Bankruptcy Misconduct

Home

Blog

A blog of all section with no images

Array ( [0] => Login failed. [1] => Login failed. [2] => Login failed. [3] => Too many login failures )

Prosecutions

Complaint to Securities And Exchange Commission

Chart depicting Chronology of Attorney Misconduct - Exhibit P - CABAURHBD26.pdf

Chart - a picture is worth 1024 words Chronology of Conflicted Representation - Exhibit J - CABAURHBD26.pdf

Chart, for the folks in Rio Linda, of Delays Advised or Engaged by CA Attorneys - Exhibit X - CABAURHBD26.pdf

California Supreme Court Verified Accusation (sans exhibits)

California Supreme Court exhibits to Verified Accusation

California Supreme Court Docket in Re: Case S157298

California State Bar Complaint HBD (Original)

California State Bar Complaint HBD (Revised sans exhibits)

Worldcom / MCI bankruptcy filing related to counsel's admission of "death threat" advice

Worldcom / MCI bankruptcy filing exhibits re: counsel's admission of "death threat" advice (motion exhibits)

Matters of interest to viewers of this site:

Matter listings and milestones below are database entries, with links to documents when available, provided for the convenience of regulators, media, academia, law enforcement, special interest groups, and for those applying for scholarship awards related to competitions sponsored in conjunction with bankruptcyMisconduct.com.

Progress Milestones may categorize each listing to indicate relevant events or documents and may include the following:

Notable Filing

Complaint | Filed / Closed / Declined / Reopened

Conflict / Affiliation
[ Relationship among: Hedge Fund, Private Equity, Buy Side, Sell Side, Attorney, Accountant, Liquidator, DOJ, Judge ]

Referral Demand (such as under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3057)

Official Referral To Investigator

Official Referral To Prosecutor

Official Investigation

Prosecution

SEC | Referral / Complaint / Investigation / Prosecution / Adjudication

FOIA | Request / Response

State Bar | Complaint / Investigation / Prosecution / Disbarment / Discipline

Notice To: Media / Academia / Politician

Comment By: Media / Academia / Politician

Adjudication

The matter listings may include peculiar activity, complaints, investigations and prosecutions. BankruptcyMisconduct.com or Next Factors, Inc. or any other persons may have instigated referrals, investigations, or prosecutions related to some of these matters. BankruptcyMisconduct.com wishes to remind all viewers of information on this web site that every person, including law firms and their partner and associate attorneys, should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Allegations are merely allegations unless and until such matters are adjudicated in a proper and fair venue. Sadly, Bankruptcy Misconduct committed by powerful law firms and their attorney members all too often escapes genuine and meaningful review by the governmental entities.
Listings may link to documents which we believe are valid, but the links and documents themselves may be withdrawn, superseded, stricken, updated, or otherwise invalid and each viewer is cautioned to independently confirm any information or document link with any corresponding source. All factual elements are as they appear in corresponding public filings, all non factual information is the opinion of bankruptcyMisconduct.com or the content contributor. Listings may reference an originating bankruptcy case and track progress by certain parties related to possible misconduct or crimes. Entries may reference explicit events and may include running status commentary. If you would like to suggest an entry or respond to an entry, please contact us.

.... [ Under Construction - Prototype Below: ] ...

Date	Case	Milestone	By/From	To/About	Description	DocumentLink
01/01/00

Would you like to be able to search and filter matter listings on this page? Register on this site and leave a comment, we would like to hear your opinion.

Write Comment (0 Comments)

ACPOC Syndrome

New! Sightings of ACPOC Syndrome:

8 Firms Hiding Fraud From Court And the client who directed counsel to disclose the fraud by opposing counsel suffers financial retribution for daring to upset the golden goose.

Abandonment of the Client for the Protection of Opposing Counsel

The "official rules" which govern the conduct of lawyers have been written to protect lawyers from civil and criminal consequences. These rules are supplemented by a culture among lawyers to protect their own. This ingrained impulse to protect each other is so strong that a lawyer will go to great extremes to protect his opposing counsel, even to the extent of abandoning his own client.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has long struggled with the challenge of justifiying and maintaining the self-regulatory and self-policing nature of the legal profession. Lawyers, and particularly large law firms, greatly benefit by having control over the review and "enforcement" of complaints against the members of their profession. Lawyers intentionally designed the rules to enhance their own profitability, remove risk, restrict competition, grow their profession, and escape regulation which might hinder the operational status quo of their industry. The self policing nature of the law industry has the unfortunate by-product of shielding lawyers from criminal investigation and prosecution with respect to the same criminal acts for which non lawyer individuals have been fined and incarcerated. Even with the liberal "rules" governing the legal industry, lawyers will go to shocking extremes to protect their brethren who are so reckless as get caught in acts of misconduct and crime.

