HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Judge Rules evidence of R...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:45 PM

Judge Rules evidence of Romney/ Bain Cap organized crimes is forbidden. Whistleblower Banned

Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

This is a follow up to my previous threads on my 12 year battle with Mitt Romney/ Bain Capital

(see threads (here))




After being forbidden to enter evidence for 8 1/2 years - the court scheduled a hearing (once Romney lost election)

And - on December 4th at 10:30 a.m. - the Court changed its mind and said NO.

Ruling contrary to law - the court said she is Ordering the Clerk to FORBID/ Block my evidences from the record.

Her Honor Mary F Walrath (MFW) in the case of eToys;
said she is tired of me and that pointing out frauds is a waste of time.

The only person that can enter evidence in the records is MNAT, Paul Traub and Barry Gold.
All 3 of these parties have (already) CONFESSED to lying to the court 34 times.

Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital stole eToys for Bain Capital
MNAT, Paul TRaub and Barry Gold - ALL work FOR - Mitt Romney/ Bain Capital (secretly)

This is WHY the Judge is forbidding the evidence from getting "officially" put in the record.

Once it does happen - the FBI must seize (RICO) Bain Capital.





In other words - Mitt Romney / Bain Capital is above the law - for now and evermore!

In 3 weeks - I 'm going to file any brief - above Her Honor's corrupt reach.




I wrote a story on DailyKos (I know G-d forbid) - because I'm more familiar with using HTML there.

It explains what is going on


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/09/1167910/-Judge-Rules-in-Favor-of-Bain-Cap-Frauds-Orders-Clerk-to-Permanently-Ban-WhistleBlower-Laser-Haas?showAll=yes


Here's my WHITE HOUSE - Petition - calling for a federal investigation
(after all - is that really too much to ask for?)

PLEASE SIGN the Petition (DU helped it get to over 1000 signatures already)?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/request-dept-justice-open-investigation-mitt-romney-bain-capital-retroactive-issues-etoys-2001/GxJX3qvX?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl






UPDATE


this is my response to a comment below by Jim Lane
who purports that my pleading and/ or claims are without merit.

While I do not allege that the particular commentor has any personal animus to my plight, it's readily apparent by the snide remarks and assaults upon me (and obtuseness to the true facts/ issues at hand) that others would rather pounce on a victim/witness of Mitt Romney/ Bain Capital like a mob; rather than see a proper investigation.

This arresting of human decency is both inexplicable and intolerable. It amazes me that good conversation by many, can be destroyed by a few bad faith parties. This case is special and the outcome has great significance (one way or another). This is why I supported James Traficant, Rick Convertino, Mo Hurley, Richard Fine and others such as they - who stand tall against tyranny, cronyism and corruption - for the sake of the greater good. They are made victims twice - thus, so shall I be.

Unlike Sam Adams and his "chains" quote - I would simply ask that those who rush in to kick me while I'm down - please Reconsider? Not for my sake (after all Romney/ Bain and bad faith federal agents are out to destroy me - so your words are minor at best)

But = for the sake of the integrity of this realm and good debate - PLEASE look at the facts in full and reconsider your stance?

To that end - I'm posting my case in a nutshell (my comment below) here - for the sake of clarity.

Bain Capital cohorts lied & schemed to become eToys fiduciaries;
so that Bain Capital (and thus the POTUS wannabe Romney)
could get rich enough to buy things like Clear Channel.

Utilizing such methods is illegitimate and an assault upon our Constitution by enemies Domestic!

It MUST be stopped At ALL COSTS!
(including my suffering those who rather let the bad guys win and see the innocents demise).






1st of all - The Merits.

