth, plain as day and NOT my WORDS, his words. I simply got the story found and they got PISSED.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 page 2-3, number 5 says:*"5. I recently had several follow up conversations with the VP in an effort to secure a declaration from him for use in responding to the pending sua sponte motion for summary judgment. He ultimately decided not to sign the declaration because, he explained to me, he was afraid Ms. Cox could begin making false and damaging statements about him and/or the bank on her websites." *
Was the alleged Bank VP really concerned I would make false and damaging statements or was the VP afraid to be associated with Obsidian Finance Group when the proof of their activities was so blatant and front and center on the Internet due to the diligent 3 year long efforts of Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox?
He wanted the Bank VP to lie under oath, it sounds like to me as the blog post I was sued on was not part of any decision the VP made, and odds are the Bank VP did not even read that post as you see UNDER OATH in the Trial Transcripts of Obsidian V. Cox (Starting on Page 143 of the Trial Transcripts and Going to Page 163)
Judge Hernandez gave David Aman another day to bring in the Alleged Bank VP to testify against me, and Judge Hernandez said, stated loss was not good enough, this is in the PreTrial Hearing Transcripts of Nov. 28th 2011, the day before the Trial. As we see above in the part of the PreTrial Hearing regarding this issue.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on in number 6 to say, "6. The VP explained that as a normal part of my due diligence for every potential borrower, he conducts Internet searches using search engines such as Google. In his experience, this is a standard practice in the banking industry and in business in general. That is my experience as well."
So if this is true, then surely the Bank VP researched all the links I gave to documents, videos, proof and I was not simply the reason for the denial of the 10 Million Loan, but it sure seems that the TRUTH was the reason for the denial, as if the Bank VP read my blogs with an open mind then he would have followed it through to the links in the posts to information, documents, court cases, videos, depositions, insider emails that WERE not written by me, blogger Crystal Cox.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on in number 7 to say:"7. The VP explained that he conducted an Internet search using a searchengine for Obsidian and its Senior Principals.
The search results included the websites
maintained by Crystal Cox, including the website "www.obsidianfinancesucks.com ".
He explained that he was very concerned and alarmed when he saw the web pages on Ms. Cox’swebsite because they stated that Obsidian and Kevin Padrick had engaged in serious criminal
misconduct.
In reading the web pages, he said he understood that Ms. Cox was claiming that
Obsidian and its Senior Principals had actually committed serious crimes and that she was stating
that as a fact. He said he was obligated to diligence the matter and that he did not think the
allegations could be ignored." **
David Brown Obsidian
So the bank VP was ALARMED,
"alarmed when he saw the web pages on Ms. Cox’s website" "maintained by Crystal Cox, including the website
"www.obsidianfinancesucks.com ". "
Now, wait a minute, so the Declaration of David W. Brown claims the reason for the Bank VP upset is ObsidianFinanceSucks.com, that ONE Blog, and did not mention a December 25th 2010 blog post from BankruptcyCorruption.com, WOW.
See Judge Hernandez granted a Summary Judgement to me, Crystal Cox Blogger regarding ObsidianFinanceSucks.com, and here we have David Brown saying under Penalty of Perjury "website" singular, and naming this ONE blog, yet on the witness stand at the Obsidian V. Cox Trial David Brown testified regarding this ONE blog post that I was on trial for. More, what sure seems to be flat out lies to me, from Mr. Not So upstanding citizen, David W. Brown of Obsidian Finance Group.
David Brown Eating CROW !
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on in number 8 and 9 to say:** " 8. The VP further explained that because of Ms. Cox’s statements that Obsidian and its Senior Principals had engaged in serious criminal misconduct, he was concerned whether doing business with Obsidian might negatively impact or put at risk the bank’s reputation.
He said that "he would expect that someone would make such serious allegations of criminal misconduct only if they had some basis for doing so. "
He explained that he felt it was necessary to investigate
Ms. Cox’s statements as part of the analysis whether
to make a loan to Obsidian. We discussed in detail several
of the allegations of illegal conduct made by
Ms. Cox on her website before the bank could decide
whether to do business with Obsidian.
9. There are numerous other instances in which business partners or clients
have told us they are concerned about being associated with Obsidian because
of the defamatory statements made by Ms. Cox, regardless of
the fact that the statements are false.
I DECLARE UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE
FOREGOING IS TRUE AND ACCURATE.
DATED this 22nd day of July 2011.
Is! David W. Brown " **So the Bank VP said to David Brown, as David Brown Says, "He said that he would expect that someone would make such serious allegations of criminal misconduct only if they had some basis for doing so."
True, why in the world would I spend three years of my life diving into this story if there was no "basis for doing so"?Again David Brown in his declaration claims "website", which website, which blog?"regardless of the fact that the statements are false.", Says David Brown in his July Declaration.So in David Brown's Testimony at my trial it seemed to be all about the post being false, and here we have David W. Brown under the Penalty of Perjury stating that it did not matter if false or not, so ya see even if it was true, the bank no longer wanted to do business with them, and the truth was a click away from any given post. So what was the bank worried about, if the Bank was doing a reputable business then why worry.
