Complaint Review: (((REDACTED BY EDITOR DUE TO ABUSE OF WEBSITE))) -

"Regarding:  Complaint Against Oregon Attorney / Financial Advisor (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) in his capacity as TRUSTEE in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy, Oregon Bankruptcy Case 08-37031-rld11.

 

 

My name is Crystal L. Cox, I am an investigative blogger who has been reporting on the (((REDACTED))) since December of 2009.

 

I have owned my own real estate company since April of 2000.

 

Through the years I had taken many classes by the (((REDACTED))) Company and recommended clients to them, as they operated in 5 states, 2 of which I was licensed in, Montana and Oregon.

 

Currently my Real Estate Brokerage is based out of Washington State.

 

When (((REDACTED))) announced bankruptcy I took a professional and personal issue on this massive matter that concerns all real estate agents and the public at large, due to potentially affecting all real estate consumers.

 

I began reporting on the story in December of 2009, and from there received tips from insiders. After this I read massive amounts of court documents, interviewed insiders, listened to hearings, watched videos of meetings, read blogs, read depositions, read operating agreements, and studied the case as much as possible. I also received a large amount of emails and information from several insiders over 3 years.

 

After about 3 years into my reporting, the bankruptcy trustee, (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))), who had been under contract with the debtor to give them financial advice, and his attorney, (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))),  who was also alleged to be involved in the activities I was alleging, Sued me for 10 million dollars over a blog post that discussed dollar amounts and other details of E and O insurance, attorney fees, insider documents and more.

 

This information was given to me on this particular blog post from Oregon CPA and (((REDACTED))) insider, whistleblower, (((REDACTED))). I posted the information she gave me on December 25th 2010.  3 weeks later on January 14th 2011, (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) acting as attorney for attorney (((REDACTED))), the bankruptcy trustee filed a 10 million dollar lawsuit against me.

 

The information on the blog post they sued me for came from (((REDACTED))), however it was also in her blogs and in a court document, and all related EXHIBITS filed by (((REDACTED))) insiders (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) and S(((REDACTED))) called, OBJECTION TO ATTORNEY AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF (((REDACTED))); TRUSTEE (((REDACTED))) & (((REDACTED))) & REQUEST FOR HEARING.  It was filed on July 2nd 2009.

 

This motion can be seen attached to this complaint, it is is EXHIBIT 2.

 

The blog post I was sued on also discusses issues of tax concerns, as Summit 1031 was a business model based on the IRS 1031 Exchange Code. therefore any unethical actions or violation of law in the company would relate back to the 1031 IRS Statutes.

 

26 U.S. Code § 1031, IRC Code Section 1031

 

I believe that (((REDACTED))), as Trustee, illegally held up Exchanges in order to wait for his 15% commission on each Exchange. As this was money, assets, property belonging to Creditors.

 

I believe that (((REDACTED))) deliberately held up the 180 Days as in 26 U.S. Code § 1031 for his own personal benefit of a commission for himself being in place first.

 

“related person” means any person bearing a relationship to the taxpayer described in section 267 (b) or 707 (b)(1). It is my belief that (((REDACTED))) was an insider, had control of the Debtor and was not a qualified intermediary and thereby violated 26 U.S. Code § 1031.

 

It is also my belief that the personal exchanges of the debtor taken over by (((REDACTED))) were not dealt with properly per 26 U.S. Code § 1031, per discussions with (((REDACTED))), and with (((REDACTED))) and per emails I read between (((REDACTED))) CRO and (((REDACTED))), as well as other parties. As shown in the Objection to Fees in Exhibit 2 there is also an email there between attorney (((REDACTED)))'s attorney (((REDACTED))) and attorney (((REDACTED))) discussing the matter of tax issues on 1031 Exchanges, see Exhibit 6.

 

I have been in court proceedings with (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) Law Firm and (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) since December 22nd, 2010 when (((REDACTED))), acting as (((REDACTED)))’s attorney made contact with by a legal threat.

 

I now feel compelled to file this complaint, in effort to warn the public at large and to report what I know in this case, in effort that Justice is served.

Background

 

(((REDACTED))) was introduced to the Summit Principals (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) by (((REDACTED))).

 

(((REDACTED))) and his financial firm (((REDACTED))) was recommended by (((REDACTED))) in claims that they knew people with deep pockets and could help (((REDACTED))) to liquidate quickly in order for (((REDACTED))) to avoid bankruptcy, and be able to responsibly pay off Creditors quickly.

 

(((REDACTED))) liked what (((REDACTED))) and his firm (((REDACTED))) proposed and therefore they began working with (((REDACTED))).

 

(((REDACTED))) contracted with (((REDACTED))) because (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) Senior Principal, told the 4 (((REDACTED))) principals that their company ((((REDACTED)))) could “…move quickly, engage the insurance companies almost immediately, work fast enough perhaps so [they] could preserve some exchanges.”

 

(((REDACTED))) (((REDACTED)))’ principals explained the whole situation to (((REDACTED))) in detail, including specifics on many individual properties and LLC’s that had significant value.  

 

(((REDACTED))) told (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), and (((REDACTED))) that he understood exactly how to handle the situation.  

