Skip to main content

View Diary: Mr. KOS, Code of Conduct Rule No. 1: Ad Hominem Attacks Are Verboten (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I guess that is what is meant (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B

    by prima facia.

    "On the face of it" there should be an arguable case to answer or "at first sight".

    ... or, in a criminal sphere ... at least "probable cause".

    In other words, a set of unsupported assertions just isn't enough.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:16:43 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Again - your inference is disingenuous. There's (0+ / 0-)

      NO set of unsupported assertions here.

      They have already admitted their Affidavits had misleading information.

      They are FALSE.

      It is also confessed it was intentionally left to stand before the court - to mislead - even after they were aware they could get caught by the Bonus Sales case.

      See United States Trustee (the POLICE of the bankruptcy court system) - remarks in part 18 of the Motion to Disgorge Traub Bonacquist & Fox ("TBF") for $1.6 million - of February 15, 2005.

      http://petters-fraud.com/...

      Part 18 is the Fed Police (US Trustee) states that;

      TBF
      further asserts that although Traub and Fox considered amending their disclosures in 2003 (as a
      result of their July 2003 disclosure of the relationship between TBF and ADA in the Bonus
      Stores case, No. 03-12284 (MFW), they determined that it was not necessary to do so because
      the eToys plan had already been confirmed and gone effective.  Id. at ¶ 3

      Traub knew they could get caught for the lie because of the affidavit (Smoking Gun evidence) in the Bonus Sales case.

      But they decided to let the lie stand before the court; because the case was over (in 2003 - and here we are with the case still open in 2013).

      They deliberately lied to a Chief Federal Justice and that's Fraud upon the court (which the U.S. Trustee concluded had transpired as is iterated in part 35)

      Part 35 states;

      Unlike R&R Associates, this case does not involve novice bankruptcy counsel
      who borrowed a form of Rule 2014 affidavit from another attorney in the firm.  It instead
      involves experienced bankruptcy practitioners who have filed applications to be retained as
      Section 327 or Section 1103 counsel in numerous large and sophisticated Chapter 11 cases, both
      in Delaware and elsewhere. TBF’s partners are well-versed in the comprehensive and ongoing
      relationships analysis required of a professional employed at estate expense.  And as discussed
      earlier in this Motion, TBF had engaged in discussions with the Office of the United States
      Trustee about replacement officers of the debtors, and was aware of the UST’s concern that the
      replacement officers not be related to any of the professionals employed in the case.  This, it is
      respectfully submitted, is all of the intent needed to demonstrate that TBF’s Rule 2014 disclosure
      violation was a fraud upon the court.

      Fraud on the court by an officer of the court - is such a heinous & egregious violation of the integrity of the judicial process

      That there's NO statute of limitations when it occurs!


      Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

      by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site