The ABA has long known about the tendency of lawyers to protect each other, including a tendency to refuse to bring suits against their brethren:

"Unfortunately, there appears to be a widespread feeling among laymen that it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain justice when they have claims against members of the Bar because other lawyers will not accept employment to proceed against them. The honor of the profession, whose members proudly style themselves officers of the court, must surely be sullied if its members bind themselves by custom to refrain from enforcing just claims of laymen against lawyers." ABA Opinion 144 (1935).

Consequently, the ABA established a rule which forbids a lawyer to refuse to represent a client on a matter if doing so would pit him against another lawyer:

EC 2-28
The personal preference of a lawyer to avoid adversary alignment against judges, other lawyers, public officials or influential members of the community does not justify rejection of tendered employment.

When A Lawyer's Self Interest Can Trump His Oath To Zealously Represent His Client...

A lawyer is in business to make money. Lawyers face client matters for which a zealous representation would bring negative consequences to opposing counsel. For example, if opposing counsel tells a lie in court (fraud upon a court is a crime) or destroys or hides documents during discovery (spoliation is a crime) such lawyer has a duty to report opposing counsel to the authorities so that his client is not harmed by the fraudulent conduct of opposing counsel. In such a circumstance, the lawyer must report opposing counsel in order to protect his client, and under his oath to the courts. However, the real world is far different from the hypothetical utopian world consisting solely of honest lawyers with entegrity. There are "crooked" people in every profession. We know there are crooked politicians, cops, and CEOs. Why aren't we surprised that contrasted with every other industry, large law firms have escaped criminal prosecution? Does anyone believe that becoming a lawyer completely removes the dark side of the human element? Does anyone believe that the pressures of keeping up with the Jonses affects every other profession but law? The one true answer is that we don't see large law firms prosecuted because lawyers protect each other. The real world profit and career motives of our all too human lawyers result in the emergence of ACPOC Syndrome in matters where lawyers commit misconduct.

What happens when a lawyer witnesses misconduct, or crime, on the part of opposing counsel? The easy way out for the lawyer is to fail to inform his client, and the authorities, of the misconduct or crimes. This would be an instance of constructive ACPOC, and is often undetected. If the client becomes aware of the misconduct/crime and demands to his lawyer that such acts be brought before the authorities, an acute case of ACPOC Syndrome may result where the lawyer seeks authority from the court to withdraw as counsel. Such an acute form of ACPOC Syndrome is the epitome of the failure of attorney self-regulation and self-policing mechanisms, and may be further exacerbated by further inaction by all lawyers witnessing the conduct, the Court, and attorney employees of the Department Of Justice.

Write Comment (0 Comments)

Page In Progress

Thank you for your interest. The page you have requested is not yet available for viewing. Come back again soon, or if you prefer, register as a member of our site by using our Login Form and we will contact you when our website is complete.Write Comment (1 Comments)

Welcome to Bankruptcy Misconduct.Com

The Voices Grow In Number And Strength

"No country -- certainly not the United States -- is free of corruption. In the real world of limited resources, we know that we can only detect, investigate and prosecute a small percentage of those officials who are corrupt." -- U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft

" I remain convinced that there is no more important area in the fight against corruption than the challenge for us within the law enforcement and justice sectors to keep our own houses clean." -- U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft

"It appears that the watchdog needs watchdogging". - Exact words of a Federal Judge describing the U.S. Trustees at the DOJ, whose role is to act as the watchdog against crime and corruption.

"A Pack Of Dogs"- Another Federal Judge describing the U.S. Trustees.

"Competition for Big Cases Is Corrupting the Bankruptcy Courts" UCLA Professor and renowned expert on bankruptcy in the U.S.A.

Bankruptcy Misconduct.Com was created out of concern about the current state of federal bankruptcy practice. This website is part of an ongoing effort to illuminate in a clear and direct way:

operations and activities of various governmental agencies as they act, or fail to act, to police, enforce, and fulfill important Congressional mandates related to the integrity of the bankruptcy process as well as applicable rules of professional and judicial conduct.

inherent and systemic problems with the current practices of professionals involved in the bankruptcy process due to the self regulation and self policing mechanisms which purport to regulate, albiet in secret, the actions of lawyers.

______________________

BankruptcyMisconduct.com has been directing the public's attention to peculiar circumstances in a number of bankruptcy cases. These cases are exemplary in their demonstration of the need for a closer scrutiny by the media, the business community, and of course the Justice Department. These cases include:

eToys Inc. et al. USBC Delaware, Nos. 01-706 etc.

AmmoCore Technology Inc. et al. USBC Delaware, No. 06-10318

Worldcom, Inc., et al. (included MCI) USBC Southern District of New York No. 02-13533 (AJG)

The " Asbestos Ring " involves a number of U.S. federal bankruptcy court reorganization cases. These cases have in common: the State of Delaware, the use of asbestos litigation by injury lawfirms against large companies, astounding mega fees paid by the debtors to bankruptcy professionals, a locus of several bankruptcy industry firms, and most significantly the emerging evidence of a pattern of fraud by one or more bankruptcy professionals.
- Owens Corning et al. USBC Distric of Delaware, Nos. 00-3837 through 00-3854.
- W.R. Grace et al. USBC Distric of Delaware, Case No. 01-1139 etc.
- USG Corp et al. USBC Distric of Delaware, No..01-2094.
- Federal-Mogul Corp. et al. USBC Distric of Delaware, No. 01-10578 etc.