 

(((REDACTED))) said his company had been very successful handling situations like (((REDACTED)))’s with a large investment portfolio to liquidate.  He understood the complex services like exchanges and their related tax consequences, mitigating costs and funding issues.

 

(((REDACTED))) said his company had extensive knowledge on exchanges and would be able to handle completion of the in-process exchanges.  Of course, this was an important issue to the principals.  They had a specific interest in getting exchanges completed quickly in order to help the exchangers, creditors (real estate consumers) as well as avoid additional liability.  

 

(((REDACTED))) stated he had connections to all sorts of financial resources from which he believed he could arrange funds to take care of exchange fund shortages in the interim, until the hard assets could be liquidated.  Getting interim cash would help complete the exchanges on a timely basis.  Wouldn’t you hire him if he told you this if you were in a similar situation?

(((REDACTED)))

 Was Under Contract with Debtor

 

As seen in the initial press release on the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy dated December 19th 2008, put out by (((REDACTED)))’s attorneys (((REDACTED))),  (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) had been hired to provide financial consulting services to (((REDACTED))).

 

(((REDACTED))) hired (((REDACTED))) in hopes he would do as he pitched to them previously and sell their assets quickly to his friends and colleagues with “deep pockets” so that (((REDACTED))) could pay off the Creditors and get on with their life.

 

Page 2 of the Press Release, Exhibit 4, Says;

 

“3) (((REDACTED))) as CRO of the Company has retained (((REDACTED))) (“(((REDACTED)))”) as financial consultants to provide advice with respect to all tax issues affecting (((REDACTED))) Customers and a plan to mitigate damages to the maximum extent possible of currently unfunded exchanges. In addition, (((REDACTED))) has been retained to review substantial real estate investments and recommend the best method to realize the value of such investments to satisfy claims. (((REDACTED))) is a national financial consulting firm, which specializes in distressed enterprises and assets.”

 

(((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) had been working with (((REDACTED))), had meetings and told (((REDACTED))) they were working on the situation.

 

Though (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) had been working with (((REDACTED))) prior, they signed a contract with (((REDACTED))) on December 18th, 2009, as seen in Exhibit 1.

 

Between the time (((REDACTED))) met with (((REDACTED))) and signed the contract, it appeared that (((REDACTED))) was investigating what opportunities there were for him to work against (((REDACTED))), instead of with (((REDACTED)))

 

Exhibit 9 is alleged to be billing from (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) for having meetings with the (((REDACTED))) attorney (((REDACTED))) to pitch himself to them to be the TRUSTEE in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy. Even though, clearly, (((REDACTED))) was under contract with the debtor / defendant and obligated, under contracted to act in their best interest and to do as the contract stated to the best of his ability.

 

(((REDACTED))) had worked with (((REDACTED)))  at (((REDACTED))) and was his superior. It is alleged that (((REDACTED))) helped (((REDACTED))) to be appointed as Trustee, even though (((REDACTED))) was already under contract and fiduciary obligations to the debtor.

 

(((REDACTED))) has worked in the past with Department of Justice Trustee (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))). This connection allowed for DOJ Trustee (((REDACTED))) to be motivated to pull favors to have (((REDACTED))) appointed as Trustee even though she knew there was records in the court and a signed contract that clearly showed that (((REDACTED))) was under contract with Debtor, and hired to help them to restructure debt that later became a debtor in possessions, until (((REDACTED))) was appointed TRUSTEE by (((REDACTED)))’s office and basically did a hostile takeover of his own clients, he was under contract to help.

Department of Justice Trustee (((REDACTED))) had (((REDACTED))) appointed, knowing full well that he was under contract with the debtor / defendant and that he would then be essentially the Plaintiff and working directly against his own clients, with an unethical and unfair advantage as he had all their records, files, secrets, strategies and history and was under contract, as see by the details of Exhibit 1.

 

DOJ Trustee (((REDACTED))) had (((REDACTED))) appointed, even AFTER (((REDACTED))) attorney (((REDACTED))) circulating an email, as seen in Exhibit 3 to all involved in the bankruptcy, including her office, that appointing a trustee was an extreme measure and was NOT beneficial to the Creditors.

 

It is a FACT that the only person that benefitted directly from (((REDACTED)))’s appointment as TRUSTEE is (((REDACTED))) and his financial firm (((REDACTED))) and to the direct detriment of the Creditors, in violation of contract law, 1031 exchange laws and bankruptcy laws and to the harm of his clients the debtor / defendants SUMMIT.

 

Indirectly and in the millions there were many others who benefitting from (((REDACTED)))’s appointment, such as and not limited to: (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) and the (((REDACTED))) Law Firm. (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))), Judge (((REDACTED)))’s relative CEO (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) law firm, (((REDACTED))) and deals with (((REDACTED))) to be ahead of other Creditors for property sales and pay offs, (((REDACTED))) who allegedly later made deals with (((REDACTED))) to be paid off sooner than other creditors and many others.

 

(((REDACTED))) Filing Regarding (((REDACTED))), Doc. 141

 

Attached Exhibit 7, Case (((REDACTED))), Doc (((REDACTED))) Filed (((REDACTED))) shows that (((REDACTED))) was retained by (((REDACTED))), and that the attorneys and the courts knew that (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) was under contract to provide financial services for the Debtor.

 

The DOJ Trustee and Judge (((REDACTED))) approved payment for (((REDACTED))) as a financial advisor, under contract with the debtor AND then appointed and approved (((REDACTED))) as TRUSTEE on the opposite side of this legal case as his own clients. From working for the debtor / defendant to being the TRUSTEE / Plaintiff.  

 

This is unethical at best, and violates (((REDACTED))) laws and rules for attorneys, of which (((REDACTED))) is, and this violates contract law, as well as bankruptcy code.

 

Judge (((REDACTED))) and DOJ Trustee (((REDACTED))) clearly knew that this action of appointing (((REDACTED))) as trustee was a violation of public trust, of bankruptcy law, of contract law, of due process laws and of the constitutional rights of the debtor, whom (((REDACTED))) was CLEARLY under contract with and had a fiduciary duty to.

 

Exhibit 7 also shows another date for the contract between (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))). And it shows clearly that (((REDACTED))) is under contract and working allegedly per that contract, for the best interest of the debtor, who later would be the “defendant” in the following years of legal actions surrounding the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy, and indictments thereafter.

 

Therefore as seen clearly in Exhibits and is a matter of record in the courts in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy and the (((REDACTED))) v. (((REDACTED))) case, (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) clearly worked for the debtor / defendant SUMMIT and was clearly under contract with the debtor / defendant for their best interest to help them restructure debt, sell assets and to provide financial consulting services.

(((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) had SUMMITS files, software, computer data, strategy, and decades worth of personal, private and financial information.

 

(((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) was paid, under signed contract, $100,000 to provide services to (((REDACTED))) as seen in in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 7.

 

Therefore, I, (((REDACTED))), allege that (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) violated breach of contract laws, as well as bankruptcy code.

 

As clearly stated in (((REDACTED)))’s deposition of (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), though he had been under contract and fiduciary obligation with (((REDACTED))), the Debtor / Defendant, became the PLAINTIFF;  “Mr. (((REDACTED))) is also the plaintiff on behalf of the bankruptcy estate in a case that has been filed in bankruptcy court against you,” ~ See (((REDACTED))) Deposition, September 28th, (((REDACTED))), Exhibit 5, page 4, line 18-20.

 

I allege it is a violation of contract law and bankruptcy laws for (((REDACTED))) to have been appointed as TRUSTEE, after he had been under contract with, working for, in control of the debtor / defendant.

I, Crystal Cox allege that (((REDACTED))) violatedBankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a), 11 U.S.C. § 101(31), 11 U.S. Code § 101 (14)

 

I Allege that (((REDACTED))) was an insider per bankruptcy law and that he was under contract with the debtor and that this BARRED him as a matter of law from being the bankruptcy trustee in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy.

 

(((REDACTED))) did not declare in his trustee statement that he had prior contracts with (((REDACTED))) and therefore clear conflicts of interest in being a TRUSTEE in this case.

(((REDACTED))) had been working for the debtor and was therefore legally an insider, and in bankruptcy code, an “insider” is not allowed to be a Trustee. And per the record a TRUSTEE was NOT in the best interest of the creditors PERIOD.

 

Per Bankruptcy Code;

 

"The party seeking appointment of a chapter 11 trustee has the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, " as in (3) below.  

 

"the appointment of a § 1104 trustee is an extraordinary remedy" and it was unnecessary in the Summit Bankruptcy and cost the investors and creditors millions on top of millions a month it seemed and for no real reason of the best interest to them or the estate.

 

I allege that those who set up this bankruptcy scam took millions from the estate and that was money that they simply had no legal right or reason to take.

 

Section 1104(a) of the Bankruptcy Code governs appointment of a chapter 11 trustee. It provides:

 

a) At any time after the commencement of the case but before confirmation of a plan, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the appointment of a trustee--

 

(I) for cause, including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by current management, either before or after the commencement of the case, or similar cause, but not including the number of holders of securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the debtor;

 

(2) if such appointment is in the interests of creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate, without regard to the number of holders of securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the debtor; or

 

(3) if grounds exist to convert or dismiss the case under section 1112, but the court determines that the appointment of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. "

 

"The party seeking appointment of a chapter 11 trustee has the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, "cause" under § 1104(a)(I), or the need for a trustee under § 1104(a)(2)."

 

"the appointment of a § 1104 trustee is an extraordinary remedy"

 

"("The decision to appoint a chapter 11 trustee is a factual determination entrusted to the discretion of the bankruptcy judge.")."

 

in "the interests of creditors"

 

("[T]he factors constituting a basis for appointing a trustee under § 1104(a)

 

(2) are amorphous, diverse, and necessarily involve a great deal of judicial discretion"). In essence, § 11 04( a)

 

(2) reflects "the practical reality that a trustee is needed." In re V Savino Oil & Heating Co., 99 B.R. at 527 n. 11. "

 

Appointing (((REDACTED))) as TRUSTEE was not only a violation of bankruptcy code and a breach of contract laws, but it was NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CREDITORS. And all parties were made aware of that as seen clearly in Exhibit 3.

I allege that per Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) Kevin Padrick was an Insider and NOT a "Disinterested Party".

 

In looking at Bankruptcy Code11 U.S.C. § 101(31), it is clear that due to (((REDACTED))) being under contract to advise the Debtor, that (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) was not legally allowed to be "appointed" as the Trustee in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy.

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."

A Bit on 11 U.S. Code § 107

 

Exhibit 2,Document Filing of this (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy discusses the very things that Cox's blog post does, and even has Exhibits, per 11 U.S. Code § 107 - Public access to papers this information should be public. Yet (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) Law Firm, on behalf of (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) SUED an investigative reporter / blogger, me, Crystal L. Cox, demanding that I stop posting / publishing on this bankruptcy. They sued me for defamation, and the District of (((REDACTED))) is protecting these top (((REDACTED))) Law Firms and finance companies and especially protecting Judge (((REDACTED))). DOJ Trustee (((REDACTED))) and Judge (((REDACTED))) who was a creditor attorney from (((REDACTED))) who SUED (((REDACTED))) Bank with (((REDACTED))), allegedly in the best interest of the creditors. More Commission to TRUSTEE (((REDACTED))), 15% I believe and a large amount of money directly to attorney (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) who is now Federal Judge (((REDACTED))).

Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S. Code § 101 (14) States;

 

"(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."

 

See (((REDACTED))) Deposition, September 28th, (((REDACTED))), Exhibit 5, Page 92, Line 3 Through Page 97 talks about (((REDACTED))) being brought in to help them financially and that he had friends with deep pockets to help them liquidate and that this was all BEFORE (((REDACTED))) Filed for Bankruptcy.

 

There is also a video tape of a meeting where (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) is discussing the work he had done prior for his clients, whom he was under contract with and took a $100,000 for his services.

 

Here is a link to the videos of that meeting

(((REDACTED)))

(((REDACTED))) is in the back on the far right.

 

The videos are important as they are further proof that (((REDACTED))) was working with and for the debtor and therefore was an insider and SHOULD not have been appointed TRUSTEE, as a matter of law.

 

I was told by (((REDACTED))) that a (((REDACTED))), I believe a principal in (((REDACTED))) or something, I don’t know, and have never communicated with her but I was told that she was threatened into silence by (((REDACTED))) and his attorney (((REDACTED))).

Judge (((REDACTED))), former (((REDACTED))) Attorney

 

(((REDACTED))) Creditor attorney (((REDACTED))) worked with (((REDACTED))) TRUSTEE in the $30 Million plus settlement with (((REDACTED))) Bank, this affects shareholders of (((REDACTED))) Bank and should be reported to the SEC and banking authorities.

 

I allege that (((REDACTED))) Creditor attorney (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) TRUSTEE targeted (((REDACTED))) because they had the deepest pockets, and best insurance. They strong armed (((REDACTED))) and made threats to top executives of getting them indicted so they would settle and cooperate for over 30 million in settlements of which (((REDACTED))) TRUSTEE got paid hundreds of thousands in billable hours and millions in commission (15%).  And (((REDACTED))) Creditor attorney (((REDACTED))) made large amounts of money as well.

 

I, Crystal Cox allege that Judge (((REDACTED))) was brought in to the (((REDACTED))) v. Crystal Cox case, removing Judge (((REDACTED))) to protect (((REDACTED))) and former (((REDACTED))) attorney (((REDACTED))), note Judge (((REDACTED))), sworn in at the same time and I allege is friends with Judge (((REDACTED))). (((REDACTED))) law firm threw a party for Judge (((REDACTED))) welcoming him.

 

Judge (((REDACTED))) and his wife Democratic U. S. Representative (((REDACTED))) are alleged to be (((REDACTED)))’s most powerful political couple.

 

Neither Judge (((REDACTED))) nor Judge (((REDACTED))) were Federal Judges when (((REDACTED))), through their attorneys (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) law firm SUED Crystal Cox for Defamation for reporting on what she alleged and still alleges is violations of Bankruptcy Code, Breach of Contract Laws, Ethics, and 1031 Exchange Code.

Breach of Contract

 

I, Crystal Cox allege that (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) violated the constitutional rights, bill of rights and due process rights of the (((REDACTED))) Principals and to the detriment of the (((REDACTED))) Creditors (Real Estate Consumers).

 

Note on page 88 line 6-16 of (((REDACTED)))’s Deposition, Exhibit 5, he CLEARLY tells (((REDACTED))) that Crystal Cox, me, is a Real Estate Consumer Advocate. Yet AMAN, enabled by Judge (((REDACTED))) sued COX and tried to chil her speech, intimidate her into silence and continues to do so to this day and to claim that Cox had and has malice when COX, me, has always been fighting for the rights of Real Estate Consumers and the transparency of bankruptcy courts and especially those that directly affect real estate consumers.

I, Crystal Cox allege that (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) set up their clients and that they could do this to others in the future as they have already done this same thing in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy and (((REDACTED))) Bank fought back.

 

I, Crystal Cox allege that (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) got “IN” with the (((REDACTED))) principals by offering them a quick way out and to pay off creditors so they could get on with their life.

 

(((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) alleged they had connections to real estate buyers, and insurance companies and that (((REDACTED))) would be able to pay creditors quickly but instead (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) got ALL of (((REDACTED)))’s asset information, all their financial secrets, strategies, personal information, software, files and they used this to pitch themselves to be on the OPPOSITE side of their client and send them to prison while pillaging their assets for the personal gain of (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))).

 

(((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) used information they got under contract and fiduciary duty working for the debtor, their clients, directly against them, for the personal and professional gain of (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))).

 

The debtor had no way to fight back as they were painted out in the media as the criminal while (((REDACTED))) ran off with their money, to the direct HARM of the real estate consumers, the Creditors and Investors involved.

 

This Violation of public trust should not be allowed ethically and is certainly a violation of contract law in which enabled (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) to illegally make millions a year for 5 years, while his clients fought for their life as they were headed to jail.

 

(((REDACTED))) whistleblower (((REDACTED))) told the FBI, they said they don’t know bankruptcy law. She told Judge (((REDACTED))) and the DOJ Trustee as is clear in hearings and documents of the bankruptcy.

 

This got her locked away in involuntary incarceration at a hospital, to shut her up and discredit her.

 

(((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) VP was on the board of (((REDACTED))), that runs the hospital that incarcerated (((REDACTED))) whistleblower (((REDACTED))) and FORCED her to STOP talking to me an investigative reporter.

 

(((REDACTED))) GAVE (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) her case file number and her medical information in violation of HIPAA Laws.

 

When the whistleblower was finally reached 40 days into her lockup, she had this to say;

 

Interview Video part ONE;

(((REDACTED)))

 

Interview Video part TWO:

(((REDACTED)))

(((REDACTED))) andmedia

 

(((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) used media, law firm, judicial and political connections to paint (((REDACTED))) out as monsters, evil, bad guys and they have done the same of me, Crystal Cox, in BIG MEDIA and abuse of the courts. All this to protect their own illegal actions and HUGE personal profit.

 

(((REDACTED))) uses any and all tactics to bully, harass, sue, retaliate, intimidate and threaten those he targets. His goal is to get in personally and to offer help, then to betray his clients or those he advised and destroy their companies to his benefit.

 

Pattern and History RICO

 

See (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy and the (((REDACTED))) Bank Objection, Exhibit 10.

The motions and documents involved in (((REDACTED))), Debtor, No. (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), Bankruptcy Judge. (((REDACTED))) ((((REDACTED)))) are hereby now included in their entirety as evidence of (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED)))’s pattern and history.

 

In the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy (((REDACTED))) sold himself as helping them as well, just like in (((REDACTED))) and instead got his company a deal on assets, by liquidating and bullying those he had offered to help and was under contract with.  

 

Ruling by (((REDACTED))), Bankruptcy Judge. (((REDACTED))) ((((REDACTED))).) May 26, (((REDACTED))). MEMORANDUM DECISION.

 

“In this case, (((REDACTED))) failed to disclose it's conflict under Rule 2014 immediately when it arose on May 17, (((REDACTED))). Instead, the conflict was not disclosed until after (((REDACTED))) filed its Motion to Disqualify on June 14, (((REDACTED))). By that time, (((REDACTED))) had been acting simultaneously as the estate's financial advisor and as a proposed investor in the Debtor for a month and the path to the Debtor's reorganization was fixed with (((REDACTED))) for purposes of the upcoming Evidentiary Hearing. Accordingly, the Court finds that (((REDACTED)))'s belated disclosure does not absolve it of the consequences of the conflict of interest.”

 

I recommend looking at ALL of the (((REDACTED))) Bank filings against (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))), as they clearly show a pattern and history.

 

JUDGE (((REDACTED)))

 

I, Crystal Cox, allege that there were deals made that benefitted Judge (((REDACTED))) and his family through the assets and dealings of the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy.

 

I allege that Judge (((REDACTED))) profited from real estate and related utility company and development deals stemming from the (((REDACTED))) bankruptcy Case. Including connections to 20 million dollars in (((REDACTED))) contracts with (((REDACTED))) CEO (((REDACTED))), whom I allege is related to Judge (((REDACTED))).

 

Judge (((REDACTED))) FORCEFULLY suggested that (((REDACTED))) be the Trustee in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy. This is clear in the hearing of the (((REDACTED))) bankruptcy that he appointed (((REDACTED))) though the TRUSTEE office is suppose to and made that clear to him.

 

At this hearing you can clearly hear (((REDACTED))) ask about (((REDACTED))) working with (((REDACTED))) and she is ignored by the courts.

 

It is an error in law for a JUDGE to appoint a trustee, especially when he knows that the person he is appointing was working for the debtor and he knows it is not in the best interest of the creditors to appoint a trustee.

 

When you listen to the hearing, it is clear that Judge (((REDACTED))) is forcing the DOJ office to appoint (((REDACTED))).

 

Listen to the hearing starting at 3:03 where the Judge seems to make a clear case for (((REDACTED))) to be the Trustee, which a Bankruptcy Judge would have to know that an Entity cannot be a Trustee, so thereby (((REDACTED))) was chosen, appointed, forced in as TRUSTEE when they ALL knew that (((REDACTED))) was under contract with the debtor, and could not as a matter of law be the TRUSTEE.

 

The hearing used to be posted on (((REDACTED)))’s blog, and attorney (((REDACTED))) questioned (((REDACTED))) on August 25th, (((REDACTED))) as to where she got the recording. This was asked right after (((REDACTED))) asked who Crystal Cox was, yet three years later sued Cox and claims she had malice in her reporting on corruption in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy.

(((REDACTED))) interjected himself into all the Media he could.

 

The Ninth Circuit said in a hearing on the (((REDACTED))) v. Cox appeal, that it would be improper for a Trustee to contact Media in a case. It was my understanding that media would have to report on the story and that a Trustee cannot simply create a media storm. Especially one whereby the TRUSTEE was using the media to make his former clients whom he betrayed, look bad to officials so they go to PRISON while he gets a reward, commission and billable hours for the following 5 years from their hardship, which in the end game, he made sure happened.

 

Yet (((REDACTED))) conspired with, contacted and made sure that media had information to ensure that (((REDACTED))) looked bad and he looked good.

 

I, Crystal L. Cox allege that (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), as well as (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) intentionally set up (((REDACTED))) so that they could make millions a month, and then millions a year off of their assets and related deals.

 

Which includes and is not limited to the the legal action against (((REDACTED))) by (((REDACTED))) TRUSTEE and (((REDACTED))) attorney (((REDACTED))) who is now Judge (((REDACTED))).

 

The (((REDACTED))) Bank lawsuit should NOT have happened, should be VOID and money returned. It was not proper, as a matter of law for (((REDACTED))) to have inside information on the debtor / defendant and therefore (((REDACTED))) Bank and then actually be the PLAINTIFF against his own clients, which he was under contract with.

 

(((REDACTED))) lawyer (((REDACTED))), now Judge (((REDACTED))) worked with (((REDACTED))) on this 30 Million plus settlement.

 

(((REDACTED))) had an "IN" with (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) and made a deal with the Creditor Committee, while under contract and being paid by (((REDACTED))) to help the Debtors in  "Development of Restructioning Alternatives", "Implementing Critical Restructuring Alternatives"  and other terms of their agreement.

 

While working for the Debtor, (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED)))'s Client, and billing his client, (((REDACTED))) had meetings with (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))).  These meetings, per inside emails on the record, were not authorized by the CRO, (((REDACTED))) nor by the Debtor.

The (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy was Supposed to be

a DEBTOR in POSSESSION

 

Exhibit 7, Case (((REDACTED))), Doc (((REDACTED))) Filed 02/10/(((REDACTED))) ALSO shows that also shows that the bankruptcy, once filed was to be a debtor in possession, another words the company, (((REDACTED))), was to go on.

 

It was NOT to be a liquidation.

 

Though (((REDACTED)))'S illicit intentions were all along to LIQUIDATE (((REDACTED))), send them to jail and get commission from their assets for years to come. As seen in (((REDACTED))), then (((REDACTED)))'s VP, under oath in her testimony at the (((REDACTED))) v. Cox Trial.

 

The testimony below clearly shows that (((REDACTED))) was providing services under contract with the debtor. (((REDACTED))) was paid by the debtor, thought they did a good job for the debtor and worked for them.

 

The testimony also shows intention, as it was clearly (((REDACTED)))’s intention to destroy, liquidated (((REDACTED))) so they they would cease to exist and not “go on”. Which was the direct opposite of a “debtor in possession” filing which was to say that (((REDACTED))) planned to “go on” and to still exist as a viable business.  (((REDACTED))) made sure they did not “go on” and in fact made them look very bad in every media outlet and court motion they could. Even though (((REDACTED))) had a contractual and fiduciary obligation to (((REDACTED))).

 

Page (((REDACTED))), Line 12 of the Transcripts of (((REDACTED))) v. Cox,

as seen in Exhibit 8

 

Below, Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox is asking the questions (Q)

 

AND (((REDACTED))) VP (((REDACTED))) is answering (A)

" Q. Are you aware that (((REDACTED))) had a contract with (((REDACTED))) at any time?

A. You'll have to -- (((REDACTED)))?

 

Q. (((REDACTED)))?

 

A. I think -- I actually don't know if it was ever approved by the bankruptcy court. So there was a draft, I do know. I don't know whether it was approved by the bankruptcy court."

 

Q. Are you aware of -- You say you do the accounting for (((REDACTED))), right?

A. Yes.

 

Q. Are you aware of a -- or (((REDACTED))), the (((REDACTED))) principals, the owners, had a contract with (((REDACTED))), a signed contract? They took a $100,000 retainer to represent them as their client. Are you aware of this retainer?

 

A. I was aware of the retainer, yes.

 

Q. Was this retainer returned to (((REDACTED))) or was it part of the income of (((REDACTED)))?

 

A. It was not returned to (((REDACTED))). It was applied against the fees.

 

Q. Are you aware of what services (((REDACTED))) provided for (((REDACTED)))?

A. Well, where do you want me start?

 

Q. Would you say that (((REDACTED))) -- that (((REDACTED))) was a client of (((REDACTED))) via this retainer and this contract?

 

A. Yes. I don't -- I'm not sure that's how the bankruptcy views it, but I'm not a lawyer. So I would

have called it a client."

 

THE WITNESS: I'm not -- I'm not sure I understand. Used their money? Whose?

 

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

 

Q. My question is: Was (((REDACTED))) under a contractual obligation? Was there -- I'm looking for, there was a possible breach of contract. Was (((REDACTED))) -- you just testified that they took a $100,000 retainer for service, so that would mean that (((REDACTED))) was a client of (((REDACTED))).

 

A. Yes."

 

THE WITNESS: I'm not -- I'm not sure I understand. Used their money? Whose?

 

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

 

Q. My question is: Was (((REDACTED))) under a contractual obligation? Was there -- I'm looking for, there was a possible breach of contract. Was (((REDACTED))) -- you just testified that they took a $100,000 retainer for service, so that would mean that (((REDACTED))) was a client of (((REDACTED))).

 

A. Yes."

 

Q. But your company took a $100,000 retainer, yes?

A. I confirmed that, yes.

 

Q. And this was taken onto the books as a service rendered?

 

A. Do you want to know what we did at first?

 

Q. No, just a yes or no, that it was a service rendered to a company, $100,000.

A. Yes.

 

Q. And this company was (((REDACTED)))?

A. Yes.

 

Q. So you agree there was a contractual agreement between (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED)))?

 

A. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how you're using those terms, so I don't know how to answer that.

 

Q. And (((REDACTED))) is your company?

A. Yes.

 

Q. Does this look like a familiar --

 

THE COURT: Hang on a second. The plaintiffs don't have any objection to this evidence. If you want to offer that exhibit, why don't you tell us what number it is.

 

Q. So this is your letterhead from your company?

A. Yes.

 

Q. And this contract is a contract that you recognize as being, so far, from this first page, familiar with the contract within your company?

A. Yes.

 

Q. This is the second page of the contract. Does this seem like a reasonable part of the contract?

 

A. It appears to be, yes.

 

Q. This is page 3.

A. Okay. I can't see the page numbers, but --

 

Q. It talks about conflicts of interest.

A. Okay. "

 

Q. And it's a contract basically between -- this is a contract between (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))). And this is -- is this the signature of (((REDACTED)))?

 

A. No. That's me.

 

Q. This is?

 

A. Yes, (((REDACTED))).

 

Q. So you signed for (((REDACTED)))?

 

A. Yeah. He may have been not in the office."

 

Q. So you took a $100,000 retainer, which was taken in as a service. So you were under -- so (((REDACTED))) was under contract with (((REDACTED))) to prepare -- to provide financial services to help them restructure their debt?

 

A. Restructure their debt? They were in bankruptcy and they were liquidating, not restructuring."

 

Q. Was -- you're saying -- you're testifying that (((REDACTED))) -- that (((REDACTED))) was in bankruptcy when they hired (((REDACTED))).

 

A. To my knowledge, yes. We weren't -- we didn't work for them before."

 

Q.  Mr. (((REDACTED))) testified earlier that he was -- talked to the (((REDACTED))) principals before they filed for bankruptcy. The records show that he was under contract. This contract was before the (((REDACTED))) principals filed for bankruptcy. And you signed this contract?

 

A.  We do those in connection with the bankruptcy. So I don't know the exact dates. It was about -- just about three years ago. But if we were working on it, it was just starting at the time of the bankruptcy filing. They were preparing to file or something like that."

 

Q. But you are in agreement that (((REDACTED))) was in contract to represent Summit and took money for those services?

 

A. We had that agreement, yes.

 

Q. And that (((REDACTED))) was -- so (((REDACTED))) had a contractual obligation to the (((REDACTED))) principals?

 

THE COURT: You've asked that question several times now, and it's already been answered several times.

 

MS. COX: Okay.

 

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

 

Q. What are the pros and cons between a liquidating trust versus a debtor in possession of reorganizing a debt, in your opinion, or your professional opinion and experience?

 

A. I think it's a legal question. If you would like my -- my understanding, debtor in possession reorganization means the company goes on. Liquidating trust, the company is liquidating; it does not go on. "

 

Q. So (((REDACTED))) was under contract with (((REDACTED))) when they were trying to reorganize their debt; and a liquidating trust, then, is part of a bankruptcy, which happens later?

 

A. I -- I don't know what the contract says. I don't remember it ever as a reorganization. I always recall it as a liquidation."

Q. This contract with (((REDACTED))) wasn't to help them reorganize?

 

A. Unless it says that. In bankruptcy, you can be in Chapter 11 and be liquidating."

Q. I'm not an attorney either --

A. Yeah.

 

Q. -- or a CPA. I'm not sure what this contract means, that (((REDACTED))) was obligated to (((REDACTED))). Can I -- can you tell me what this contract says the obligation from (((REDACTED))) to (((REDACTED))) is?

 

A. I would have to read the whole thing, think about it. I don't know. It was three years ago. It is what it

says. I'm telling you my memory is it was a liquidation, not a reorganization."

 

Q. Are you aware of any privileged or financial information that (((REDACTED))) -- that (((REDACTED))) provided (((REDACTED))) before their bankruptcy?

 

A. Privileged? No.

 

Q. Did -- was there any software, any database at all that (((REDACTED))) turned over to (((REDACTED))), where (((REDACTED))) would know any financial information about them before they were involved as a trustee?

A. Before trustee?

 

Q. Before they were appointed --

 

A. Trustee wasn't until February. So yes, after the bankruptcy."

 

Q. Do you feel that (((REDACTED))) ethically and legally honored their contract with (((REDACTED)))?

A. Yes, I do.

(((REDACTED))) had not filed for bankruptcy when they hired (((REDACTED))). (((REDACTED))) was wrong in this.  They were NOT in bankruptcy as of the Date this contract was signed, (((REDACTED))) had not yet filed for Bankruptcy.

 

This contract is dated December 18,(((REDACTED))). Per Schedule A of this Contract, Exhibit 1, (((REDACTED))) hired (((REDACTED))) to help "Restructure", not to help in Liquidating the entire business.

 

(((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) VP Said, "They were in bankruptcy and they were liquidating, not restructuring" yet the contract clearly says that (((REDACTED))) was hired to  "Development of Restructuring Alternatives", "Implementing Critical Restructuring Alternatives", "Evaluating the assets and liabilities", Preparing a "Plan of Reorganization" and more.

Clearly (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) were in a situation to "Restructure" and NOT to flat out liquidate. Also it was to be a Debtor in a Possession, why else have a CRO, (Chief Restructuring Officer) as (((REDACTED))) was?

 

(((REDACTED))) hired (((REDACTED))) to Restructure Debt NOT to Liquidate them.

 

(((REDACTED))) HIRED (((REDACTED))), gave them spreadsheets, confidential information, BEFORE (((REDACTED))) Filed for Bankruptcy.

 

(((REDACTED))) did not declare in his trustee statement that he had prior contracts with (((REDACTED))).

Crystal Cox Notified Court of Jury Tampering

 

I, Crystal L. Cox allege that (((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))), and (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))), along with (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))) Law Firm, and with the assistance of Judge (((REDACTED))) were involved in jury tampering.

 

I, Crystal L. Cox allege that head juror (((REDACTED))) is / was related to (((REDACTED))) VP (((REDACTED))) and that (((REDACTED))) did marketing work for the (((REDACTED))) for their Christmas Valley solar projects.

 

It is clear on the court transcripts that Judge (((REDACTED))) picked / appointed (((REDACTED))) to be the head Jury.

 

I, Crystal L. Cox first notified Judge (((REDACTED))) of jury tampering as soon as I discovered it, as seen with Document 119 and 120 with ALL attached Exhibits of (((REDACTED))) v. Cox, filed on 02 -13 - (((REDACTED))). (These documents and Exhibits are now hereby included in this complaint as evidence in their entirety.)

 

Exhibit 11 is a court filed memorandum in support of this accusation.

 

Crystal Cox has also recently moved the court, Judge (((REDACTED))), to investigate this situation further and he has refused yet again.

 

I, Crystal L. Cox intend to file a separate criminal complaint as soon as I can with details of this matter to the best of my ability.

CONCLUSION

 

Instead of helping (((REDACTED))) to sell off assets, so that they could pay off creditors and get on with their lives, (((REDACTED))) saw an opportunity to make 15% commission on every sale FIRST, he saw a way to get his firm Millions monthly for a 5 year period, and along with that get jobs for his colleagues (((REDACTED))) Law Firm in the millions a year for years to come.

 

The (((REDACTED))) bankruptcy proceedings in ALL ways that (((REDACTED))) was the deciding authority, should be VOID.

 

The (((REDACTED))) Bank lawsuits should be investigated, the contract (((REDACTED))) had with the debtor should be investigated, as it looks to me that (((REDACTED))) was legally an insider and not qualified per bankruptcy law to be a TRUSTEE in this case.

 

(((REDACTED))) did not declare in his trustee statement that he had prior contracts with (((REDACTED))). (((REDACTED))) was, by law, not legally allowed to be the trustee in the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy and thus all related transactions should be null and void, as a matter of law and (((REDACTED))) and all co-conspirators should be indicted.

 

I swear that all of the above is true to the best of my knowledge.

 

Crystal L. Cox

/s/

For more information please feel free to contact me any time at (((REDACTED))) or my mailing address

 

Crystal L. Cox

(((REDACTED)))

 

 

OR to phone me at (((REDACTED)))

 

I, Crystal L. Cox allege the above to the best of my understanding of the situation and upon my knowledge and belief.

 

Crystal L. Cox

/s/"

 

You Can Download the Complaint HERE

(((REDACTED)))

"Hearing Transcript Day Before (((REDACTED))) v. Cox Trial

(((REDACTED)))

(((REDACTED))), (((REDACTED))) Law Firm, Deposed (((REDACTED))) 3 YEARS before he Sued Blogger Crystal Cox. (((REDACTED))) knew and knows that Crystal Cox never had actual malice, and in FACT was simply "reporting" the story that others were posting online, and had been for 3 years.

(((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))) is the Attorney for (((REDACTED))) and (((REDACTED))). Who Crystal Cox alleged was part of the (((REDACTED))) Bankruptcy Corruption, as was other (((REDACTED))) attorneys such as (((REDACTED))) who was connected to (((REDACTED))), Department of Justice Trustee, and (((REDACTED))) of (((REDACTED))), who allegedly all worked at (((REDACTED))) together and in other law firms over the years.

Here is the (((REDACTED))) Deposes Whistleblower (((REDACTED))) and asks about the "intentions" of Blogger Crystal Cox."

Source and Read More

(((REDACTED)))