MNAT is Debtor counsel and has confessed to lying to the Chief Justice

Paul Traub is creditors counsel - who confessed lying to the Chief Justice

Barry Gold who was (secretly) Paul Traub's partner
was placed inside the eToys estate post-petition
(AFTER - the United States Trustee "FOREwarned" them NOT to do the very crime they did in secret)

(PLEASE see parts 19 & 35 of U.S. Trustee Motion to Disgorge for $1.6 million
http://petters-fraud.com/DisgorgeMotion_TBF_1_6_Million.pdf )

The US Trustee also concluded (without knowleged of the other 100 crimes now discovered)
that Fraud on the Court (by Officers for the Court) had transpired (see part 35 of US Trustee Disgorge Motion Supra link)

Additionally, Barry Gold testified ON the Stand and in his Declaration (Under Penalty of Perjury)
that the affairs of eToys were negotiated by "extensive" arm's length negotiations
between Debtor and Creditor
(that is between Barry Gold as Debtor and Paul Traub for Creditors)

Their CONFESSED acts of Perjury & Deliberate Fraud are (at the bare minimum) 34 ACTS

The Judge stipulated, in her OPINION of Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law that NO perjury was documented.
And she then Declined (contrary to Law 18 USC § 3057(a)) - to Notify & Refer the matter to the US Attorney
(which was BEcause - the US Attorney was Bain Capital's Colm Connolly - who would have had to Recuse himself)

(See OPINION pages 50 to 52 on Barry Gold
http://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/etoysmnatfees.pdf )

also - the Judge (apropos) cited the case of In re Benjamin Arnold's
stating that it would be "WRONG to punish plaintiff and reward conflicted attorneys"
(see page 16 of her Honor's OPINION)

The LAW (under Section 327(a)) - MANDATES that the parties who failed to disclose
MUST be disqualified (In re Middleton Arm's is adopted by the 3rd Circuit and cited by US Sup Ct)
It is UNambiguous.

The robbers were told NOT to rob the bank - did it in secret anyway - and got caught (because I turned down a bribe)

They then CONFESSED

Whereupon - the Police then handed them the keys and let the robbers remove me from the case.







Stating that my pleadings have NO merits is contrary to the facts found

It is the application of law (and decency) that is in place here.

I'm a victim/ witness/ whistleblower - being punished for doing the right thing.
And ostracized out of my career, home, savings etc
by the very persons who swore an oath to protect U.S. from enemies foreign and Domestic

THEREfore - please explain how I don't have a case?

And - WHY you would rather see Mitt Romney & gang get away with it all
while being granted the additional benefit of destroying the victim/ witness?

36 replies, 4569 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge Rules evidence of Romney/ Bain Cap organized crimes is forbidden. Whistleblower Banned (Original post)
laserhaas Dec 2012 OP
jberryhill Dec 2012 #1
laserhaas Dec 2012 #2
jberryhill Dec 2012 #3
Orrex Dec 2012 #4
laserhaas Dec 2012 #6
Lasher Dec 2012 #11
laserhaas Dec 2012 #14
Lasher Dec 2012 #17
Orrex Dec 2012 #29
laserhaas Dec 2012 #5
jberryhill Dec 2012 #7
laserhaas Dec 2012 #9
jberryhill Dec 2012 #12
laserhaas Dec 2012 #15
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #18
laserhaas Dec 2012 #21
snooper2 Dec 2012 #35
laserhaas Dec 2012 #8
jberryhill Dec 2012 #10
laserhaas Dec 2012 #13
jberryhill Dec 2012 #16
laserhaas Dec 2012 #19
jberryhill Dec 2012 #24
Lasher Dec 2012 #27
Jim Lane Dec 2012 #28
jberryhill Dec 2012 #30
laserhaas Dec 2012 #32
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #20
laserhaas Dec 2012 #23
jberryhill Dec 2012 #31
Heathen57 Dec 2012 #22
laserhaas Dec 2012 #25
laserhaas Dec 2012 #26
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #33
laserhaas Dec 2012 #36
LineNew Reply .
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #34

Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:12 AM

1. No, Steve, they found your filings abusive

WHEREAS, since July 2004, Mr. Haas, appearing pro se and acting purportedly on behalf of Collateral Logistics Inc.(“CLI”), has filed dozens of pleadings in this bankruptcy case;and

...

