HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » laserhaas » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 ... 117 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Laser Haas
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Anywhere USA
Home country: United States
Current location: NOMADIC
Member since: Mon Apr 21, 2008, 12:12 PM
Number of posts: 7,805

About Me

Love BB, Laser Tag, Poker (Tournaments only). Work with Occupy camps. Willing to help you in your fight for justice (let's discuss it).

Journal Archives

Master List of Federal Cases Romney's RICO is Allegedly Connected to.

Mitt Romney
= Bain Capital and Stage Stores and Sankaty.

Bain Capital = Clear Channel, Kay Bee, Toys R Us, Fingerhut, The Learning Company, eToys

Clear Channel = Red McCombs = Blackwater (quaintly renamed Academi)

Working for Romney at Stage Stores was

Jack Bush (Dallas, TX) who was co-director with Michael Glazer.

Michael Glazer is now CEO of Stage Stores and (was) CEO of Kay Bee Toys until (at least) end of 2005

Barry Gold was the director's Assistant at Stage Stores.

Stage Stores Bankruptcy was also Co-Debtor with Liquidity Solutions

Traub Bonacquist & Fox (TBF) law firm was owned by Paul Traub;
and Barry Gold was partners with Paul Traub (such as in Asset Disposition Advisors {ADA}).

Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel (MNAT) law firm
- handled the merger of Romney's "The Learning Company" with Mattel.
and (at that time) the merger was in Delaware - when Colm Connolly was Assistant United States Attorney.

Colm Connolly clerked for 3rd Circuit Justice Walter K. Stapleton;
and Judge WKS was an MNAT law firm partner.

In 1999 - Colm Connolly left the Dept of Justice and became a MNAT partner.

Romney's The Learning Company Merger with Mattel by MNAT Losses $3 Billion

NO Investigation and/or prosecution of "The Learning Company" merger $3 Billion loss to Mattel Investors

(PLease Take NOTE: How all the links are losing their connections - another crooked way to be)

Romney committed PERJURY on his Federal Election Form

Mitt lied (well documented) on his federal election Campaign Finance OGE 278 Form; stating he had nothing to do with Bain Capital in any way after February 11, 1999. He now claims to have "retroactively" retired from Bain Capital in August 2001 - back to February 11, 1999.

Specific Frauds of Romney's "Retroactive" Period of Time (Feb 1999 to August 2001)

The Learning Co. fraud = 1999
Stage Stores Bankruptcy Fraud 2000 (where Glazer, Barry Gold and Paul Traub worked for Stage Stores)
Kay Bee Toys is acquired by Bain Capital in 2000 - then
MNAT lies to become eToys counsel, Traub lies to become eToys creditors counsel;
and they put in Barry Gold (Traub's partner in ADA) as CEO of the bankrupt eToys.

eToys Bankruptcy Fraud.

It is announced Bain/Kay Bee are acquiring eToys for $5.4 million (See NY Times article history of eToys - here)

But the Parent Company, which is considering selling some or all of its businesses, was not simply a victim of the recession. The company’s history of troubles is deeper than the grandest of toy chests. EToys filed for bankruptcy protection in 2001 and its assets were bought by KB Toys, one of the nation’s biggest toy retailers, for more than $5 million. KB Toys, which filed for bankruptcy in 2004, filed again this month. It has already begun going-out-of-business sales.


Problem with all of this is - yours truly is named as Liquidation Consultant of eToys;
and my CLI company sold eToys to Bain/Kay Bee for tens of millions.

Reducing prices in a rigged "Bankruptcy Ring" sale of eToys to Bain/Kay Bee - is Bankruptcy Fraud;
and is also a part of the "predicate acts" of RICO under Title 18 United States Code 1961.

But you'll never see anything about that (unless we can force a trial to transpire);
because the MNAT partner - Colm Connolly - became the United States Attorney

on August 2, 2001 (and has buried the investigation and/or prosecutions from occurring).

Public Corruption Task Force was SHUT DOWN;

and career federal prosecutors were threatened to keep their mouths shut - Or Else!