I don't lie, I did not post lies and would NOT post lies about the bank, I would post truth, and fact to the best of my knowledge. So VP, do not fear me, I am simply helping victims be heard and if you are not creating victims and obeying the law then no worries right?
Here is a Bit of the Trial Transcript with
David W. Brown, Obsidian Finance UNDER OATH.
*Page 163
Line 1 Through 13
David Brown Testimony At Obsidian V. Cox Trial Nov. 29th 2011
"We never did get that loan, though we're still --we're still trying. And so I don't think he -- I mean,
because it's a bank, he can't read allegations of factand not investigate. I mean, he has to discharge hisduties, too.
But it wasn't so much that he was actuallyconcerned that we had committed tax fraud as what's --
what the heck is going on here, and "Am I going to have
some kind of impact on my reputation or on me as a result
of adding you as" -- we would have been a new customer,
so he was saying "adding you as a new customer."
So I'm not sure where that's going to finally
come out."
David Brown says the Bank VP cannot read allegations and then not investigate, yet that is exactly what the Bank VP did, or he would have known that I was not the problem and that Obsidian Finance Was. I say the Bank VP did read the documents, the source information and decided not to do business with these guys, smart move. And .. wasn't concerned with accusation of tax fraud??? What, that is what Gary Stachlowski of PNW Tax Advisors, was paid to give his opinion on and that is what the Jury thought I had done, was accuse Tax Fraud, though I simply asked the question. See, looks like the Bank VP did not want to tarnish their good name by associating with Obsidian Finance Group and they decided to Sue me over it, and not even ask for the Blog Post to be removed first, thereby causing the Oregon Taxpayers big money in court proceedings knowing full well I did not have Millions to pay the whiny, rich bastards.
Surely the Bank VP did not deny a 10 Million Dollar loan because I did not fully understand all the ins and outs of a liquidating trust? Seriously David Brown is Full of SHIT, indeed.
Let's Look at Some more Trial Transcripts Regarding David Brown of Obsidian Finance Group and the ReDirect Examination
***
Page 147 bottom through 160 of Obsidian V. Cox, Trial Transcripts
Line 22, page 147 Through page 160 bottom
David Brown Testimony At Obsidian V. Cox Trial Nov. 29th 2011I Question David Brown of Obsidian Finance Group
" BY MS. COX:
Q. Were you aware of all of Kevin Padrick's duties and responsibilities as a trustee of the Summit bankruptcy?
A. Yes, I think so.Q. Were you aware that -- well, let me redirect that question. Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Summit; and Summit was their client, which we've already had testimony for. What was Obsidian Finance Group under contract with Summit to provide for the $100,000 in this contract we've discussed here?
A. Okay. So typical with a bankruptcy engagement, the bankruptcy estate asks a financial advisor to sign what's called an engagement letter, which is what I assume is referred to as the contract.
So under this engagement letter, it sets out what it is that the financial advisor will evaluate and how they'll go about that. There's usually terms about what people will be assigned to the case, what the hourly billing rates will be. There's information about what information the company will provide and what are called deliverables, what the financial advisor expects to provide.
That engagement letter is the relatively standard form; that is, if you saw two or three, you'd have a pretty good sense of what most of them look like. And they're entered into at the beginning, before the financial advisor has all the information necessary to make a judgment as to where this case will actually go. And so I think the Summit engagement letter was entered into -- typically entered into before you begin the engagement. It's what kind of kicks off the engagement.
Q. So Obsidian Finance Group was under contract, got privy to financial information from Summit under this contract. It would be reasonable to believe that they did get privileged and financial information as representing Summit with this contract?
A. I think the thrust of your question is correct. I don't -- privileged, I'm not so sure about that, because when a company files for bankruptcy, their books are pretty much open. They're not allowed to keep financial secrets from the creditors.
But -- so without using the word "privilege," yes, I think Summit was obligated under the engagement letter to provide us with detailed financial information; and I know they provided us with a lot of financial information.
Q. Was Obsidian Finance Group under contract with Summit before they filed for bankruptcy?
A. Like an awful lot of larger bankruptcy cases, the activity starts a couple of days before the bankruptcy filing is made. Our first contact -- and I'm recalling out loud here. But our first contact on the case came from a law firm, which has got a very well-understood reputation to be a leading bankruptcy law firm. And it was about a new client that that law firm had.
So our first engagement was about bankrupt -- our first conversation was about bankruptcy, but I don't remember if that occurred a few days before they filed or a few days after. The engagement letter I referred to I think would have been with the debtor. So I think the engagement letter probably would have been after the filing of bankruptcy. But that's the way it's typically done. It's not necessarily always done that way.
Q. So what did Obsidian Finance Group -- they got services from Summit. What did -- I mean, I don't know this, and I'm not an attorney. What service were they providing for this $100,000? What service did they provide to Summit?
A. Well, the -- Summit was a company that held money of third parties pending those parties entering into the second half of a real estate exchange. So Summit's customers were people who sold a piece of property. Then they gave Summit the money. It's called parking. So Summit holds the money.
Then when it's time for the second transaction, Summit gives the money back so the parties can buy their second piece of real estate. So the first piece of real estate is sold; then the second piece of real estate is purchased. Summit had taken the money of those people out of the account and was having a difficult time paying it back.