WHEREAS, CLI, a corporation, is a legal entity separate from its president and shareholder, Mr. Haas; and

WHEREAS, by Order dated November 10, 2011, the Court held that Mr. Haas did not have standing to be heard on behalf of CLI or himself because he was not a creditor, shareholder or party in interest in this case (D.I. 2459); and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2012, Mr. Haas filed an emergency motion for payment asserting an individual claim for payment under the Court-approved contracts between the Debtor and CLI (the “Haas Motion”) (D.I. 2478); and

WHEREAS, to the extent that the Haas Motion is a claim on behalf of Mr. Haas as an individual, that claim is barred because it was filed almost a decade after the Bar Date and Mr. Haas has been actively involved in this case and never asserted any individual claim; and

...

WHEREAS, Mr. Haas’ numerous filings in this case are repetitive, without merit, and border on harassment;

....

ORDERED, that the Haas Motion is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that any further pleadings filed by Mr. Haas in this case shall be deemed stricken; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk’s Office is hereby directed to return, without docketing, any further pleadings which Mr. Haas may file in this case.


http://wtsglobal.com/newsletters/the-vexatious-litigant/

Anyone in the professions concerned with dispute resolution will eventually encounter the claimant – rigid and suspicious but perhaps initially ingratiating – who often appears with many documents, pleading or demanding that they be read. On inspection the arguments are poorly constructed and often confusing and rambling. Excessive highlighting and underlining are common, as well as many attachments, often of no relevance to the case or touting broad principles of human rights. They may utterly deny obvious undisputed facts known to others. Although they certainly may engage in conscious lying, fundamentally it is more the case of a passionate belief in the truth of their perceptions. Personal blogs, chat room dialogue reinforcing their perceptions, and other internet activity will accompany their quest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:39 AM

2. You must be in the wrong Thread (or need I refer you to Young Guns the Movie)

Certifying bad faith rulings - which are contrary to law - is disigenuous.

Especially when you are coming out so disrespectful....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:55 AM

3. That's the order that the court issued

It is not disrespectful, it is what the court order said. Actually, the interesting part of the order is this:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the All Writs Act, the Court has the power to bar further pleadings by Mr. Haas in these circumstances, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); United States v. Gomez-Rosario, 418 F.3d 90, 101 (1st Cir. 2005) (holding that courts have the ability to enjoin a pro se party from filing frivolous and vexatious pleadings); Shafii v. British Airways, PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1996) (noting that an injunction is appropriate where a litigant engages in filing of repetitive and frivolous lawsuits); Cok v. Fam. Ct., 985 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir. 1993)(“Federal courts plainly possess discretionary powers to regulate the conduct of abusive litigants.”); In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443,445 (3d Cir. 1982) (holding that an injunction restricting filings was necessary where the pleadings constituted a continuous pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation)


--------

I realize you believe you are on a great crusade to right some monumental injustice. That doesn't change the fact that a corporation cannot be represented "pro se" in a legal proceeding, or that ten years after the fact is too long to make a claim in an individual capacity after finding out that no lawyer will take your case. That is not because of a conspiracy of lawyers - there are lawyers on every side of every issue - but it is because your claim has no merit. Filing it again and again, and accusing everyone who disagrees with you to be a criminal doesn't make your claim any more convincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:16 AM

4. Down goes Frazier!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:32 AM

6. ENlighten Me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:04 AM

11. It was a famous Howard Cosel call

...made during the fight between Joe Frazier and George Foreman for the World Heavyweight Championship in Kingston, Jamaica in 1973. Frazier lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lasher (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:15 AM

14. I am well aware. However, your succinct comment is not conclusive. Are you implying

that I'm down for the count or out?

If so - you are sorely mistaken!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:18 AM

17. Sorry, Your Majesty Laser

You asked for enlightenment, and appear to be in need of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 06:46 AM

29. By analogy...

It is often the case that people who are subdued by a decisive blow to the head don't realize it until later, and indeed they might never recall the actual event itself.

This may be true im Frazier's case, in that it's not clear that he truly remembered the fight or the knockdown even long afterward.

I'm sorry... What were you saying, again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:32 AM

5. NO - you ARE disrespectful by addressing me other than Laser. Should I call you HillBillyBerry? WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:37 AM

7. Well, the problem there is....

that there is a fairly well known company by that name:

http://www.haaslti.com/

Welcome to HAAS Laser Technologies, Inc.