See Los Angeles Times article "Shake-up roils federal prosecutors"

Nixon Signed Racketeering Prosecutions Require Proof of Predicate Acts

Some find it quaint that President Nixon is the one who signed RICO into Law.

As noted at Wikipedia (here) - it specifically states that;

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. Under the close supervision of Senator John Little McClellan, the Chairman of the Committee for which he worked, G. Robert Blakey drafted the "RICO Act," Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, signed into law by Richard M. Nixon. 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.


What yours truly is doing - is "more widespread" application of RICO vs Romney & Gang.


PREDICATE Acts of RICO under United States Code Title 18 Section 1961

Basically, any Law that carries more than 1 year of prison time - either State and/or Federal - is considered a crime under RICO. That being said, Congress took the additional step of specifically naming "Predicate Acts" of RICO under 18 U.S.C. $ 1961 - that Cornell School of Law states as follows (upon its online website) - that;

(1) “racketeering activity” means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891–894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), section 1351 (relating to fraud in foreign labor contracting), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), sections 1461–1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents), sections 1581–1592 (relating to peonage, slavery, and trafficking in persons)., [1] section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), section 1960 (relating to illegal money transmitters), sections 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315 (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging and copies of motion pictures or other audiovisual works), section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright), section 2319A (relating to unauthorized fixation of and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos of live musical performances), section 2320 (relating to trafficking in goods or services bearing counterfeit marks), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), sections 2341–2346 (relating to trafficking in contraband cigarettes), sections 2421–24 (relating to white slave traffic), sections 175–178 (relating to biological weapons), sections 229–229F (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501 (c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a case under title 11 (except a case under section 157 of this title), fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), punishable under any law of the United States, (E) any act which is indictable under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, (F) any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of alien for immoral purpose) if the act indictable under such section of such Act was committed for the purpose of financial gain, or (G) any act that is indictable under any provision listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B);


As one can clearly see, there are many criminal statutes that Congress has already stipulated are RICO "predicate acts".

What I'm going to provide you of - in my next posting - are the list of "predicate acts" of Romney's RICO Gang.

Congressional Law made RICO to empower citizens to become Private Attorney Generals

First of all - most people misconstrue RICO as to be applicable (ONLY) to things like public perception of Mafia.

EAANNTTT! - Sorry professional prosecutors, attorneys and public
RICO has made yours truly a "Private Attorney General"!

U.S. Supreme Court authorizes any citizen to become a Private Attorney General

You have to understand that mom and pop business people KNOW when someone is strong arming them and/or stealing their business. Just because a prosecutor is "friendly" with a target of a federal investigation and goes on the record stating the government refuses to prosecute -
doesn't mean there's no crimes going on!

Congress and U.S. Supreme Court on Private Attorney General authorizations.

Thus, Congress created "Civil RICO". Where not only can a private party become a "Private Attorney General"; but he/she may also profit from the prosecution (where ordinary prosecutors can not). As a matter of FACT, Congress specified extraordinary motivation for the pursuit of Civil RICO; by allowing "treble" damages.

Mitt Romney is a RICO boss by his own (Bain Capital Millions each year) Confessions!

As is noted by the United States Supreme Court (controlling) standard of Sedima v Imrex, the RICO act was specifically created to permit parties to address grievances of "Prosecutorial Gaps" of Government declining to prosecute a party. There's no need of criminal conviction to prosecute a person for RICO. (As a matter of fact, defendants need only receive "indirect" benefit - {hence, Mitt Romney bragging he gets millions of dollars every year from Bain Capital provides prosecution of him {{NO matter when he claims to have "retroactively" retired thereof}} - once one can document Bain Capital benefited from white collar crimes}). If you'll recall, Al Capone wasn't brought down for his organized crimes; but - instead - for his IRS fraud.

How apropos to Romney - is that?