So they were in a bad spot, because they had taken this money. And one of the questions was: How do we -- how do we manage this situation so that the parties can still have their like-kind exchanges, so they can get their money back. And that was an urgent and immediate focus, is what happened here?
What's the true story? Did they really take this money and where is it? And how do we get it back and how do we allow these real estate exchanges to finish on time? Because if you do one of these real estate exchanges, you only have six months to do it in. If you don't do it within those six months, then you incur a big tax penalty; and nobody wanted that situation. So I remember that being, you know, one of the -- one of the most urgent focuses of our attention.
Q. So Obsidian was hired to help Summit restructure so that they didn't have to go bankrupt?
A. No. No, I think that wouldn't be correct. "Restructure" is, in the context of a bankruptcy case, actually a word of art, not a word of general understanding.
So "restructure" means that the company is successful and continuing as a going concern.
Once it became clear that the Summit principals had taken the money and they were under criminal investigation, there's really no chance for them to continue as a going concern. So I don't think restructure was going to be possible anymore. And then avoid bankruptcy, no, they had to file bankruptcy because there was no other way to sort out how the remaining money would be apportioned among the various interests.
See, in an exchange account, party 1, party 2, party 3, all their money gets put into the same account. And so when you take half of it, you can't tell whose money you took. And so the bankruptcy process, being a court-supervised process, gives a way to sort out who is going to get the money and how is it going to be applied. So I don't think there was any expectation that we could avoid bankruptcy. Initially, before we understood the magnitude of the problem, I think we were hopeful that we could find a way to restructure.
But I would tell you, we always feel that way. I mean, we always try to be optimistic about the ability of a company to continue as a going concern. But, as I said, once the scope of the problem was discovered, that just wasn't going to be possible.
Q. So you were hopeful to help them restructure and got into this contractual agreement with them. And then how did it come about that your company or someone within your company ended up working for the creditors, which is essentially on the opposite of their client's best interests?
A. Okay. Okay. Well, I think I understand -- I understand what you're asking me.
I own a company with Kevin. And if you said, "Well, do you own your company?" I'd say, "Yeah, I own my company." And I feel like it's my company and Kevin's company. But if we go broke and all of our money is lost and we're losing our bank's money, it's not our company anymore.
It becomes the creditors' company. So the law is that if a company becomes insolvent, then the officers of the company and the directors of the company are working for the creditors, not the shareholders. Because Summit was insolvent, the beneficiaries of that engagement letter were not the four principals; it was the creditors. So we were always working for the creditors. Everybody was working for the creditors. That's -- that's the only way it can be when a company is insolvent.
Q. There seems to be some confusion today. Like when you first started talking, you said you were a principal and an owner. So you agree a principal is an owner? I mean, in your case and in the Summit case, it's the same four men that were the principals, that actually owned Summit Accommodators and owned Summit 1031?
A. I think the right answer to that is yes. The word "principal" is not in the statute. Most -- most companies now are what are called LLCs or limited liability companies, and they don't have -- "partner" isn't quite the right word, and so a lot of companies like ours use the word "principal," which is like being a partner, but it's not technically a partner, because a partner is for a partnership.
And Kevin and I don't have a partnership; we have a limited liability company. Summit was also a limited liability company, so if they referred to themselves as principals, I would expect to discover that those people were the owners.
Q. So you feel your company did right contractually by the contract they had with Summit for the $100,000 as their client?A. I'm actually very proud of the job that we did for Summit. Yes, I think we did very right by it. The wholething was supervised by the Court and closely followed bythe creditors committee. And yes, I'm very proud of the job we did for Summit.
Q. Before the Court got involved, there was an agreement, the contract that we've discussed here, between Obsidian and Summit. Do you feel that for that $100,000 and that service, that your company did right by Summit, before the trustee thing came up?
A. Well, I'm -- I'm not able, by my memory, to confirm temporally before or after. But we wouldn't have beenable to retain any of our fees without court approval; that is, whether we got the fees two days before bankruptcy or two days after bankruptcy, we wouldn't have been permitted to take the money without -- without courtapproval.Q. Why did the state of Oregon deny you solar tax credits?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor. This is --
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. As we've discussed earlier about reputation being very important, I'm being accused of being the only one to defame them when there are the solar tax credits, there is lawsuits and other blogs out there about Obsidian. Have you ever read any other blogs talking derogatory about Obsidian in any way?
A. Blogs not -- that I've not identified as being associated with you?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I'm not, candidly, exactly sure what you mean by the word "blog," and I want to answer your question candidly. So, for instance, there's a rancher in Christmas Valley who is a few miles from our solar farm, and he sends letters to the paper where he says that solar is a really bad idea. Then those letters get published on the newspaper's website. So I don't know if that's a blog or not. And he's also sent letters to the Oregon Public Utility Commission, and they publish them in their online customer comments. That's all that I can -- that's all that I can recall.