At Haas Laser Technologies, Inc. (Haas LTI) our specialty is industrial laser applications. Since 1992, Haas LTI has developed, designed, and manufactured industrial laser components for companies worldwide.

...and through the magic of internet search engines, they are becoming increasingly associated with your various rantings about the national conspiracy involved in the eToys bankruptcy.

But you can call me whatever suits your fancy. I've been called all sorts of things before, your Majesty.

In the court filings, with which you'd like everyone to be familiar, you often refer to yourself by name and add "better known as 'Laser Haas'". It's not often that people call themselves by internet user names in court papers, but do you want people to read these papers or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:45 AM

9. We are NOT in court and you will get NO further response from me unless you address me as Laser

that is my name.

If you have (really) taken the time to look at the court filings/ pleadings and review the evidence.

Then - without any direct arguments on point by point -

it is logical that you are only biased against Laser Haas
(and unconcerned with the facts)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:06 AM

12. "it is logical that you are only biased against Laser Haas"

Do you frequently refer to yourself in the third person voice, Mr. Laser?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:16 AM

15. again - it is Laser. You are playing games. Be sincere - or be never here!

Okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:21 AM

18. He is chanelling his inner Bob Dole :) - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:27 AM

21. :0p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:04 PM

35. you can call me Al !






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:41 AM

8. Your arguments are far from dispositive.

You are also WAY off base on giving me case cites and codes to quash my quest

while you are being totally obtuse to the manifest injustice voluminous.






If you are going to APPLY the LAW - you can NOT be arbitrary & capricious about it.



They were approved under § 327(a) and FAILED to disclose (serious) conflicts of interest.
As per the controlling precedent (adopted by the 3rd Cir) of In re Middleton Arms
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19911657934F2d723_11531.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006



Section 327(a) clearly states, however, that the court cannot approve the employment of a person who is not disinterested, even if the person does not have an adverse interest. This Court has held that bankruptcy courts "cannot use equitable principles to disregard unambiguous statutory language." In re C-L Cartage Co., Inc.,899 F.2d 1490, 1494 (6th Cir.1990). Therefore, the District Court was correct in reversing the Bankruptcy Court. The equitable powers of section 105(a) may only be used in furtherance of the goals of the Code. By forbidding employment of all interested persons, section 327 prevents individual bankruptcy courts from having to make determinations as to the best interest of the debtors in these situations. Section 105(a) cannot be used to circumvent the clear directive of section 327(a).







If the court APPLIED the law (and did NOT let the bank robbers keep the keys to the vault they are fleecing)

we would NOT be talking now - and the case would be over already.

My problem is COLOR of LAW (the fake application of perverted finding of facts/ conclusions of law)

for the sake of duplicity in qualifying Manifest Injustice success!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:57 AM

10. Ummm, Laser, That's not an "argument"

It is a quote from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court order on your 40 page rant styled as:

"EMERGENCY MOTION BY PRO SE LASER STEVEN HAAS PETITIONING THE COURT TO PAY THIS EMPLOYEE OF ETOYS PER THE COURT APPROVED CONTRACTS OF COLLATERAL LOGISTICS INC AND OR UNDER § 503(b) SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION AND OR SUA SPONTE AND TO ADDRESS NOVEL ISSUES OF FRAUD ON THE COURT AND ADDITIONAL ACTS OF PERJURY AND TO REMOVE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR AND DISQUALIFY BAD FAITH SECRET AGENTS OF GOLDMAN SACHS AND BAIN CAPITAL FOR RACETEERING AND FOR THIS COURT TO REPORT FELONY VIOLATIONS TO AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3057(a) DUE TO COMPROMISED FEDERAL AGENTS"

http://wtsglobal.com/newsletters/the-vexatious-litigant/

Such individuals do not collaborate well with others, and will dismiss lawyers, union representatives, and other helpers. They may even call for the disbarring of attorneys and the dismissal or prosecution of other officials. In the courtroom they may make unruly remarks to the judge, inviting sanctions. Some may show a keen awareness of the lines not to cross so as to avoid contempt charges or jail terms. If an individual is declared a vexatious litigant by the courts, due to their accumulated frivolous lawsuits, they can be prohibited from filing further actions unless granted permission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:13 AM

13. You are being disingenuous. If you looked at the pleading and the evidence - but you still come away

naysaying

you have bad faith designs and we are now finished.