The United States Supreme Court provides the certification of Congressional intent that any ordinary citizen may become a Private Attorney General - to become like an Eliot Ness - and go after the bad guys (when the Government refuses to do so). As anyone can see by reviewing the (often cited) U.S. Supreme Court case of Sedima v Imrex

The court below also feared that any other construction would raise severe constitutional questions, as it "would provide civil remedies for offenses criminal in nature, stigmatize defendants with the appellation 'racketeer,' authorize the award of damages which are clearly punitive, including attorney's fees, and constitute a civil remedy aimed in part to avoid the constitutional protections of the criminal law." Id., at 500, n. 49. We do not view the statute as being so close to the constitutional edge. As noted above, the fact that conduct can result in both criminal liability and treble damages does not mean that there is not a bona fide civil action. The familiar provisions for both criminal liability and treble damages under the antitrust laws indicate as much. Nor are attorney's fees "clearly punitive." Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 1988. As for stigma, a civil RICO proceeding leaves no greater stain than do a number of other civil proceedings. Furthermore, requiring conviction of the predicate acts would not protect against an unfair imposition of the "racketeer" label. If there is a problem with thus stigmatizing a garden variety defrauder by means of a civil action, it is not reduced by making certain that the defendant is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, to the extent an action under § 1964(c) might be considered quasi-criminal, requiring protections normally applicable only to criminal proceedings, cf. One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693, 85 S.Ct. 1246, 14 L.Ed.2d 170 (1965), the solution is to provide those protections, not to ensure that they were previously afforded by requiring prior convictions.11

Finally, we note that a prior-conviction requirement would be inconsistent with Congress' underlying policy concerns. Such a rule would severely handicap potential plaintiffs. A guilty party may escape conviction for any number of reasons—not least among them the possibility that the Government itself may choose to pursue only civil remedies. Private attorney general provisions such as § 1964(c) are in part designed to fill prosecutorial gaps. Cf. Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 344, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 2333, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979). This purpose would be largely defeated, and the need for treble damages as an incentive to litigate unjustified, if private suits could be maintained only against those already brought to justice. See also n. 9, supra.

In sum, we can find no support in the statute's history, its language, or considerations of policy for a requirement that a private treble-damages action under § 1964(c) can proceed only against a defendant who has already been criminally convicted. To the contrary, every indication is that no such requirement exists. Accordingly, the fact that Imrex and the individual defendants have not been convicted under RICO or the federal mail and wire fraud statutes does not bar Sedima's action


RICO - Corruption and White-Collar Crime

For a good review on the issues of utilizing RICO to address White Collar Fraud, you can look at Temple University's publication of Bainbridge-Mims Professor of Law - Pamela Brucy Pierson's - and her addressing such in the writing titled "RICO, Corruption and White-Collar Crime"

What is good about this paper by Pierson, is that it points out specific dynamics in prosecuting a Civil RICO case. First read this passage; and then I'll conclude with what's really important here.

The third fact that the RICO statute recognizes about crime is that complex crime can be difficult to investigate and therefore takes significant law enforcement resources.50 When crime operates through an organization, it is difficult to penetrate the organization, identify its leaders, and build a case against the culpable individuals. The most culpable individuals generally have insulated themselves with minions whose loyalty is secured through enticements or threats. White-collar crime presents an additional challenge: it is often difficult to detect that criminal activity has taken place until significant harm has been done. Everyone knows when they have been extorted by the mob to keep their business open. Everyone knows when they have been terrorized by drug gangs. Few of us, however, know, at least for a while, if our stockbroker has embezzled our funds, especially if our quarterly reports continue to reflect large gains.51 In the white-collar context, penetrating an organization to determine who is culpable is one challenge; doing so before significant harm occurs is another.

Here, the good Professor points out the apropos of our Romney saga - that;

"most culpable individuals -- have insulated themselves with minions whose loyalty is secured--"

Recognizing the difficulty of investigating and pursuing complex crime, RICO employs the “private attorney general” concept.52 When RICO was passed, its private cause of action was recognized as “aggressive,” “novel,” and able to “fill prosecutorial gaps.”53 RICO gives private individuals the opportunity and incentive to sue those who damage their businesses or property by committing criminal acts. It incentivizes private individuals to bring RICO actions by giving them a reward for doing so: treble damages and payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.54 RICO’s private attorney general action brings two important resources to crime-fighting efforts. The first is the time, talent, and hard work of private attorneys. As government budgets become more strained, reinforcements for law enforcement efforts are increasingly important. 55 Talented private attorneys who vet, investigate, organize, and prove a complex RICO civil action supplement law enforcement’s efforts. The second resource RICO’s private cause of action brings is “i
nside information”—information about wrongdoing, otherwise hidden from the public or at least from law enforcement, by those with sufficient access, knowledge, and incentive to pursue the wrongful conduct and perpetrators
.56 RICO incentivizes victims to come forward. In the business world, these victims are business associates, partners, or competitors of the alleged perpetrators. Unlike law enforcement or other outsiders, they know the business intricacies from which the wrongdoing has sprung. Additionally, RICO’s private attorney general provision also allows class actions to be brought.57 This allows litigants, especially those who have suffered too small an amount of loss to justify bringing a lawsuit on their own, to unite and consolidate their information and resources.

Thus, four features of RICO’s civil cause of action render it potentially a highly effective supplement to law enforcement: (1) treble damages and award of attorneys’ fees incentivize plaintiffs to come forward,58 (2) the standing limitation (only those damaged by RICO conduct may bring a private RICO action) restricts plaintiffs to those who are knowledgeable about the fraud, 59 (3) plaintiffs bring experienced, talented legal counsel with the resources to investigate and prove RICO cases,60 and (4) the class action option allows RICO plaintiffs to pool information and resources.61 As the next Part discusses, the full potential of civil RICO’s benefits have not yet been realized.


It is highly significant and important that law professors and others grasp the extraordinary dynamics of Civil RICO and their implications/ complications. Especially of the matters of White Collar Crimes. Romney is a RICO boss - and I'll now begin with providing you the proof that corrupt courts are preventing!

Romney Sued for Racketeering - along with Bain Capital, Goldman Sachs and others

As this thread is about true crime - and I'm the one prosecuting such; it would appear that this is the place to document the case. Currently - after suing Romney for RICO in Fed Ct Los Angeles (case # 2:13-cv-7738), the District Court Judge is seeking to dismiss the entire case by an 1881 (130 year old) standard titled "the Barton doctrine". And I've appealed the case the 9th Circuit Court of the United States (San Francisco case # 14-55784).



There's a scheduling Order for my brief in October and their reply in November. I'm going to provide the links to over 169 articles written about the case issues (in most instances - non of the journalist's realizing exactly what the bigger picture is - that they missed). Here's another link - with a picture - by Ann Werner of Liberals Unite Blog.


I'm going to document one crime at a time; because there's SO many (Many) acts of law breaking.

Please be aware - the trolls among U.S. will try to assuage you from reviewing the facts; doing so by name calling and worse! It is in everyone's best interest to ignore the Troll 101 tactics and stay with FACT findings.

They have to argue against the discussion; because "they" can never stand the scrutiny of a trial!

= = = The Facts speak for themselves - and I'll prove it to you (including the pyramid of bad faith discourse).


Don't let the bad guys bark B.S. and assuage you from the facts;
because Pitten's is running again - hoping to turn RICO boss tactics into ways of POTUS!

{{{{{ Paul }}}}} May you and yours remember the great times

and find solace in the fact that you are the joy of your mother and your mother is the joy of you!

Need Co-Director/production assist for HBO Project Greenlight "Romney the Racketeer" submit

Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are back with their "Project Greenlight" contest seeking submissions by amateur director's; and we are going to submit "Romney the Racketeer" trailer.

To do so, I'm in need of edit software and technical prowess; which I do not posses.

If yours truly tells his own story, it finds deaf ears. When others tell the tale, the results are extraordinary. (As you can see by Matt Taibbi's "Greed and Debt", Wall Street Journal "eToys investors claim conflict at law firm", L.A. Times "Shake-up roils federal prosecutors" {just a few of the 169 + articles written}).

This is not for the timid person (though we can give you "stage" name anonymity - if you so desire).

Already have the script (and Mitt's team trying to shut it down). HBO's litigation department already knows its coming (because the previous President {David Haddad} of Live Planet, was a person I caught pulling a $2 million dollar stunt at eToys.com). I, in turn, cautioned the "legal administrator" thereof that the truth can not be silenced.



So, there you have it, my project quest in a nutshell. Romney, Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs simply can not handle public scrutiny of the massive bad faith acts they've stockpiled in our various cases. If HBO buries the submission and/or we don't get the votes I believe we will;

then there's nothing to lose!

However, if the 2 minute trailer goes forward - then ?!?!?!?

-- the reality of this saga is - it is one of the greatest stories not yet (fully) told. Each of the articles out there (such as Taibbi's) has only told a piece of the tale. Here's a more recent submission by the New York Times in March 2013 "Rigging the {eToys} I.P.O. Game".

Cause & Effect = After NY Times Rigging article; Bain cancelled Toys R Us IPO (see story - here)

Many smaller online entities have reported on part of the saga, resulting in over 2 million web hits and over 200,000 Facebook(s) and Twitter(s). Such as Liberals United reporter Ann Werner's (picture of Romney above) story "Romney Sued for RICO". Ann points out how unreported the story remains (not hard to comprehend if you remember that Mitt owns Bain that owns Clear Channel Communication 800 stations of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and Glenn Beck).

There's also Addicting Info's Nathan story (immediately following Werner's) of "Romney Slapped with Racketeering".

Finally, there's good old PoliticusUSA.com's Rmuse; who has beaten everyone to the punch (one of the very few who looked at the case information and reported on it when Romney was running in 2012). Rmuse has done 1/2 dozen stories on the issues and was the 1st to report on the fact about the Racketeering side of the case (see his various online articles - here - here and here).

Josh Fox's "Gasland" received an Oscar nomination - not because it was a fantastic production piece; but because the subject matter was true! Reporters and main stream news have been passing up a Pulitzer Prize opportunity; because Bain Capital controls billions of dollars in advertising revenue they can't afford to lose.

What's your excuse for sitting still on the sidelines?

Fame is awaiting!

Blackwater = USAG John Ashcroft = Romney/Bain

I've been warning people how dangerous these "organized" syndicates are becoming.

Romney = Bain = Clear Channel Communications = Red McCombs = Blackwater

and former USAG John Ashcroft


It ain't easy - taking down big sleazies (who rename themselves an hopeful innocuous "Academi"

MinnPost Article on Douglas Kelley Scandals Links to My Story Calling Kelley Frank Nitti

It's a puff piece at best. The MinnPost has a story out now titled "Five More Questions: Doug Kelley's high-stakes high-profile high-altitude adventures". Yet the MinnPost story quotes my remarks of Frank Nitti (at DK article on why Federal Receivers and U.S. Trustee's can't be trusted in MN and "Deal-aware" see the story link - here).


One puff question is the fact that the Minnesota federal authorities contended (from the very beginning) that Tom Petters Ponzi (pic above) was merely a $3.7 Billion Ponzi. Yours truly has always posed the question of

"When do you ever see the feds play down how big a case and arrest was made"?

{This is of the issue of saying Petter's Ponzi is being touted by the feds that its only $3.7 Billion - versus over $40 Billion}. But there are many rotten things in Denmark (Minn Dept of Justice). Such as the fact that Larry Reynolds laundered $12 Billion while in Witness Protection (article - here). And Marty Lackner was part of the feeder funds (via SlyBell Lancelot) to Petters Ponzi. Marty Lackner was the brother of Minn. Asst. U.S. Attorney J. Lackner (head of Criminal Division).

Doug Kelley is now trying to weasel his way out by stating the following in the MinnPost article;

I think there were $41 billion worth of inter-corporate transfers in Petters’ little scheme.

Think about that. It’s dizzying. Primarily this was through two or three banks.


The big deal they are all hiding is the fact that Paul Traub is publicly known to have been a partner (controller) of Tom Petters Ponzi; but no one can arrest Paul Traub - because he is partners with Mitt Romney (as the picture below details). Goldman Sachs and Bain Capital are involved in Petters Ponzi too (via Fingerhut deal and possibly more).


I'm thankful that the MinnPost linked to the story written years ago;
and I hope the journalist will simply dig a little bit more!

After all, having an Assistant U.S. Attorney directly connected is extremely noteworthy.

Especially since Marty Lackner (purportedly) committed suicide!


Did Petters Ponzi Receiver Kelley Admit Deceiving the Public? (Possible Fraud).

There are several major cases Douglas Kelley of the Kelley Wolter firm - is known for. Looming large still are the Tom Petters (Paul Traub) Ponzi and the Minnesota Orchestra scandal. I'll deal with the conflict of interest/color of law crimes and ethics of DK in another thread. In this one we are going to simply deal with the Orchestra scandal and;

Has Douglas Kelley kind of admitted to public deception (fraud)?


Who is Douglas Kelley?

Background is necessary to get a bigger picture view. Douglas Kelley is a former federal prosecutor and considered one of the heads of the Republican party programs in Minnesota. Prior to the Tom Petters case, Douglas Kelley was purportedly engaged to the Pohlad daughter (owner of Minnesota Twins and more). During the Petters Ponzi case in Minnesota, Doug's "Kelley Wolter" law firm was the attorney at law for Tom Petters; who then switched to the other side and became the Federal Receiver and Bankruptcy Trustee in some Tom Petters cases. Nothing sums up Doug Kelley better than this question;

Can Al Capone's Frank Nitti become the Federal Receiver of Capone's organized crimes?

You say "of course not"! But that's exactly what happened in the Petters Ponzi case.


Minnesota Orchestra Scandal

At the "Song of the Lark" blog, they seek to digest the Orchestra case and abuses of budget with Douglas Kelley at the helm (who sought to create a new "Beethoven" contemporary era (hence the picture poster above). However, the real goal of Douglas Kelley was to bust the unionized efforts of the Orchestra's musicians. Though the Republican leader claims that such is the furthest thing from his mind.

Doug Kelley stated simply (originally) that the prices cuts in musical labor were necessary; otherwise the Orchestra would go broke. Now Mr. Kelley is recanting his early position. The Song of the Lark blogs coins it as DK is admitting to "bullchitting" (deceiving the public and musicians in general).

The fact of the matter is, lying to the public and opposing parties in financial matters is deception. As Douglas Kelley well knows (being a former Assistant United States Attorney) - Deception = FRAUD.

So the question remains - Has Douglas Kelley admitted to deception (fraud)? I'll let you read the article and Minnesota DU members comment with their knowledge of the case. Song of the Lark blogs story "Doug Kelley Still Problematic"

The article states;

So listen, I understand negotiations, and I get what he’s saying. But I also want to point out that Doug Kelley is cheerfully admitting to bullshitting. Not just bullshitting musicians, but bullshitting the public. How many times did we hear that these particular cuts were necessary to save the institution from complete collapse? Yeah, about those: Doug Kelley is now saying he didn’t really need them to ensure a healthy organization. How do you operate a successful non-profit while simultaneously manipulating such an important number? If these numbers were facades, how many others were, too? Non-profit arts organizations ought to be above this type of shenanigan.

Maybe if the Minnesota Orchestral Association didn’t have a history of deferring to PR companies to decide what size deficits to report – or a history of leaving out important facts when asking for money from the state legislature – or a history of never publicly mentioning Michael Henson’s massive bonuses before muckraking bloggers got to the story – this admission would be less troubling, but as it is, it confirms an unsettling long-term strategy: Show numbers that help you make your case at the time, then reveal later that the true picture was different.

And Mr. Kelley doesn’t think that his bullshitting contributed to the level of animosity?

To Mitt's Chagrin "Haas v Romney" 9th Cir. Appeal is Moving Forward.

I've sued Romney & his RICO in Los Angeles federal court for Racketeering (civil) - case # 2:13-cv-7738.

Judge dismissed the case utilizing 130 old "Barton doctrine"

I timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration and an Appeal (that was somehow premature).


The 9th Circuit has put forth the following scheduling Order;
with a caveat that I explain why I haven't (yet) filed a full case appeal.

It is due by Monday (in Los Angeles Fed Court);
and I'm filing it there and sending a copy to the 9th Circuit.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 ... 117 Next »