Q. Do you know if there is any other discontent with any other bankruptcy, such as Aloha Lumber or Cascadia or any other companies or bankruptcy proceedings, that there would have been any derogatory information on the Internet about Obsidian regarding --
A. No, not -- not that I -- not that I recall. When we bought Aloha Lumber, that -- it had nothing to do with bankruptcy. It was just a company that we bought. And Aloha Lumber itself, before we bought it, had gotten involved in a lawsuit, which we promptly settled. And that was a contentious matter, and -- and I do think that there was something on the Internet about that. I'm not -- I'm not recalling anything else, no.
Q. When did you first read this blog post that I'm on trial -- the defendant is on trial for?
A. The blog post about the tax fraud I first read in a pleading filed with the court. I think it was an attachment, I'm sure.
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. No. And I have not read every pleading associated with this matter. But it would have been approximate in time to when that pleading would have been filed.
Q. Would that have been around the same time as your declaration?
A. No. It would have been before. It would have been before then, I think, that I read it, yeah.
Q. Did you read the blog post between December 25th and January 14th?
A. Of which year?Q. December 25th is the date of the blog post. January 2011, this year, was when this case was filed. Did you read the post in between that time?
A. No.Q. Do you have proof, documented proof, that anyone read that post during that time and made any financial decisions regarding Obsidian Finance?A. No.
Q. Can you -- do you have any proof that I knowingly posted anything false on that blog?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Why -- did you ever ask defendant to remove that blog post?
A. You're talking about did I ask you?
Q. Did you ask me to remove that blog post ever?A. Until this proceeding, I've never had any contact with you of any kind, no.
Q. So you read the blog post after the filing date of this case, yet your declaration, July 22nd, stated that there was a $10 million loss due to that blog post during that time, the 25th of December to January 14th.
MR. AMAN: Your Honor, if she's going to refer to a declaration, if she wants to put it in front of him, that's one thing.
MS. COX: It's his declaration. Sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize.
THE COURT: You have redirect. You'll have an opportunity then.
You can go ahead and ask your question again.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Do you want me ask it again?
A. No. I think I -- I think I heard you. But you're saying that my declaration says that somebody read that between December 25th and January 14th; and as a result of them reading that, I lost $10 million?
Q. Your declaration says that there was a $10 million loss due to my blog post. And my blog post was December 25th, 2010. This lawsuit was filed January 14th, 2011. So yes, that's what I'm saying.
A. Well, I just don't recall that's what my declaration says. So if you're asking me, is that what my declaration says, I don't know, but that's not what I recall that it says.
Q. Okay. Was the -- you speak of a bank VP that didn't give you a $10 million loan, so it was supposedly -- I mean, it was allegedly a $10 million loss to Obsidian Finance due to my blog post, yet you just testified today you hadn't read that blog post during that time, this -- this 20 days before the lawsuit was filed, after I posted it.
A. I'm struggling with your premise that the July -- or that the January 14th date --
THE COURT: Actually, the problem with that last one is that's not really a question. It's a statement. That's argument. Go ahead and ask a question.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Do you have any proof that anyone that would given Obsidian Finance any money, any revenue at all, seeing that blog post between those dates of December 25th and January 14th, made any financial decisions that cost Obsidian Finance any money at all in that 20-day period?
A. I'm having some trouble with the question. I'm going to try to rephrase it accurately. You're not asking me if I was financially harmed or anything like that. You're saying, do I know somebody who made a decision in a specific 20-day period as a result of looking at a specific blog? Is that what you're asking me?
Q. No. I'm asking you if you have any documented proof that somebody denied you any revenue at all in that period of time due to my blog post.A. Okay. I don't have any documents that say that, no.
MS. COX: No further questions. "
***
Comments by Crystal Cox Blogger, Pro Se Defendant
At the Beginning, of my Questions, I ask David Brown if he was aware of all of Kevin Padrick's duties and responsibilities as a trustee of the Summit Bankruptcy, and he said Yes, I think so. I ask this is it customary, or even legal for a business part to know, be involved in all the actions of a Trustee? As bankruptcy law talks about a Trustee legally having to be a person and not and entity, and the law is clear that this "person" cannot be an insider.
So did David Brown know, or was he part of the decision making somehow? If so was it legal? If not then how can David Brown tell the alleged Bank VP and the court, the Jury that he was aware of Kevin's actions as Trustee. I don't think David Brown was aware and is simply standing with him to be loyal even in the face of possible indictment as it is clear that there is at least a breach of contract, and violation of attorney and CPA ethics, if not a flat out violation of Bankruptcy Code. So what is the truth, did David Brown know what Kevin Padrick was up to or not?
I asked David Brown what Obsidian Finance Group did for the $100,000, under the contract that they had with the Summit Principals, and he goes into a "typical bankruptcy" and a long drawn out answer, thing is Summit had not yet filed for Bankruptcy when they hired Obsidian Finance Group and this dance, and word play is for the jury and is certainly NOT based in the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but I Swear. Why not just answer in regard to Obsidian and Summit, which was the question instead of "typical" and an answer to hypnotize the room, and not really answer.
David Brown says that he assumes by "contract" I mean engagement letter, thing is the definition of engagement letter is contract once signed by the "officers". This was to confuse the jury into thinking that maybe they were not under contract with Summit when clearly they were.