CH II American Inn Inc. USBC (Oklahoma?) Bk-85-2221-A. Numerous possible conflict of interest, ACPOC Syndrome. Will a nation, whose freedom and prosperity would surely end but for the dedication and sacrifice of its armed forces, survive if the honor of its warriors and the Constitution for which they risked their lives to defend, are defamed and disrespected in its Courts by profiteering brethren of the bar?

Advocacy & Resources Corporation USBC, Middle District of Tennessee, Cookeville Division, Debtor Case N0. 206-03067 Chapter 11, Judge Lundin Presiding.

"Rick" USBC, Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, Case Number 99-50046, Judge Manuel Barbosa presiding. Issues related to the conduct of the private Trustee: Thomas Lester and his law firm Hinshaw & Culbertson, include a closed bankruptcy case reopened under peculiar justification, the forced sale of a house occupied by a single parent with two children for $138,389.59 in gross proceeds, less $112,557.87 for the cost of sale. Allegations include that a prior valid court order of payment to the divorced spouse was ignored, as well as the homestead exemption. Upon information and belief, a bankruptcy trustee or other professional is not entitled to having fees paid that did not or could have benefited the estate.

John Deep USBC Northern Distric of New York, Nos. 02-11552, 02-11745, and 02-11755.

Mr. Deep is well known for his creation of Aimster, and was apparrantly represented by the renowned attorney David Boies, who in turn is reported to have earned fees representing clients including Microsoft, the presidential election dispute on behalf of Al Gore, and entities associated with the RIAA.

WebSci Technologies, Inc. & Ramkrishna S. Tare USBC District of New Jersey Nos. 02-38258 (RG) & 02-38316 (RG)

Incredible allegations of undisclosed conflict of interest, false affadavits, conspiracy, and more. Bogus order overturned on appeal. Watch this case, we will and we won't let its ultimate resolution be a quiet whisper.

Baron's Stores, Inc. USBC Southern District of Florida No. 97-25645 BKC-PGH

The Leslie Fay Companies, et al. USBC Southern District of New York No. 93-B-41724(TLB)

Stone & Webster, et al. USBC District of Delaware No. 00-2142 (PJW)

Aureal, Inc., USBC Northern District of California No. 00-42104 (T)

______________________

Bankruptcy is Big Business

The Bankruptcy Investment specialty has become “big business” and has attracted a wide variety of players including many hedge funds. For example, in the largest U.S. bankruptcy case of MCI / Worlcom there have been at least 50 entities involved in claims transfers encompassing hundreds of millions of dollars. As the scope of the claims trading activity has increased, so too has the potential for corrupt practices and actions involving the professionals retained in those related proceedings. Despite the rampant claims trading involved in large bankruptcy cases, there are essentially no precautions in place to avoid corrupt practices and actions involving bankruptcy professionals, other than the faith by the Department Of Justice and the Judiciary in the honesty of the attorneys employed in these million and billion dollar Mega Bankruptcy cases, that these lawyers' actions and sworn declarations indcluding mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest will reflect their supreme loyalty to the bankruptcy estate, and not to conflicted clients.

We hope that the information released by this website will significantly contribute to public understanding. Perhaps non lawyer oversight of these various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies and professionals is due. Particularly troubling is these agency’s and professionals activities, policies, and regulations relating to corruption in bankruptcy practice and attorney conduct in general.

Bankruptcy Misconduct.Com was originally created by Next Factors, Inc. (abbreviated "Next") because of concern about the current state of federal bankruptcy practice. Next was a small, private firm engaged in the business of purchasing and accepting assignments of claims against debtors in large bankruptcy proceedings, a practice commonly referred to as claims trading, distressed investing, or vulture investing.

In stark contrast with certain of its competitors, Next was not affiliated with current or formerly practicing bankruptcy lawyers or professionals, hedge funds, brokerage firms, corporate finance professionals, or relatives of any of the above. Furthermore, Next did not give money to any bankruptcy professional, either directly or through any affiliate, at the same time when such professional had a duty to be adverse to Next in the context of any bankruptcy proceedings. We can not understate how significant, if not unique, is this absence of a conflict of interest by a vulture investor.

Bankruptcy Misconduct intends to participate in the sponsorship of one or more scholarship awards where students can submit written material regarding proposed topics. We contemplate that winning students entries will receive award certificates may also receive a cash awards which can be used in furtherance of their the study of law, economics, or government.

An additional purpose of this site is to enable all parties to assemble and converse about bankruptcy misconduct in general as well as on a number of specific issues. Remember to view our Bankruptcy Misconduct Forum where you can participate in ongoing discussions and suggest your own new topic for discussion and analysis.Write Comment (0 Comments)