No matter what you (or any bad faith color of law justice may say)

The facts speak for themselves!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:17 AM

16. It's the same thing that anyone has said...

....after reading your pleadings, including all of the folks at DelawareLiberal.net and DailyKos whom you likewise have accused of being trolls.

Your only purpose, on any internet forum including DU, is to post incoherent rants about how every lawyer, court or official who has in any way been connected with this and other bankruptcy cases is corrupt and out to get you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:24 AM

19. You state falsehoods and appear to be utilizing GOP Bible 101 - by putting words in my mouth.

I happen to luv the law and respect many a counsel and justice (working with some as we banter even this moment)

You and your ilk, attacking me (while staying OFF point of facts) - serve justice in a way.

Each time a Dreier, Okun, Petters, Reynolds goes to jail and a TBF, Dreier, etc closes down;
our quest(s) for justice is readily apparent and your ilk's failure to quash justice is made web immortal.

Your comments (as does those of bad faith parties elsewhere) - are a testimony against you.

We are now DONE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:31 AM

24. My ilk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:53 AM

27. Aaaaand he's out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 04:12 AM

28. You make some good points but I take issue with your reference to lawyers.

You tell Mr. Haas:
(N)o lawyer will take your case. That is not because of a conspiracy of lawyers - there are lawyers on every side of every issue - but it is because your claim has no merit.


Another possibility is that lawyers who looked at the case thought it had merit but that the proof would be expensive and time-consuming, with the payoff very small. Mr. Haas would be entitled to recover only the amount that reflected the damage he suffered, not the damage to all shareholders or to some other group or entity. Lawyers might have quoted him an hourly rate, which he couldn't afford to pay; then declined to take the case on contingency, because no percentage of a small amount could even cover the expenses; and concluded that class certification would be too difficult.

A classic of this sort of thing occurred a few years ago in Massachusetts. An elderly patient (octogenarian, I think) was admitted to the hospital and died there. The medical records gave reason to believe that there had been malpractice. No lawyer would take the case, however, despite its merit, because the recovery for an elderly person who was in bad health anyway would have been a pittance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 07:45 AM

30. Good point - de minimus non curat lex

Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Although if he gets a full wind, he will provide more details on that score.

On the other hand, he may have a solid claim of copyright infringement against the folks who make labels for Dr. Bronner's soap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #28)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:13 PM

32. You have many errant presumptions in your logic.

1st of all - The Merits.

MNAT is Debtor counsel and has confessed to lying to the Chief Justice

Paul Traub is creditors counsel - who confessed lying to the Chief Justice

Barry Gold who was (secretly) Paul Traub's partner
was placed inside the eToys estate post-petition
(AFTER - the United States Trustee "FOREwarned" them NOT to do the very crime they did in secret)

(PLEASE see parts 19 & 35 of U.S. Trustee Motion to Disgorge for $1.6 million
http://petters-fraud.com/DisgorgeMotion_TBF_1_6_Million.pdf )

The US Trustee also concluded (without knowleged of the other 100 crimes now discovered)
that Fraud on the Court (by Officers for the Court) had transpired (see part 35 of US Trustee Disgorge Motion Supra link)

Additionally, Barry Gold testified ON the Stand and in his Declaration (Under Penalty of Perjury)
that the affairs of eToys were negotiated by "extensive" arm's length negotiations
between Debtor and Creditor
(that is between Barry Gold as Debtor and Paul Traub for Creditors)

Their CONFESSED acts of Perjury & Deliberate Fraud are (at the bare minimum) 34 ACTS