David Brown down plays the contract by acting like it is a standard, form and something done all the time, thing is so what, it was still a legal contract with Summit to provide a service and thereby, in my opinion, made Kevin Padrick an Insider. Then goes on about if I saw a few I would know what they look like, um I have seem more then a few, the point is about this particular contract, this particular blog post and whether Obsidian Finance Group BROKE the Bankruptcy Laws or NOT.
Then he says "I think the Summit engagement letter was entered into.." seriously he "thinks", at this point its his company, and not a Trustee role and he does not even know what the engagement letter / contract was for that his company Obsidian Finance Group had with Summit, yet he wants us to believe that he knew all Kevin Padrick's activities? I say Bullshit, David Brown did not even understand what the original contract was for little own, 3 years of transactions, sales, 1031 Exchanges and hundreds of other "complex transactions".
David Brown Says in the above transcript that information they got from Summit was not "privileged", Really? Well it sure was not open to the public, or the Creditors, from what I believe, and Ewan Rose or Obsidian Finance Group seemed to have ran off with software, spreadsheets and a over a decade worth of documents and books and then just did not return, and instead Obsidian Finance Group used this "privileged" information given to them by their client, Summit whom Obsidian was under contract with.. .. and this information was then used to get the Creditors, and somehow Judge Randall Dunn to "appoint" Kevin Padrick As the Trustee in a $40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy when clearly he was an insider and having worked for the debtor he was in violation of a breach of contract and certainly if he did not break Bankruptcy Law, then certainly he violated Ethics and should loose his attorney license, at the very least.
David Brown Says, "privileged, I'm not so sure about that, because when a company files for bankruptcy, their books are pretty much open. " First of all folks, when Summit signed the "Engagement Letter" the contract, they had not yet filed for Bankruptcy. And if after they filed, and after Obsidian turned on their clients Summit, well if the "books" were "pretty much open" then how come this issue is not of "Public Concern" and Kevin Padrick is not a Public Figure as Obsidian Finance Group claimed time after time in saying I cannot use actual malice as a defense and Judge Marco Hernandez agreed with them.
He says "they" are not allowed to keep secrets from the Creditors? REALLY? Well did all the Creditors know that Kevin Padrick was under contract with Summit, and that Sussman Shank and many other insiders flat out said, as we see in insider emails, that appointing a Trustee was not in the Creditors best interest and would in fact cost them way more then they should be paying for this service?
Seems like lies, deceit, and cover ups to me, just the way I see it, 3 years and counting I still see it the same way. To me Obsidian Finance Group is Thugs, Thief's, Liars that turn on and set up their own clients and they bully, sue anyone who gets in there GREEDY way. Just what I believe, and that is FACT to ME.
David Brown says I think " Summit was obligated under the engagement letter to provide us with detailed financial information" so were they or not, did they or not? Does David Brown know what was going on or not? David W. Brown says, "I know they provided us with a lot of financial information." . When Summit provided ALL this information, Obsidian Finance Group worked for Summit, was under contract, and had been paid $100,000. Then Obsidian used this "a lot of financial information" against their own clients who gave them this information freely and unsuspecting, and they used this to work for the Creditors Committee and against their own client.
Gave a lot of financial information, sure sounds like Summit was quite cooperative, yet Kevin Padrick and Media Crony Jeff Manning painted them out to be monsters in the news when Kevin Padrick was the real monster and in control of the MONEY.
I asked David Brown, "Q. Was Obsidian Finance Group under contract with Summit before they filed for bankruptcy? " He talks about the "activity" starts before, and yada yada, really it is simply was there a contract in place between Summit and Obsidian Before they filed for Bankruptcy or Not?David Brown says, "our first contact on the case came from a law firm, which has got a very well-understood reputation to be a leading bankruptcy law firm.", who was this Perkins Coie or Sussman Shank, makes a big difference they were on different teams per say. And well the story goes that William Smith of Smith Properties Bend Oregon is the one that recommended Summit, does David Brown really know what REALLY went on, I say he does not know and is just attempting to protect Kevin Padrick.
Boy David Brown sure is nervous at this point and says, "The engagement letter I referred to I think would have been with the debtor." Gee um, that's who we are discussing, you were under contract with the DEBTOR... that sure looks to violate Bankruptcy Code To Me.
I asked again what Obsidian was hired by Summit to do, and he goes into the definition of a 1031 Exchange, that was NOT the Question. Nor did I ask what Summit did as business, I knew that, I wanted to know what Obsidian was hired to do.
I asked David Brown, "So Obsidian was hired to help Summit restructure so that they didn't have to go bankrupt?" David Brown Said, No. NO. as seen in the Transcript above. Yet Schedule A of the December 18th 2008 Engagement Letter, Contract between Summit and Obsidian Finance Group, clearly says that Obsidian will assist the company (Summit) to develop restructuring alternatives.
David Brown says the word "Restructure" is a "word of art", and ya it means that the company is successful and continuing as a going concern, exactly and the contract sure looks like Obsidian Finance Group was hired to help Summit be an ongoing concern, as the services described in Schedule A of that contract sure seem to state to me.
And they were to do this are of a Plan of Reorganization (ya as an ongoing concern) and paid at a rate of a WHOPPING $600 an hour do this, but instead Obsidian Finance Group took the money, turned on their client, and they were certainly no going concern anymore and in fact got indicted. What a deal for Obsidian Finance Group (Thugs and Thieves).
Funny just below in the Transcript you say where David Brown says they were NOT hired to restructure, then he says "we were hopeful that we could find a way to restructure", he is so full of shit.
He makes it sound so sad, that we try and be optimistic, BULL, they were paid $600 an hour and then when they used up the $100,000 as they did, and proven in testimony by Patty Whittington, Obsidian VP, once that was gone, well they turned on their client and jumped the fence to work for the Creditors. No ethics, remorse or respect for bankruptcy laws, well that's how I see it anyway.
David Brown Said, "Everybody was working for the creditors." is this true, I mean at first Obsidian worked FOR Summit NOT the Creditors, and Summit was looking for a way to make all this go quickly and with the least amount of damage to them and the Creditors as if the Creditors win so do they, however with Obsidian at the wheel there was No Win-Win Possible.
David Brown Said this, "the beneficiaries of that engagement letter were not the four principals;" is that True? Really, it sure seems to me that Obsidian was under contract (engagement letter) with the four principals before they filed bankruptcy and under the terms of that contract, and that Obsidian was under contract, obligation to those "four principals" as beneficiary of that particular contract between Obsidian and Summit. Just how I see it.
David Brown said that he was proud of the job his company did for Summit. WOW, Obsidian drove them further into problems, prolonged asset liquidations, got in the way of transactions to wait for their commission to be approved ( the way I see it), got their own clients indicted, set up their clients, seemed to conspire with a federal judge against their clients, seemed to conspire with the bend bulletin and Jeff Manning of the Oregonian to jade the story to look like Obsidian was the hero, when really they were raking in Serious money every month, 3 years and counting.
David Brown seems to think there are no other blogs or sites about indiscretions or bad behavior regarding Obsidian Finance Group but me, think is that is just not true.
I asked David Brown, "When did you first read this blog post that I'm on trial -- the defendant is on trial for?" I asked if he recalled when it was, as you see above, and he said "No. And I have not read every pleading associated with this matter. But it would have been approximate in time to when that pleading would have been filed."
David Brown getting nervous again, I say " Did you read the blog post between December 25th and January 14th? " and he said of What Year? WOW, the blog post they sued on was Dec. 25th and they sued the next January, 2011, the same year of the Trial. This reminded me of the Twix commercial, where they say, need a minute? See folks David Brown did not seem to even read the post until July or after, who knows, yet under Oath states a loss of millions from that exact blog post. And Patty Whittington, Obsidian VP says the same thing. States a loss of millions but says she did not read the blog post during that time.
I asked David Brown, " Do you have proof, documented proof, that anyone read that post during that time and made any financial decisions regarding Obsidian Finance? ", he flat out said No. I asked if he had any proof that I knowingly posted false information and David Aman, David Brown's attorney Objected, see that's the actual malice thing, their state of mind is "IMPORTANT", mine is "IRRELEVANT".
David Brown admits in the above transcript that he never asked me to remove the blog post. Don't you think that would have been prudent? Not to mention Oregon Retraction Laws, which were denied to me as a defense, clearly state that they have to ask and give 2 weeks for each time it is post, printed etc.
David Brown had trouble remembering his declaration, the thing is if it was the TRUTH under penalty of perjury, why not just be able to remember what he said that was allegedly true on the same subject. David Brown admitted to reading the blog post after the filing of this case, yet the Declaration talks about a Bank VP who we talked extensively with and David Brown seems to claim a lost revenue and this the reason of my Trial, my TRIAL was based on ONE Blog Post in which the man who claimed he lost millions, lost a 10 million dollar loan due to this blog post had not even read it?
Sure seems to me that somebody is lying about something. I mean if you were denied a 10 Million dollar loan, an alleged loss of revenue of 10 Million as in the Original Complaint, well don't you think that you would read the blog post that caused this damage. Thing is this case is so shady that the blog post I was on trial for was not even given as a reason for the 10 Million Dollar alleged loss until July, though I asked the court for a more definitive statement for the 6 months prior and was denied.
I asked what blog post or posts and then once a specific post was chosen as the alleged reason, this in late summer, well then a month later there was a hearing for the trial, and I was not even given 60 days after that post came into the lawsuit to use Anti-Slapp laws. And every time I explained this to the court I was denied due process, and decision based in law.
David Brown Said, "the July -- or that the January 14th" see he new I had him, and that his declaration of July was different then he was now claiming, and I believe that there was NO Revenue loss from that Blog Post, especially from the Time I posted it, December 25th 2010 and January 14th, the Time they filed a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit against me.
It is all so mixed up, contrived, made up and convoluted. ALL to cover up what really happened in the Summit Bankruptcy and the REAL role of Obsidian Finance Group.
~~~~~~~~~~~
More of the David Brown Trial Transcripts:
*Page 161 - 162 Trial Transcripts
Line 1 Through End on Both
David Brown Testimony At Obsidian V. Cox Trial Nov. 29th 2011" REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. AMAN:
Q. You were asked some questions about a conversation
with a bank VP. Can you describe that for the jury,please.
A. We have a solar project down in Klamath County that I
think is the largest solar project in Klamath County.
It's at a farm that makes potatoes for a potato chip
company. And we own the project. We sell the power toPacific Power. The farm is kind of a partner in the
project.
And so we were looking to finance the net cost ofthe equipment after the tax credits on that project.
And there's really only one bank in Oregon that's kind of
going out of its way to make a name for itself in
financing solar -- solar projects. And I got a call fromthe vice president of the bank, and maybe four or five
times -- after we had already met and talked four or five
times.
And he had completed a Google search of Obsidian,
and he had come across some stuff that he said he foundquite troubling and he needed to talk to me about it.
And so we spent some time talking about various blogpostings that he had come across, and I explained to him
that they were all kind of connected and that there was a
woman in Montana who was kind of on a mission to
discredit Obsidian and that those were her.
And first he said he needed to ask me questions
about whether or not they were true and whether these
statements that he had read were true, and we talked
through that. And I offered to provide him someadditional information, and I explained that our conduct
in Summit was all supervised by the Court and approved bythe Court and the creditors committee and that he couldtalk to counsel representing those parties.But he was also troubled that -- like, Well, whyis this going on? What is there about Obsidian thatcauses this to even happen? I mean, what's the rest ofthe story, if you will?
So I -- I didn't really know how to answer that,
but I tried to assure him that this was very unusual, we
don't have these problems, and that -- you know, that
these things just happen out there in cyberspace.
But then he asked me if, as a result of doing
business with us, would he be subject to that? Because
he said, "How would I tell my boss that I got us involved
in something like this?" I mean, this is just very, very
hard to explain. And I -- I tried to assure him, but Idon't think I was very successful. That was now several
months ago." *
Was the "stuff" that the VP found Troubling the documents from insiders in the Summit Bankruptcy, was it the Cascadia / Homestreet Lawsuit, the Suing of the State of Oregon over Tax Credits, the Objection to the Fees filed by several Summit Insiders - ALL of that having NOTHING to do with me, I was simply reporting on that information. Was the "stuff" from that one blog post I went to trial for? Sure seems to me that the Bank VP seen the information about Obsidian and chose not to work with them based on their bad reputation that they built for themselves.
So, What does "completed a Google Search" mean? Does this mean the Bank VP googled a few things, were all the "websites" really mine, was there a completion, what?
He claims there is really only one bank in Oregon that is going out of their way to make a name in the Solar Business.. Hmmm But Obsidian Finance does business in many states and is a registered LLC in the State of Washington too, why this bank, and if only ONE then why the secrecy. If this is true then it should be easy to figure out who they are should one want to do so.
He says "we sell power to Pacific Power", yet they are not of Public Concern? WOW !! Talk about railroading a Blogger exposing corruption. And sure are making millions INSTEAD of the ALLEGED losing millions over my ONE blog post, Liar Liar Pants On Fire.
He yammers about potato chip farms and Klamath County, and really lays it on thick, you need hip waders if you ever go to court with David W. Brown, he lays it on thick and the puppet master David Aman of Tonkon Torp leads the way, all under Penalty and Perjury without transparency and accountability
In this under Oath Testimony, David Brown says that "we spent some time talking about various blog postings that he had come across"WHAT? I thought it was about One Blog Post, and there in front of the Jury, David Brown was allowed to discuss "various blog posts" and well, the jury ate it up and yet I was only on trial for ONE blog post.
What does "all kind of connected" mean?
Did David Brown lie to the Bank VP, as kind of connected, ya in the way that I reposted documents, videos, court cases, audios, insider emails that were already ONLINE. Not because some "woman in Montana" was on a Mission to discredit Obsidian. That is a flat out LIE. My mission was to EXPOSE Obsidian Finance Group and get justice for the Victims, whom story was online BEFORE I started blogging, reporting on the story.
David Brown said the Bank VP asked if what I said was true and of course and Alleged Criminal will lie and say something is not true, in my belief of how the world words. And We "talked through that" says David Brown, hmmm.. wonder what lies he told when really David Brown was not the one named in the Objection to the Fees, not the one in the Videos or Depositions, not the one who became Trustee.. so how could David Brown speak, with any kind of factual knowledge of the actions of Kevin Padrick?
Did David Brown read the Depositions, watch the videos, know that his company had a signed contract with the Debtor BEFORE the Debtor went bankrupt... Does David Brown know Bankruptcy Law or even care if his partner may have broken the law? Or is it all about a loan on a State of Oregon FREEBY tax credits that they get to use as an asset and get a loan on yet they get for FREE, gee wouldn't that be nice for regular Oregon Citizens to get that kind of hand out?
What does this mean "I offered to provide him some additional information, and I explained that our conduct " Seriously "our conduct" David Brown was NOT legally the Trustee, Kevin Padrick was, what a bunch of hoopla and smokescreen, bullshit cover ups." all supervised by the Court" says David Brown, did he mention Obsidian looked to be "in bed with" Judge Randall Dunn, and that Obsidian's attorney Tonkon Torp had ties with Pamela Griffith Department of Justice Trustee? Again David Brown is flat out full of SHIT.
"approved by the Court and the creditors committee and that he could talk to counsel representing those parties." Says David Brown, well did he mention that the attorney for Creditors Committee Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie used to work under Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group when they ALL worked at Miller Nash? Ya gee, call our BUDDY Steven Hedberg, he will vouch for us. What a Crock, there were inside emails of attorneys involved that had questions of tax issues, deferred gains and Kevin Padrick being pushed into the Trustee spot by Steven Hedberg, Judge Randall Dunn, Pamela Griffith DOJ and others involved. Wake Up. David Brown is NOT telling the TRUTH, the Whole Truth so Help me GOD.
So then David Brown Says, "But he was also troubled that -- like, Well, why is this going on? What is there about Obsidian that causes this to even happen? I mean, what's the rest of the story, if you will?"
Well Gee, did David Brown give anywhere near the "rest of the story" or did the blame simply fall on one Montana woman on a mission to discredit some company she had nothing to do with and was simply reporting on and giving voice to the victims of the actions of Obsidian Finance Group?
"I didn't really know how to answer that," says David Brown.. Gee Dumb Ass, how about telling the Truth, that Kevin Padrick created the mess and give the TRUTH on it and then remove yourself from the actions of Kevin Padrick, as you were not involved so why stick up for the man that was and put yourself under penalty and perjury? Kevin Padrick did WRONG, period. You keep lying for him, sticking up for him and you too will be indicted. I am NOT Lying. I am NOT on a Mission to Discredit Obsidian Finance Group. I want an impartial investigation into ALL action of Obsidian Finance Group, Judge Randall Dunn and all involved and the Summit Bankruptcy VOID and all started OVER with honesty, truth, integrity and withing the Laws of the United States of America. Rule of Law NOT Rule of Man. Obey the Constitution and not special laws for Elite Asshole Attorneys like Kevin Padrick and David AMan.
Going for a 10 Million Dollar loan and answering questions regarding a $40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy Scandal and David W. Brown says "things just happen out there in cyberspace" NOW that is Profound.. Folks, make up your mind of what the Truth is, however the Bankruptcy Courts are broken and there is no justice served there. The Department of Justice is not paying attentions, conflicts of interest are rampant, the FBI does not investigate Bankruptcy Case for the purpose of where is the money now, they focus on the original company and the way I see it the Trustee, and the Process after Bankruptcy is filed is basically a free for all for the Trustee and their friends and the Creditors and Investors get the SHAFT while the Original Company gets indictments.
Note: I have dedicated my Life to Exposing Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Patricia Whittington, Kevin Padrick, Ewan Rose, David Aman, Tonkon Torp, Miller Nash, Steven Hedberg, Sussman Shank,Tom Stilley, Susan Ford, Perkins Coie, Pamela Griffith of the Department of Justice, Judge Randall Dunn in their dealings in the Summit Bankruptcy as a way to expose all bankruptcy corruption and attempt to change laws in how bankruptcy courts are monitored and in this case how 1031 Exchange Business are operated. I will continue to Expose Corruption in the Summit Bankruptcy as it is the Right Thing to Do.
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Check out http://www.kevinpadrick.com/
for more about Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group.
Other Sites Exposing the Above Namedhttp://www.davidsaman.com/http://www.tonkontorpsucks.com/http://www.patriciawhittington.com/http://www.obsidianrenewablessucks.com/http://www.objectiontofees.com/http://www.millernashsucks.com/http://www.sussmanshanksucks.com/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdGxks9gNb0&context=C3352b10ADOEgsToPDskLNSyxQyR9WZIpyQaj7u2jGhttp://www.objectiontofees.com/2012/01/february-2009-meeting-with-obsidian.html
Judge Dunn Audio
http://www.anonymous-insider.com/media/090211.wma
Obsidian Summit Contract
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O_Et0IHaUuQnAnQ9nblox4mzJxc_GIP_wuUF3vA-9-s/edit?hl=en_US
Cascadia - Homestreet Lawsuit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tstf6BAeXFHFmMaFodmURp6uUDWm6U1SqeqBu2HgSvw/edit?hl=en_US
Lake County Upset
http://www.kevinpadrick.com/search/label/Lake%20County%20OregonBankruptcy Code Alleged Violationshttp://www.objectiontofees.com/search/label/11%20U.S.C.%20%C2%A7%201104%28a%29
Mark Neuman Deposition
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/101645262/Mark-Neuman-Deposition---Kevin-Padrick-Obsidian-Finance-Group---David-Aman-Tonkon-Torp
Stephanie DeYoung Deposition
http://www.youtube.com/user/SAIBankruptcy
Note if the above sites disappear or links are broke and you want to know, email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com or WhistleblowerMedia@Gmail.com
Why do Oregon Authorities, the Attorney General, the FBI, the IRS, the Bankruptcy Courts, Federal Judges seem to protect David Aman, Tonkon Torp and all those at Obsidian Finance Group? It seems to me because it involved the biggest law firms and companies in Oregon, and some Judges, Attorneys, DOJ and possible IRS employees were involved. If there was a real investigation done, the Truth is easy to see, the law is clear on all this. No one investigated what was happening to the $40 Million after Summit filed for Bankruptcy, it was and is a FREE for ALL for Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick and Cronies.
.jpg)