The Judge stipulated, in her OPINION of Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law that NO perjury was documented.
And she then Declined (contrary to Law 18 USC § 3057(a)) - to Notify & Refer the matter to the US Attorney
(which was BEcause - the US Attorney was Bain Capital's Colm Connolly - who would have had to Recuse himself)

(See OPINION pages 50 to 52 on Barry Gold
http://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/judge-mary-f.walrath/etoysmnatfees.pdf )

also - the Judge (apropos) cited the case of In re Benjamin Arnold's
stating that it would be "WRONG to punish plaintiff and reward conflicted attorneys"
(see page 16 of her Honor's OPINION)

The LAW (under Section 327(a)) - MANDATES that the parties who failed to disclose
MUST be disqualified (In re Middleton Arm's is adopted by the 3rd Circuit and cited by US Sup Ct)
It is UNambiguous.

The robbers were told NOT to rob the bank - did it in secret anyway - and got caught (because I turned down a bribe)

They then CONFESSED

Whereupon - the Police then handed them the keys and let the robbers remove me from the case.







Stating that my pleadings have NO merits is contrary to the facts found

It is the application of law (and decency) that is in place here.

I'm a victim/ witness/ whistleblower - being punished for doing the right thing.
And ostracized out of my career, home, savings etc
by the very persons who swore an oath to protect U.S. from enemies foreign and Domestic

THEREfore - please explain how I don't have a case?

And - WHY you would rather see Mitt Romney & gang get away with it all
while being granted the additional benefit of destroying the victim/ witness?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:25 AM

20. This has to rank as one of the most absurd and\or most hilarious

 

threads on DU in recent memory.

Coming so soon in the wake of all the rape threads, it is most definitely welcome.

You, my friend, are displaying the patience of Job and I hereby salute you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:29 AM

23. TY - but patience is not my trait - it is my only option

for the sake of civility.

for woe is the day - when I accept their premise - that the Law does Not apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:35 AM

31. He wasn't referring to you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:27 AM

22. Signed

All judges should be above reproach, but this one looks like she has been bought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heathen57 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:35 AM

25. To be honest with you -'signed' - I think she is between a Rock & Hard Place. The System is wretched

from the outset.

Our POTUS gets to nominate all federal judges -

EXCEPT Bankruptcy judges (they are (bogusly) - hand picked by the Circuit)
(a conflict of interest from the outset - because the Circuit gets to hear cases from their picks)

She has done me a favor (in a way) - by freezing me out of the docket (though illegally so)
I'm now free to pursue other venues.






What I really believed happened here, is that she had NO idea what was really going on. They told her that (OOPs) we made a boo boo (sorry) and she (initially) forgave them (as venerates before her often). Then, time after time, I found more and more evidence of More and MORE lying, schemes and (premeditated) frauds.

Regardless of why she is doing what she is doing - she IS betraying her oath of office for some veiled reason.

And I'm about to legally spank them in a way they do not think possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heathen57 (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:37 AM

26. by the way - my mistake, my put'r screen was over viewing. I thought your name was 'signed"

Thank you for "signing" the Petition - 'Heathen57'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:37 PM

33. Americans just don't want to know what goes on every day in this nation.

 

The people charged with enforcing the laws refuse to do so with regularity when the criminals are politically connected, then they turn around and persecute ordinary people for years using laws passed to make prosecution of the powerful possible. Police murder with impunity while minor offenders receive decades in prison. Elected representatives become multimillionaires through blatant graft and favoritism and we turn a blind eye and vote them back in.

I don't have a solution, but the problem is us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 03:24 PM

36. It is neither your, nor I, that are the problem 'Egalitarian Thug' - for we stand apart of the crowd

That is a good beginning (and their are more of "U.S." who are doing their own efforts).

It is a glorious endeavor - being an amoeba against of horde of ebol Goliath's

and we ARE making a dent (even if a small one)

It is better - than not speaking out at all.


For Sam Adams, Ben Franklin, Einstein and MLK all said

The greatest evil among us is that good men do nothing.

At least we are doing sumthin....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laserhaas (Original post)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 02:55 PM

34. .

 



If you were ranting about birth certificates I'd swear you were Orly Taitz or Mario Apuzzo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread