- Crystal Cox Speaks about the Case and EXTORTION allegations
- Obsidian Finance Group, Tonkon Torp ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINT Filing
- Obsidian Finance Group
- Crystal Cox Supreme Court Petition Regarding Judicial POTSHOTS
- Click Here Regarding Crystal Cox Ninth Circuit Appeal WIN
- ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINT
- Kevin Padrick Alleged Perjury
- Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Case Details
- Judge Randall Dunn
- Obsidian Finance Group
- Kevin Padrick
- Homestreet Bank Files Objection to Conflicts of Interest and Fees of Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group
- Stephanie DeYoung, CPA Video Deposition Summit Bankruptcy
- Mark Neuman Deposition Summit
- Video of Obsidian Meeting with Client Summit BEFORE they Were the Debtor
Sunday, August 10, 2014
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TRUSTEE AND COUNSEL VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF SEVERAL OREGON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES RESPECTIVE OPERATING AGREEMENTS
"A) History of Corney Investors, LLC (“Corney”), and Padrick, Obsidian, and Tonkon Torp’s attempt to take governance rights away from existing Managers and Members
Source of Post
Originally Posted on ObsidianFinanceSucks.com at
- June 10, 2005 Corney Investors LLC is formed.
- Corney Investor LLC is managed by VSN Properties LLC (“VSN”).
- March 31, 2009 VSN resigns and all members agree to Larry Sirhall becoming the manager.
Attempts by Trustee to take governing rights away from existing Manger
On May 26, 2009, David S. Peterson (“Peterson”) sent Corney members a memorandum of action of the class “A” member of Corney removing the current manager, Sirhall, and appointing the Trustee as the manager of each company. (Exhibit F1)
Trustee Seizes LLC’s Bank Account
On June 25, 2009 Corney members learn that Obsidian (apparently acting at the instruction of Padrick) seized Corney’s bank account and sent a letter to Corney’s tenant directing him to hereafter make all payments directly to Obsidian.
These funds are held by the LLC as reserves to pay for the taxes, insurance, maintenance and upkeep of the real property held by the LLC.
Corney Interested Parties did not approve this distribution of the LLC’s cash to the Trustee in his role as liquidating trustee of debtor’s bankruptcy. This money belongs to the LLC and the other 10 Interested Parties who are not the debtor.
Since the Interested Parties are not a debtor in this case, their money should not be used to pay for the claims against the debtor. More importantly, the Trustee as an assignee of VSN’s interest in Corney had no rights under the operating agreement to take any such actions.
Since the Interested Parties are not a debtor in this case, their money should not be used to pay for the claims against the debtor. More importantly, the Trustee as an assignee of VSN’s interest in Corney had no rights under the operating agreement to take any such actions.
On June 26, 2009 Opera emailed Peterson regarding the violation of the LLC’s operating agreement. (Exhibit F2) The violations are as follows…
Section 6.1 of the Operating Agreement of Corney provides that a member cannot transfer its membership interest in Corney without the consent of a majority of the members of Corney, and that any such transfer will not entitle the transferee to “become or to exercise any rights of a Member.” Section 6.1 provides further that, during a five-year “Option Period,” the transferee is not “entitled to any rights as a Member of the LLC,” and will be entitled to receive only the distributions and allocations of Corney profit and loss to which the transferor would be entitled, until such time, if ever, that the option to purchase described in Section 6.1 is exercised or the transferee is admitted as a substitute member.
Accordingly, Padrick as VSN’s assignee is not entitled to vote as a member of Corney and is not entitled to exercise any management rights under the Operating Agreement. Governing Oregon law is consistent with this result. See, O.R.S. 63.259…VSN has committed a number of material breaches of its fiduciary duties to the members of Corney, including, without limitation, the rendering of inaccurate and misleading accountings to the Corney members and the misappropriation of Corney funds, to the detriment of the members of Corney, which preclude VSN from acting as manager of Corney or asserting any management rights. Based upon the foregoing, Corney, acting through Sirhall, believes that VSN has no management rights and, therefore, that Padrick cannot act as the Manager of Corney.
- B. History of Klondike Point LLC (“Klondike”), and Padrick, Obsidian, and Tonkon Torp’s attempt to take governance rights away from existing Managers
- January 1, 2005 Klondike is formed to own and operate a commercial building in downtown Bend.
- Initial managers are Studebaker and Larkin.
- On January 1, 2009 Larkin resigns as a manager, all members agree to Barb Tyler (“Tyler”) becoming a manager.
- On February 10, 2009 a required capital call is made to all members.
- By March 11, 2009 Studebaker and Tyler make their capital call requirements. Stevens, Larkin, Neuman did not make their capital call requirement.
Trustee Ignores Offer.
- In accordance with the provisions of Sections 9.3, 9.4 and 9.5 of the Operating Agreement, on April 15, 2009, Windermere, acting on behalf of Ms. Studebaker, sent to Stevens, Larkin, and Neuman an offer to purchase their respective interests in Klondike. NO RESPONSE.
- On April 20, 2009, Klondike’s business attorney sent to the Simson, by overnight mail, a copy of the purchase offer. NO RESPONSE.
- On May 26, 2009, Opera sent an offer (Exhibit F3) to Simson from Studebaker to purchase the building owed by Klondike. Opera communicated to Peterson that the Trustee received the purchase offer about six weeks ago. He has not bothered to respond to the purchase offer. In accordance with the provisions of the Operating Agreement, request is hereby made that the Trustee, as the assignee of the defendants’ economic interests as members of Klondike, respond[s] to the Purchase Offer as promptly as possible, but in no event later than June 11, 2009.” Opera tells Counsel that “it has come to our attention that the Trustee has either ignored or rejected out of hand any and all offers that have been extended to him to purchase limited liability company membership interests of the four principals of the debtor. This appears to us to be a blatant disregard of the Trustee’s obligations to the debtor’s creditors…The Trustee’s duty to maximize the value of the debtor’s estate for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors, the Trustee should act promptly to consummate a transaction in accordance with the provisions of the Purchase Offer. Otherwise, given the precarious state of Klondike’s financial affairs, the Trustee will run the very significant risk of losing all value on account of the debtor Members’ interests in Klondike.”
Trustee’s Counsel responded by saying the Offer submitted via mail on April 20, 2009 was LOST/MISPLACED.
In reviewing the detail of Tonkon Torp’s billings, Simson’s time and billings details shows that on April 22, 2009 there was a “Telephone conference with Mr. Padrick regarding REDACTED (.3); review offer to purchase Interests in Klondike Point LLC (.2); conference with Mr. Aman regardingREDACTED (.2)” (Exhibit F4) Simson’s time here totals 0.7 of an hour. Simson’s rate is $450/hour. Total charge to the estate $315. Other professionals have charged their time for this as well. Padrick (.3) at $600/hour is $180 and Aman (.2) at $325 is $65. Total charge to the estate to lose an offer is approximately $560 ($315 +$180+$65).
Trustee’s response to Studebaker’s offer was to take away governing rights from existing Manager’s.
- On June 4, Padrick filed Articles of Amendment/Dissolution with the Oregon State Corporation Division (Exhibit) changing the company from being member managed to the LLC being manager-managed an action requiring consent of 60% of the members of the LLC pursuant to Section 4.2 of the operating agreement.. By reason of the defendants’ failure to make required capital contributions, as of April 30, 2009, the defendants’ had only 58.07% of the ownership interests in Klondike, and Studebaker and Tyler had 41.93% of the ownership interests in Klondike. Padrick signed the document as Manager of the LLC. As an assignee of Larkin, Stevens, and Neuman interests’ in the LLC, Padrick is not entitled to exercise any management rights under the operating agreement unless or until the remaining members vote to admit him as a member (Exhibit F5). The Oregon State Corporation Division told Studebaker that falsely filing documents with their administration is a CIVIL MISDEMEANOR.
- On June 23, 2009 Aman emailed a response to Opera enclosing “copies of memoranda of action of the members of both Klondike and Century, removing the current managers of those companies and appointing the Trustee as the manager of each company.” (Exhibit F6)
- In this same email, the “Trustee, acting as manager of both Klondike and Century” notified Opera that he was “terminated as legal counsel for either company, effective immediately”.
On June 26, 2009, Opera emailed Aman regarding the violation of the LLC’s operating agreement. (Exhibit F7)
- Section 8.1 of the Operating Agreement provides that any transfer of a member’s interest in Klondike is “prohibited,” and that no member may transfer his interest in Klondike. Section 8.3.1 of the Operating Agreement provides that the transferee of a member’s interest will not be admitted as a substitute member without the unanimous written consent of the non‑transferring members. Such consent has not been obtained by the Trustee, and will not be given either by Studebaker or by Tyler.
- Oregon law is clear that the debtor Members’ transfer of their interests to the Trustee allows the Trustee to have recourse only to the members’ economic interests in Klondike, and that the Trustee does not become, as a result of such transfer, a member in Klondike or obtain any right to participate in the governance of Klondike. See, O.R.S. 63.259. The Trustee has no greater rights with respect to Klondike than he has under the Operating Agreement and under applicable Oregon law. See, Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979).
- Pursuant to the Operating Agreement, the Trustee is not entitled to vote as a member of Klondike, and is not entitled to exercise any management rights under the Operating Agreement. Governing Oregon law is consistent with this result.
- C. History of CFalls Investors, LLC (“CFalls”), and Padrick, Obsidian, and Tonkon Torp’s attempt to take governance rights away from existing Managers
- October 27, 2005 C Falls Investors, LLC, was formed.
- CFalls was member managed with VSN Properties LLC acting as the Operating Member.
- On April 20, 2009 there was a transfer vote to make Gross the new Operating Member of the LLC.
Attempts by Trustee to take governing rights away from existing Operating Member and the LLC, including approximately 44 other LLC Members
- On May 26, Padrick filed a memorandum of action to take over as Operating Member.
- On June 1, 2009 Opera received email from Rose requesting monies the LLC member uses to retain Opera for legal representation
- Per the provisions of the LLC’s operating agreement, VSN Properties LLC is in default because of not contributing the capital necessary to maintain and complete the project agreed in Section 3.2 of the operating agreement and the majority of remaining members can vote at any time to elect a new Operating Member pursuant to Section 4.1. Also under Section 8.1 the Trustee has no rights as a member, being merely an assignee of another member interests’ and having not been admitted as a member by the remaining members.
- D. History of Century & Padrick, Obsidian, and Tonkon Torp’s attempt to take governance rights away from existing Managers
- The company was formed October 4, 2005.
- Initial managers are/were Studebaker and Neuman.
- On 2/12/09 Studebaker spoke with Padrick about the cash deficiencies and negative equity to the estate resulting in ABSOLUTELY NO ASSISTANCE AND NO COMPASSION FOR JIM HULL’S LOSS.
- On 2/18/09 Studebaker sent all the information she had to Ryan Norwood of Obsidian, WITHOUT ANY RESPONSE. (Exhibit F8)
- On or about July 31, 2008, Hull entered into a Tenancy in Common Agreement (“TIC”) with the company and became a co-owner of the property owned by the company.
- Century needed cash and a capital call was made December 28, 2008 in the aggregate amount of $86,414.03, but only an aggregate of $8,473.90 was received by the LLC. The Trustee has made no attempt to pay the debtor’s shares of the capital contributions.
- On January 1, 2009 Neuman resigns as manager and all members agree to Hull becoming manager.
- On or about February 4, 2009, the property was listed for sale thru Fratzke Commercial Real Estate. Fratzke received offers between $1,000,000 and $2,650,000. The property was taken off the market because the highest offer was approximately $573,000 SHORT of paying off the debt obligations of the LLC.
- On April 20, 2009 Opera sent an offer requesting the Trustee to, essentially, sign off or sign on to making the Shareholders’ capital call contributions.
10. June 15, 2009 Opera emailed settlement communications to Peterson including details of Century’s cash flow difficulties, the current value being short of the current debt obligations, and how there is no value for the foreseeable future for the estate. (Exhibit F3)
Trustee’s response to Opera’s communications was to take away governing rights away from existing Managers
On June 23, 2009, Aman emailed a response to Opera enclosing “copies of memoranda of action of the members of both Klondike and Century, removing the current managers of those companies and appointing the Trustee as the manager of each company.” In this same email, the “Trustee, acting as manager of both Klondike and Century” notified Opera that he was “terminated as legal counsel for either company, effective immediately”. (Exhibit F9). The foregoing actions are in clear violation of Century’s operating agreement as follows…
- Section 8.1 of the Operating Agreement provides that any transfer of a member’s interest in Century is “prohibited,” and that no member may transfer his interest in Century. Section 8.3.1 of the Operating Agreement provides that the transferee of a member’s interest will not be admitted as a substitute member without the unanimous written consent of the non‑transferring members. Such consent has not been obtained by the Trustee, and will not be given either by Studebaker or by Hull.
- Oregon law is clear that the defendants’ transfer of their interests to the Trustee allows the Trustee to have recourse only to the members’ economic interests in Century, and that the Trustee does not become, as a result of such transfer, a member in Century or obtain any right to participate in the governance of Century. See, O.R.S. 63.259. The Trustee has no greater rights with respect to Century, or any other LLC interest he receives than he has under the Operating Agreement and under applicable Oregon law. See,Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979).
- Pursuant to the Century Drive Mobile Home Park, LLC’s operating agreement the Trustee is not entitled to vote as a member of Century, and is not entitled to exercise any management rights under the Operating Agreement. Governing Oregon law is consistent with this result.
NINE PAGES OF ACTIONS BY THE TRUSTEE RESULTING IN NO BENEFIT TO THE CREDITORS OF THE ESTATE"
Originally Posted on ObsidianFinanceSucks.com at
Posted by Crystal L. Cox at 8:10 PM
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Oregon Attorney General Complaint filed against Obsidian Finance Group, Tonkon Torp, Perkins Coie and More.
"Crystal L. Cox
Pro Se Litigant
Obsidian v. Cox Case
Date; June 17 th, 2014
Complaint Against : Kevin D. Padrick Oregon Attorney, Obsidian Finance Group, David W. Brown, Leon Simson Attorney, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, attorney Steven Hedberg, Perkins Coie Law Firm, DOJ Trustee Pamela Griffith and more.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ellen F. Rosenblum
I am an investigative blogger and a real estate broker, my name is Crystal L. Cox.
I allege the following upon knowledge and belief.
On or around December of 2009, I began reporting on the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy case out of Bend Oregon, as I am a Real Estate Broker and have owned my own real estate company for 14 years. Summit 1031 was based out of Bend Oregon, however, they did business in 5 states, once of which was my State of primary business at the time, Montana.
I, and my agents who worked for me, attended many classes given by the Summit 1031 company to gain accreditation in 1031’s as all real estate brokers have clients who participate in 1031’s as part of the regular business practice of real estate.
I saw a news article posted online about the bankruptcy and wrote a blurb on it, as ALL real estate consumers were and are potentially affected by a 1031 exchange company going bankrupt, and how the IRS and the bankruptcy courts deal with such a unique bankruptcy.
The Bankruptcy Case Number is, U. S. Bankruptcy Court Case No. 08-37031 rld11 District of Oregon.
On or around July of 2009, Mike Studebaker, ex-husband of Oregon CPA and Summit Insider, the daughter of Summit Principal Mark Neuman, emailed me. He did this because he found my posts discussing the Summit Bankruptcy.
Here is that Original eMail:
“From: Mike Studebaker <email@example.com>
Subject: Fwd: HIGHWAY ROBBERY IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM....
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 9:26 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephanie Studebaker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Subject: HIGHWAY ROBBERY IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM....
This message is to let my dad’s (Mark Neuman) friends and business associates (some of you also know his business partners – Brian Stevens, Tim Larkin, or Lane Lyons) know what I have been up to for the last 6 months. “I have learned that DECEIT becomes one of our biggest challenges and our biggest enemy…It is through awareness and information that we can protect ourselves, our families and our health.
It is the absence of knowing information that we become vulnerable and stand defenseless to protect ourselves…It is through communication with you, applying our common sense, searching for information and documents, finding the right lawyer and standing united that we can fight back against the enemy we can’t always see, until it is too late.” (www.brockovich.com/work.htm) Erin Brockovich is not only an “environmentalists with cleavage”, but she is an “advocate for awareness, the truth, and a person’s right to know…Most people don’t know that [her] favorite movie is not “Erin Brockovich” but “Pay It Forward”.
All of us should pay it forward but not with the expectation of seeing a reward, that is not why we do it. Pay it forward because it is the right thing to do, reward or not. If you follow your heart, if you listen to your gut, and if you extend your hand to help another, not for any agenda, but for the sake of humanity, you are going to find the truth.” (www.brockovich.com/philosophy.htm)
I feel like I have been fighting the enemy for the last 6 months. I have all this information and documents and other evidence that others don’t have. The enemy is trying to suck the money out of Summit, by charging outrageous fees against the estate to the detriment of the hundred or so 1031 exchangers, who have suffered the most from his antics.
He is also is coming after approximately 106 innocent parties by ignoring and violating the provisions set forth in about 25 LLC’s operating agreements. None of whom, had anything to do with Summit’s bankruptcy.
The legal fees so far are at 2 Million dollars between the bankruptcy attorneys involved. The amounts they are charging through May are as follows…
Perkins Coie (Legal Counsel for the Creditor’s Committee) $395,605.78
Sussman Shank LLP (Summit Inc’s Bankruptcy Attorneys) $407,394.51 Plus 117,000 to come
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC  $184,732.43
Kevin Padrick (ENEMY)  $469,599.39 (3.2% of what was in Summit’s bank account when took the job from Terry Vance)
Tonkon Torp, LLC (Enemy’s Legal Counsel)  $267,899.40
Hoevet, Boise & Olson, PC (Summit Inc’s Legal Counsel) $36,607.57 Plus 5,000 to come
Tyrell B. Vance, LLC (GOOD GUY, DOING HIS JOB)  $89,827.42
Total $1,851,668.50 Plus 122,000 to come equals 1,973,668.50 only through May
 Hired by Summit Originally to assist them with their restructuring efforts. Instead, they took privileged information to the Perkins Coie and the Creditors’ Committee, somehow convinced them to push to replace the CRO (who was supposed to be Obsidian’s boss), and got Obsidian’s, Senior Principal, Kevin Padrick the job of bankruptcy Trustee.
 Enemy who knowingly took advantage of Summits liquidity issue and turned it upside down to profit from Brian Stevens, Mark Neuman, Tim Larkin, and Lane Lyons and their family friends and business associates.
 Enemy’s Legal counsel who smugly lie and spends their time harassing all these folks until they don’t have any money or energy to fight.
 Good man who brought 750 K worth of cash into the estate and has only charged 90K. MUCH LARGER RETURN for the exchangers than Padrick’s cost which is almost 1 Million between his company, Obsidian, himself as trustee, and his legal counsel. They have only brought 10 K worth of cash into the estate and have ignored offers that would have brought 900K into the estate.
Pursuant to Code § 330 (Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Law), I have filed an Objection to Obsidian’s, Padrick’s, and Tonkon Torps Fees totaling $922,231.22 (copy attached). I have had to learn how to work within the system to get the truth out. The Court will not pay attention any other way. An unsecured creditor, Mark Knowles, for no benefit of his own, filed the objection with me so I could get standing in the courtroom.
I have lost my business partner, my money and my time with my 3 boys as a result of the ENEMY’S GREED. The ENEMY is going after innocent people’s wealth, money, and my children’s college savings. I have to make a STAND. The only thing keeping me going is my belief that God wants to use some of my skills to do something good here. I believe He made it possible to file and Objection of this quality in time. I thanked Him today because, the HELL that went along with all the work I put into this objection, is over for the time being. I can spend time in the summer sun with my boys this weekend, for this I am most grateful. An Evil Man with Deep Pockets (Cash from Summit) is not an easy opposition. I will need a power that is bigger than him. Luckily, I work for the GOOD of humanity and God is the power I need to hang tight to.
Please read the first 15 pages of the objection thoroughly so that you may gain some of the awareness and truth I have in my brain. Then scan through the exhibits you find interesting. If you have further interest, you can read through my website (www.summit1031bkjustice.com) that is not complete, but close to. It has a bunch more information on this tragedy. The password to get on the website is “changeme”. On the page called “Padrick’s Presentation to the Summit Principals” there is a taping of a meeting I had with Summit Principals, Terry Vance, & Obsidian from their presentation they were instructed to give to us by the Court. This will help you figure out for yourself what is going on here. It will also give you a sense of what type of person the Evil one is.
Thanks for your time. The more we all now and the less time we spend in the dark, the bigger chance we have to both survive our country’s economic circumstances and the evil doing by vultures who prey on the unfortunate circumstances of others.
Studebaker-DeYoung CPA PC
265 NW Franklin Ave., Ste. 101
Bend, OR 97701"
This was simply a forward of an eMail his ex-wife Stephanie DeYoung had sent out to all in her inbox regarding the Summit Bankruptcy, and he forwarded it to me, thinking it would say something bad about her.
After this I blogged more on the Summit Bankruptcy and I read Stephanie’s blog. And I discovered there was alot of information on this bankruptcy and it seemed to me that the Creditors money was tied up by the trustee. The Creditors in this case were the real estate consumers, so I decided to get her blog seen and help to expose the inside information of this bankruptcy.
Stephanie Studebaker Deyoung's blog was at: www.summit1031bkjustice.com, I have a PDF of all pages, the archived online site can be found at, https://web.archive.org/web/20090801000000*/http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com
From this point I started dozens of blogs and began digging into documents, watching videos of meetings of Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick and Summit, listening to court hearings, reading court documents and motions, interviewing insiders, investors and creditors and I kept reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy for the next few years and still do some, to this day.
On 2-12-2009 Stephanie Deyoung took a video of a meeting between the Summit Principals and Obsidian Finance Group, those can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9i3i3g9FH8&list=UUWKpTFAGvcXh2yhj39FGqPg
I, posted these videos online, Kevin Padrick and his attorney David Aman harassed Stephanie DeYoung, took her to court, worked with the Bend Police and D.A to set her up, threatened her, bullied her, seized assets and bank accounts, ALL to hide these videos. I had a copy and kept them online, they have been there for years.
Kevin Padrick and David Aman abused their power as Oregon attorneys, and as trustee to harass people, bully people, freeze their bank accounts and assets, accuse them of wire fraud, freeze their real estate, take their property, set them up and basically use all manner of foul play and organized corruption to silence them or get them to do as they wanted them to do.
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group was accused of using Summit's money to get a better job, accused of all kinds of foul play and not by me, by those experiencing his wrath. And why was the Department of Justice, not acting with the Highest Fiduciary Duty? I, Crystal Cox was asking this questions and reporting on the Summit bankruptcy. I was sued, harassed and bullied by Obsidian, by Kevin Padrick and David Brown as well as Tonkon Torp Law firm Steven Wilker and David Aman Lawyers.
I believe Kevin Padrick did not act lawful nor ethical in his dealings with his clients "Summit" and therefore a financial shortfall turned into years of disasters, indictments, lawsuits and TONS of money for Kevin Padrick and Tonkon Torp law firm.
The debtor, Summit, hired Obsidian Finance Group, LLC and its principal, Kevin Padrick, in connection with a "potential" bankruptcy. You can see from the Testimony of Patricia Whittington in Obsidian v. Cox, that Obsidian "planned" for Summit to go into bankruptcy and did not ever intend to follow the contract and actually restructure debt, as the contract in the Exhibits shows, signed between Obsidian Finance Group and Summit.
After the debtor filed its chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, the Bankruptcy Court appointed Padrick as the chapter 11 trustee. Kevin Padrick, was at that time, clearly, an "insider" as a matter of law and had no legal right to be the trustee. On top of that internal emails, as shown in Exhibits ( the Susan Ford, Susan Shank eMail) appointing a trustee was NOT in the best interest of the creditor, was not needed and was an extraordinary measure to take. Especially when CRO Terry Vance had everything under control and it was costing the creditors millions a month less.
The court cannot interfere with contract law, yet Judge Randall Dunn ruled that Kevin Padrick be appointed Trustee which was in clear opposition to the best interest of the Creditors and violated contract law, as he was under contract with the Debtor and worked for them and was therefore and insider.
I, Crystal Cox allege that Judge Marco Hernandez, knows that Kevin Padrick broke the LAW and I alleges that he is protecting Perkins Coie mainly, and Judge Michael Simon. And he made me, my quality of life, family, friends, reputation and health the collateral damage.
As a matter of Bankruptcy Code, Kevin Padrick was not LEGALLY able to be the TRUSTEE as a MATTER OF LAW. Therefore the Summit Bankruptcy should be VOID, started over and Kevin Padrick and all his co-conspirators such as Judge Randall Dunn, DOJ Trustee Pamela Griffith, Tonkon Torp’s Leon Simpson, and Perkins Coie Steven Hedberg SHOULD all go to JAIL.
It is a BLATANT Fact that Kevin Padrick did not declare in his trustee statement that he had prior contracts with Summit and clear conflicts of interest in working for the debtor and was therefore legally an insider, and in bankruptcy code, an “insider” is not allowed to be a Trustee. And a fact per the record that a TRUSTEE was NOT in the best interest of the creditors PERIOD.
Being an "insider" is against the law, two folds, in this case, as he has to NOT be an "insider" to be a "qualified intermediary" as the business that went bankruptcy was a 1031 Exchange business, of which the Law, IRS code states that an insider cannot participate in nor facilitate the exchanges.
Kevin Padrick violated the rights of the Summit Principals and harmed Creditors and Investors.
The Summit Principals are in jail, set up by their financial advisor Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick and aided and abetted by Judge Michael Simon, Judge Randall Dunn, Judge Ann Aiken, and Judge Marco Hernandez, alleges Defendant Crystal Cox.
On August 25th of 2009, Tonkon Torp Attorney David Aman deposed CPA, insider Stephanie DeYoung
David Aman, attorney for Kevin Padrick as the trustee in the Summit bankruptcy proceeding, in criminal complaints against Stephanie Deyoung for video taping a meeting, and Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group as the Debtors advisor to help them restructure debt, deposed Stephanie DeYoung, at this time as the record clearly shows he asked Stephanie under oath, what was the intentions of blogger Crystal Cox He knew that Cox was reporting on the story and was not the source of the story. Yet he filed a 10 million dollar lawsuit against me, Crystal Cox, again representing Kevin Padrick and Obsidian as well as the interest of himself and his own law firm who were involved in the corruption that I was and am alleging .
The lawsuit alleged that I, Crystal Cox maliciously with knowledge of it being false posted information online about them. He did this willfully, neglectfully and with superior knoweldge of the law and the facts as he had deposed Deyoung 1.5 years prior, and knew that Cox was reporting on the story and had been for 3 years by that time.
On or around March 14th 2010, having not been contacted yet, Stephanie DeYoung initiated her own FBI interview.
She found out the the FBI did not know bankruptcy law and that they had already spoke to her clients, one being Guy Vernon.
This interview upset many people, to this day I am not sure who all was upset or worried. I do know that 5 days later Stephanie DeYoung was handcuffed, and taken by police to Sageview Mental Institute (Cascade HealthCare). She was drugged almost to death within the first 24 hours. At this time I received online communications via taunting webstats from Oregon and the San Jose area, and phone calls in which led me to believe that Stephanie was not meant to come out of Sageview alive.
After a month in sageview, Stephanie got word to me, and she told me then when they committed her she signed papers that only I could have access to her medical records, as she did not trust anyone in Summit nor her then husband Bret Deyoung who, along with her father, signed her into the Sageview.
She was denied to talk to me, kept from the phone and internet, kept drugged. Once she finally got contact to me, I had a 3rd party interview her and posted it online in attempt to make sure that she came out of Sageview alive.
This interview was on April 18th 2010 and is posted online at the following links;
On or about the end of April 2010, Stephanie was released from Sageview, after threats of 6 months there. She was released only if she signed a contract of some sort that she would not talk to me, an investigative reporter. This had nothing to do with her alleged medical condition. She was involuntarily incarcerated by Summit insiders to keep her from talking to me. David Aman and Kevin Padrick accessed this information and violated her HIPAA rights.
Involved in this involuntary committal to silence a whistleblower was Mark Neuman, Brett DeYoung, St. Charles Health, CEO Jim Diegel, Patricia Whittington VP of Obsidian Finance Group and on the board of St. Charles, Dr. Jeffrey Gray, Dr. Benjamin Ray Eliason, Sharon Stevens, Brian Stevens, Deschutes County Social Workers and others.
Internal eMails showing that those inside the bankruptcy KNEW it was not in the creditors best interest to have a Trustee.
See the Susan Ford email in the exhibits that clearly show ALL parties, attorneys, Judge Randall Dunn, the creditors attorneys, the DOJ trustee; knew that it was NOT in the credotors best interest to appoint a trustee.
Internal eMail between David Aman and Robert Opera discussing possible tax fraud
See Exhibit David Aman Robert Opera Email Discussing Tax Issues. Though David Aman maliciously, willfully with knowledge of the truth claimed that I, Crystal Cox accused his client of tax fraud, actually it was an insider issue and he knew it.
Objection to the Fees Motion against David Aman and Kevin Padrick in the Summit Bankruptcy Proceedings.
In the Summit bankruptcy there was an Objection to the fees filed in which had 189 pages, as seen in exhibits and stated massive issues in the bankruptcy case, as I reported on.
The Summit Principals had a Liquidity Shortfall that "Could" lead to a Liquidity Crisis. They were recommended to contact Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group, in 12-2008, by a Key Bend Oregon Developer William Smith of Smith Properties in Bend, Oregon, as they were told Kevin knew people with deep pockets and could help them sell properties fast so that they could quickly pay off Creditors. Summit had enough liquid and E and O insurance to get started and Kevin Padrick, Oregon attorney and co-principal of Obsidian Finance Group
Obsidian Finance Group, a firm that advises financially troubled businesses, was hired by Summit BEFORE they filed a "debtor in possession bankruptcy. This is a violation of bankruptcy code. As noted in Patricia Whittington's testimony in Obsidian v. Cox, Obsidian planned on bankrupting Summit all along, even though they were hired to save the company from bankruptcy. And it was to be a "debtor in possession". Obsidian violated their contract and creditors (real estate consumers) paid the price. Obsidian made millions over years and their clients, Summit, went to jail.
11 U.S.C. § 1104(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code
Section 1104(a) of the Bankruptcy Code governs appointment of a chapter 11 talks about a trustee being appointed before a confirmation of a plan. Kevin Padrick was appointed before there was "confirmation" of a plan and he did not disclose that he had prior contracts with the debtor to help them restructure debt and sell assets to people he claimed to Summit had deep pockets and could bail them out quickly.
Summit hired Kevin Padrick with a hundred thousand dollars for fees and services paid to Obsidian Finance Group, under a signed contract as the record shows.
Kevin Padrick was under contract, working for Summit, advising Summit, took their money, as the Video taped meeting and signed contract clearly show.
As a matter of bankruptcy law, Kevin Padrick should not have been legally allowed to be the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy.
Judge Randall Dunn (possible relative to Michael Dunn Pacificorp CEO), and Pamela Griffith DOJ Trustee, as well as Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Perkins Coie lawyers Steven Hedberg and Michael Simon (now Judge Michael Simon wife of U. S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici, said to be Portland's power team, helped Kevin padrick to get this well connected and massively lucrative 5 years gig as Trustee.
Kevin Padrick is also enabled by special connections to Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Gordon Smith through trumped up Timber appraisals for Timber REITS Obsidian Finance Group was selling at the time. And deals to try and overtake longview fiber. Senator Gordon Smith evaluated Timber that made the Timber REITS of Obsidian's worth alot more.
Senator Gordon Smith
"6) The report, released by U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., placed the value of the timber that could be legally and profitably cut immediately after the fire at about $171.8 million. It said about $32.3 million of that has been recovered to date.
The report said information “shows clearly that 42 percent of the volume per acre has been lost since late 2002,” largely from decay. However, the thought of logging the area is anathema to many scientists and environmentalists who say the best way to help the area recover is to leave it alone. Rolf Skar, with the Cave Junction-based Siskiyou Project conservation group, disagreed. “There has never been a single injunction on a single roadless area in Biscuit,” he said. He said the report is top-heavy with economic concerns and does not address such costs as maintaining replanted areas, fire risk and recreation loss.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1142565911265060.xml&coll=7" - Note, the Oregon Seems to have Pulled the Article, in my Opinion, in connection to Jeff Manning FRIEND of Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group.
4) Unless you’re a keen observer of the forest products business, you might have been surprised this month to see that the bidders for Longview Fibre Co. and its 587,000 acres of timberland were two obscure Portland investment companies. Who are these guys with their $1.72 billion offer? Turns out that The Campbell Group, which wants Longview’s trees, is one of the largest private timberland owners in the country. And its partner in the Longview bid, Obsidian Finance Group, is led by a coterie of lawyers who once cut deals for now-defunct Willamette Industries.
The forest products industry is changing quickly, if quietly, and several Portland companies are in the thick of it. “Just as oil and gas fund managers are concentrated in Dallas, Houston and Denver, and high-tech fund managers are concentrated in Silicon Valley, Portland is a natural location for timberland fund managers,” said Matt Donegan, who, as co-president of Forest Capital Partners, is among those fund managers.
Historically, old-school timber giants such as International Paper Co. and Louisiana-Pacific Corp. managed vast empires that included both mills and forestland. But tax and business changes over the past decade encouraged specialization, and companies increasingly split ownership of the trees from production in the mills.
Enter privately held timber-investment management organizations, or TIMOs, which are quickly overtaking traditional publicly traded companies as owners of the nation’s timberland.
At their peak, International Paper, Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific Corp. and Boise Cascade Corp. owned more than 25 million acres.
TIMOs and other nonmanufacturing firms now own nearly all of those lands, with the exception of International Paper’s holdings, which are being auctioned off. TIMOs are expected to be among the highest bidders.
Pension funds are the biggest investors in TIMOs nationwide, as they seek a hard asset that seems less volatile than stocks and that works well as a long-term investment. Federal tax rulings in recent years have allowed nonprofit endowments to invest in TIMOs with the same favorable tax treatment they have with stock-market investments, adding to the investors seeking timberland. “So the timber companies have worked for hundreds of years to build these tree farms in Oregon and Washington,” Atterbury said. “Now, that is being broken up. . . . Is it going to get the same treatment? It’s a question.”
5) Douglas County plans to take a direct role in helping the Bureau of Land Management develop new management policies for forest lands in Western Oregon. The county has commissioned the College of Forestry at Oregon State University — at a cost of $105,000 — to formulate a harvest scheduling model using geographic information systems, vegetation data and harvesting prescriptions developed by the BLM.
The model would be used to evaluate different management strategies for reducing fire hazards in BLM forests, including more than 600,000 acres of Oregon & California Railroad trust lands managed by the agency in Douglas County.
The approach will give the county a much stronger voice than it has had in the past on a major policy decision, Douglas County Commissioner Doug Robertson said. It resulted from agreements signed with both the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service giving the county cooperator status.
The O&C lands included all odd-numbered sections of land, not including those with mineral deposits, within 20 miles of each side of the proposed rail line. The land grant was provided to give the railroad the cash to build its line by selling individual parcels. The unsold parcels were later reclaimed by the federal government after the O&C Railroad and later Southern Pacific violated terms of the land grant.
Active federal management of the properties began with the passage of the O&C Act. Douglas County contains the largest acreage of O&C lands — 618,000 acres. Jackson County has 390,00 acres, followed by Josephine County with 259,000 acres.
The OSU team will be led by John Sessions, the author of the Douglas County-commissioned report on the aftermath of the 2002 Biscuit Fire in southern Oregon. Sessions was criticized recently for trying to quash an article by an OSU graduate student before it appeared in Science magazine.
Daniel Donato, a student in the School of Forestry, suggested that commercial logging harms forest recovery in the first years after a fire because young seedlings get trampled. Commissioner Dan Van Slyke said he was very satisfied with Sessions’ work on the Biscuit study and said the county will benefit by having his crew work on the current project. "
It is also important to note that Public Lands, BLM, were simply given to Obsidian Finance Group, so they could create Oregon's largest Solar Project. Obsidian Finance Group, IS Obsidian Renewables, Outback Solar, the Black Cap Project and many more connected Solar Companies owned by Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick and David W. Brown.
See the legal action out of Salem Oregon whereby David Brown and Obsidian Finance Group sued the State of Oregon out of sheer greed as they were awarded 10 million in tax credits as well as grant money (given to them for FREE) for one solar company, they created many more to get 10 million in solar tax credits (lending assets) for each solar farm (DBA) they started.
The State of Oregon Protested so they sued the State of Oregon.
PacifiCorp (Michael Dunn) purchased the Black Cap Project, and signed wattage contracts with Obsidian Finance Group for Millions a year for 20 years. This was made possible by what seems to be Free Land, and 15 Million Dollars in Grants. 10 Million in Oregon BETC Credits and 5 Million from Oregon Energy Trust, of which, I believe that PUBLIC FIGURE, David W. Brown is on the board.
David Brown of Obsidian Finance Group is also a registered Lobbyist.
Obsidian Finance Group is an Investment Firm dealing in Timber REITS, Solar REITS, Mutual Funds and investments that heavily involve the Solar, Utility and Timber Business. Obsidian Finance Group is of PUBLIC Interest. Judge Marco Hernandez acted in Conspiracy to Protect the Interests of Portland Oregon Law Firms Tonkon Torp, Perkins Coie, Sussman Shank, and Miller Nash.
Judge Marco Hernandez acted in Conspiracy to Protect the Interests of Portland Oregon Judge Michael Simon who was a Creditor Attorney from Perkins Coie Law Firm during the Summit Bankruptcy and in one of the high profile lawsuit involving Oregon's Biggest Bank, Umpqua Bank. Judge Marco Hernandez did not disclose connections to the Summit Bankruptcy, as Judge Marco Hernandez is connected to Judge Michael Simon.
Judge Marco Hernandez knew full well that Obsidian Finance Group is of Public Concern, yet Judge Marco Hernandez deliberately created a way for Obsidian Finance Group to easily win a defamation lawsuit against Blogger Crystal Cox, because I was exposing information that, should it be believed, and get "wind", would hurt Oregon's Biggest Law Firms and Utility Companies as well as harm the interests of Judge Michael Simon, Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Gordon Smith. It is believed that Senator Gordon Smith is related to William Smith of Bill Smith Properties Bend Oregon, whom recommended Obsidian Finance Group to the Summit Principals.
I, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox have owned my own real estate company for 10 years and have a Degree In Forestry, as well as owned and operated my own Forestry Technician company.
Judge Randall Dunn and Dept. of Justice Trustee Pamela Griffith seemingly showed total disregard for bankruptcy law and Sussman Shank, debtors attorneys and Perkins Coie, creditor's attorneys did nothing to stand up to Kevin Padrick.
Appointing Kevin Padrick as Trustee was NOT in the best interest of the Creditors, as insider emails by Susan Ford of Sussman Shank and the "All" she speaks of, sure seem to have concern that this appointment is not in the best interest of the Creditors yet it happened anyway, and in violation of U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Creditor Annie Buell made deals with Kevin Padrick so that she would get paid off sooner, so she helped convince the other creditors along with Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie that Kevin Padrick was the way to go.
Per 1104 c, of the bankruptcy code appointing Kevin Padrick was NOT in the "best interests of creditors and the estate", nor does it seem that professional insiders, attorneys involved as you see in the emails on this blog. So why does bankruptcy code 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a) seem to be flat out ignored by the courts, and why did Stephanie Deyoung, whistle blower on this case endure so much harassment from Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick year after year, and she initiated her own FBI interview to tell the FBI all this and she was ignored, set up, harassed and worse. All because, as an insider, a CPA and understanding the internal documents, witnessing the internal emails, and knowing the laws she spoke out, she was not heard.
Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick retaliated through the extreme and ruined many lives to keep their secrets, along with their attorneys at Tonkon Torp Law Firm.
"The party seeking appointment of a chapter 11 trustee has the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, " as in 1104 (3) this did not happen in the Summit Bankruptcy.
"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. 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. "
Forbes and the New York Times are protecting Kevin Padrick and stating flat out defamatory, slanderous lies to massive third parties regarding me, blogger Crystal Cox in order to cover up corruption in and among Portland Oregon’s top judges, law firms, utility companies, finance companies, and politicians.
Bankruptcy Code 1104 (a) : the Courts and attorneys knowingly BROKE this Rule in the Summit Bankruptcy.
Kevin Padrick's Declaration, which includes Summit Contract and him talking of his engagement letter and the meeting that was video taped, this was Feb. 12th 2009 as he says in his own words, and the next day his appointment as trustee was entered into the courts.
Kevin Padrick was in "control" of the debtor, his client, before he was appointed Trustee, this violates bankruptcy code 1104.
Pamela Griffith, DOJ Trustee had Conflicts of Interest with the Trustee Kevin Padrick and with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm.
Asst. US Trustee Pamela Griffith worked for Ransom, Blackman & Simson . This is Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm who helped Kevin Padrick get the Trustee Job. Pamela Griffith worked on other bankruptcy with Kevin Padrick before she was a US Trustee with the Department of Justice.
Pamela Griffith, Leon Simson and Miller Nash where attorney Kevin Padrick worked, have worked together many times. Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash worked together for the appellees in the Coast Trading Company, Inc. bankruptcy. In Coast Trading case, Kevin Padrick objected to the trustee getting paid before the creditors were paid. (in complete opposite of his actions in the Summit bankruptcy wanted himself paid commissions to the point of freezing assets til contracts were in place in court for him to ensure 15% on each sale plus his $500 an hour fee.
Leon Simson also worked for Ball Janik before he went to work for Tonkon Torp. Ball Janik worked with Padrick on the Homestreet case and others.
Below is a part of an email from Mark Neuman
“I also think we need to explore why Summit has chosen to just go after Umpqua . They think that is the easiest? Here are the banks that we banked with over the years:
Western Bank (bought out by Washington Mutual) handled everything until about 1999?
Bank of the Cascades handled everything until about 2005?
Columbia River Bank handled everything until about 2007
Umpqua Bank handled everything until bankruptcy on 12/19/08
Sterling Bank deposited money with them and worked on a joint marketing plan
Capital Pacific Bank deposited money with them and they knew quite a bit about Summit and other entities
Northwest Bank deposited money with them but doubt they knew much about anything else
So why Umpqua ? BOTC and CRB are in big trouble financially and may not make it. However they both made loans on various things, especially CRB. They had all of our financials so they knew alot. Western Bank bot out by WAMU and now Chase. Seems too hard and records are old. Sterling ? Don't know. Capital Pacific? Very small Portland bank. Northwest? Didn't know much about us. I really think they are going for one big hit from Umpqua .
Targeting Umpqua Bank seemed unlawful. Kevin Padric and attorney Michael Simon of Perkins Coie, now Judge Michael Simon was the ones instigating this legal action.
Kevin Padrick was Steven Hedberg’s superior at Million Nash Law Firm.
This influenced his job as Creditors committee attorney as he got Padrick into the job, even though it was clear by insider emails that it was not in the best interest of the creditors to have a Trustee and it was clear that it was a violation of LAW as Padrick was under contract with Summit and even pitched himself to the creditors while on paid time and under contract with Summit to help them restructure debt.
Obsidian FInance Group and David Aman could not sue Stephanie DeYoung as per some agreement of her filing for personal bankruptcy. So instead they sued me, blogger Crystal Cox for 10 million knowing full well that I was simply reporting on the Summit Bankruptcy.
1031 Echanges Companies
I do not condone Summits actions in any way, however if their actions were against the law then, in the name of consumer protection, as a real estate Broker I ask the DOJ to investigate all 1031 Exchange companies.
I have owned my own real estate brokerage for over 14 years and I say ALL 1031 Exchange companies have this same standard of practice of investing and risking the money of their clients, the real estate consumer, who is unsuspecting. This could happen to any 1031 Exchange client anywhere in the U.S. on any given day. And seems to be legal per IRS codes that need changed to protect consumers.
1031 Exchange companies everywhere take the real estate consumers money and invest it in whatever they please for 6 months. They get to use this money as an intermediary for 6 months or more for FREE, no interest. This IRS code needs changed as it does not benefit consumers as much as it does the exchange companies nationwide.
The 1031 Exchange companies I have experience with FORCE the clients to keep the money there for 6 months, so they can invest it. Though the client can get like kind proerty within 180 days these companies make them go the full 180.
If it is illegal for ONE then ALL needed audited. To ensure this does not happen again to consumers.
Pattern and History
As seen in the Cascadian Homestreet bankruptcy, this same pattern has happened whereby Kevin Padrick lied to his clients to make them think he worked for them and was helping then turns around, in connection with Ball Janick law firm, and Miller Nash and works deals to ruined the company and buy out part himself.
Look at Longview Fiber, Aloha lumber and attempted and succeeded forced takeovers. As Kevin Padrick learned from Joseph Stilwell whom he still works with, and is on the board of the First Federal Bank in a takeover at this time.
Kevin Padrick controlled the press such as the Oregonian Jeff Manning and the Bend Bulletin. This is a violation of Bankruptcy code I believe. As he manipulated the press on the situation and further incriminated his own clients, Summit, after signing a contract to work for their best interest, taking $100,000 then bailing on them and setting a media frenzy and legal process to make sure they went to jail and he controlled ALL the money and assets for 5 years. With HUGE payoff.
Obsidian Finance Group sues Blogger Crystal Cox.
On January 14th 2011 Obsidian Finance Group sued me, Crystal Cox, to try and silence me and intimate me, due to my reporting on the Summit bankruptcy case. They perjured themselves and claimed that I was the only one accusing them of foul play, tax violations, bankruptcy code violations when many outlets, blogs, media, news of that time were reporting the story. As well as internal emails between attorneys inside the bankruptcy and the DOJ.
I allege that Judge Marco Hernandez was brought into the case to protect his friend and colleague Judge Michael Simon, whom made a lot of money as one of the creditor attorneys in the Summit Bankruptcy as a Perkins Coie attorney.
Judge Hernandez and Judge Simon were sworn in at the same time. Judge Hernandez was not the first Judge in the Obsidian case, Ancer Haggery was and he had just dealt with teh Quantum case which was similar and proved my case should have been dismissed from day one.
I, Crystal Cox, allege that a relative of Obsidian Finance VP Patricia Whittington who worked with Obsidian on marketing and related projects in the Christmas Valley solar farms, was put in as a Jury to sabotage me. Judge Marco Hernandez picked him as head juror. I brought this Jury Tampering to his attention and he dismissed it.
Jury Tampering, Witness Tampering, Threatening and Intimidating a Federal Defendants; "TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1512
§ 1512. TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, VICTIM, OR AN INFORMANT
On November 18th 2011, there was a phone hearing where Judge Marco Hernandez ruled on a motion I filed to exclude a man named Sean Boushie who had threatened to kill me and was constantly intimidating me and in communications with David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm. Judge Hernandez did exclude him from the trial however, he did NOT seem to initiate and FBI investigation into the matters and instead led David Aman, who he knew was involved in intimidating me, to proceed to trial as Plaintiff's council.
Transcripts in Obsidian Case
(Full Transcript in Exhibits)
On November 29th, 2001, I, Crystal Cox had a one day trial for Obsidian v. Cox where they sued me to suppress my Free Speech, Chill my Voice and hide corruption in Portland Oregon. Below are Transcripts from that hearing where I questioned Obsidian under oath, in regard to the Summit Bankruptcy. (See Trial Transcripts, Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox, Judge Marco Hernandez Presiding)
Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Principal Testimony
Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox Questioning Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group
Cross Exam starts on page 90 of the Trial Transcripts ( Click Here to View )
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COX:
Q. Mr. Padrick, when did you first see this blog posting on December 25th? When did you first read it?
A. I don't know. Shortly -- I assume shortly after that. I don't -- I try not to look at your sites, so I was alerted by, I think, one of my employees and looked at it.
Q. And this post caused you financial harm between December 25th and January 14th?
A. I'm sure it did. But more importantly, it's caused me significant harm thereafter and will cause me significant harm for the entirety of my career. "
So this Blog post did not really harm him during that time, yet he filed a Lawsuit for what it might do "thereafter"? I did not make the information up, that is obvious, there is internal emails and documents to support the information, so how did I ruin his career by exposing him for ruining the life, career, and businesses of hundreds?
Q. Why did you not introduce it into this case until July 22nd of 2011?
MR. AMAN: You can answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: We did. We told you that the statements about tax fraud that you made were false and you needed to take them down. "
Obsidian simply said to take down all blog posts about them, and most all of these I was granted a Summary Judgement on. It is not enough to just say what I stated was false, why not provide proof? Why not give me an exact blog post? Also they "Told" me to take down the tax fraud posts but did not tell me what posts they were referring to and this was before I posted the Post I was on Trial for.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Why did you not give defendant, me, a blog post to take down? Why did you not ask me take down any particular blog post?
A. I wanted you to take down any post that accuses us of tax fraud, any post. It doesn't make any difference if it was this post or the post on EthicsComplaint.com or the post on ObsidianFinanceGroupSucks.com or any of your many websites. We want you to take them all down."
See this is not relevant, as I was granted a Summary Judgement. And he is talking about other blogs, and giving no specific instance of accusing him of anything. He simply wanted all my posts taken down, yet he had no legal right to such.
Q. Why did you not provide proof to me that that was false so that I could look at it and remove the post?
A. We told you it was false."
Telling me it is False is NOT Enough. I had read internal documents, emails, watched meeting videos, read contracts, read transcripts, read depositions and more. I had plenty of documents to prove to me that there was fraud, collusion and corruption. So why not give any documents at all that proved other wise?
Q. Why did you not provide documented proof of any kind or call me and try to talk to me about it being nonfactual?
A. My attorney sent you e-mails and told you to take it down."
This is not proof of any kind, the Attorney involved in the Corruption I was Exposing, David Aman of Tonkon Torp, told me to take it down? Of course he did, knowing full well he got emails from Attorney Robert Opera long ago that suggested issues of tax problems. And there was other evidence out there. Telling me to take it down was not proof.
Q. What date was that e-mail?
A. It was shortly after the post. I don't know exactly when."
I was not given a Cease and Desist AFTER that Blog Post, I was sent a Cease and Desist BEFORE that December 25th 2010 Blog Post.
Q. It was December 22nd.
A. Okay. Shortly before that particular post, we told you to take down the tax fraud posts."
This proves that the wording of the lawsuit, which was exactly the same wording of the Cease and Desist, this was regarding posts prior to December 25th, 2010, which was the date of the Blog Post I was on Trial for, and those posts I seem to have got a Summary Judgement on. The post I was on trial for which asked the question of Tax Fraud was after this date.
Q. Do you have documentation of exact revenue loss due to this exact blog post in any way?
A. We know that from our -- we have had only one advisory assignment, new advisory assignment in 2011. This is -- this is a period of distress in the economy. It's a period of structuring -- this is the time when we would normally be involved in the greatest amount of advisory business. We have had one. I can give you specific examples of when we have had a client call us and say that they tried to refer a new client to us and that client is asking them about your blog post; and then we had to provide information to our existing client, to try to go to the potential new client, and then we didn't get that business.
"Advisory" clients? What? David Brown testified that it was about a Bank VP and a loss of a 10 Million Dollar Loan, and now its alleged advisory clients that you lost millions over. And we are to believe that from December 25th 2010 to January 14th 2011, in 20 days over the biggest Holiday of the year, you lost this many advisory clients for 2011? Really? Or are you talking about AFTER the lawsuit was filed you lost these alleged clients?
Kevin Padrick Continues with his answer
I can give you examples of how businesses that we have tried to start because our advisory business -- you killed our advisory business -- where we tried to start new businesses and fund new businesses. And the people involved in those businesses would normally want us to be involved in the business and have said to us they're so afraid that if -- because of what you said that, one, either you'll go after them or, two, that the damage as a result of that blog post will cause their business to be adversely impacted by our reputation."
Well why did he not provide the examples, provide the proof. I asked all 3 witnesses from Obsidian Finance if they had any documents of Proof and they said no.
THE COURT: Can you do me a favor and just move back a little bit from or move the microphone back a
little bit from you.
THE WITNESS: Sorry."
See the Court Clerk commented to me later on this one, Kevin Padrick was angry and all over the microphone. He had to be asked to move back.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Do you have documented proof that this blog post caused you any financial damage whatsoever?
A. I told you what it is. It's common sense. Anybody who is in business, anybody in business knows that the first thing you do --"
Ok so it's just common sense that the exact blog post cost him millions?
A. I think I get to answer your question.
THE COURT: Well, actually, you're not answering her question. Go ahead.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Did you prove that defendant knowingly -- that I knowingly posted false information about your company?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. AMAN: Thank you."
Which is odd because Aman claims over and over that I "knowingly" posted false information, yet I am not allowed to ask this of any witness.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Have you read any other blogs that talk derogatory about your company regarding the Summit 1031 bankruptcy?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AMAN: Thank you.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Have you been in other lawsuits?
THE COURT: Wait a minute. That means you get to answer the question.
MS. COX: Oh, sorry.
THE WITNESS: Yes. A blog from the daughter, who was the recipient of stolen monies from Summit 1031, and who is the daughter of one of the parties indicted by the federal grand jury. So that's the only other one."
This is not true, this is misleading and defamatory, she was not the recipient of stolen money. And the part about reading her site too? Wait... I thought I was the only one in the Entire World who spoke negatively of Saint Kevin Padrick? Now there is another? WOW.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. That's the only one that you've ever read?
A. That's the only other one that I've ever read. That's what you asked me.
Q. Have you heard of any other blogs talking derogatory or news articles about your company whatsoever?
A. No. "
This is not true as there is issue with Longview Fibre, with Lake County, with Solar Tax Credits, with HomeStreet Bank and more and people were, yes, talking about it and he knew it.
Q. Have you been accused of anything similar to what I write about in any other legal cases, such as the
A. Tax fraud? No.
Q. I did not accuse you of tax fraud. I asked you a question. I'm talking about deferred gains, conflict of
interest, issues regarding a bankruptcy proceeding. Have you ever been accused by any other federal court?
A. No. We have been -- we have had -- in the Cascadia case, there was a -- the Court said that a portion of our fees would not be allowed due to a conflict of interest occurring on a certain date. Fees were allowed prior to that, but not after then.
It had nothing to do -- it was a technical issue. The creditors actually wrote a paper in support -- the
actual creditors of the case actually wrote a paper in support of our position."
It was not a "technical" issue, it was the fact that Kevin Padrick took advantage of clients in distress to make a good deal for Obsidian, and they now own part of Yarrowbay over it all. It is about undisclosed conflicts of interest, read this opinion, look into the story. I am not the reason for Kevin's bad reputation, he is. ( Click Here for the Homestreet Bank / Cascadia Case) .
Q. Do you have documented proof of the percentage you quoted earlier, the money you got back for the victims? Do you have documented proof for the Court of getting that money back for the victims or is it just stated?
A. No, we have documented proof."
Why was I not allowed this in discovery?
Q. Did you have a contract with the Summit principals before you were appointed as the trustee?
This is a flat out lie. Not only was the contract signed before Summit Filed for Bankruptcy, but also months before he was appointed as trustee.
The Obsidian Contract with Summit was Signed December 18th 2008, Summit Filed for bankruptcy on the 19th of December 2008, and Kevin Padrick was appointed as Trustee on February 17th 2009.
Q. No signed contract whatsoever?
A. No signed contract with the Summit principals whatsoever; and I would not have had a signed contract with the principals, period.
Q. That's not true.
THE COURT: That's a statement, not a question."
Well it is not true, Kevin was trying to get tricky on what the "Summit Principals" were, yet we see by David Brown and Patricia Whittington's testimony, that indeed this is the same 4 men. Kevin Padrick flat out LIED under Oath.
MS. COX: Sorry.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm leaning too far forward again.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Who appointed you? How did you get the job as the trustee for the Summit bankruptcy?
A. We went through the interview process with the U.S. Trustee's Office, and we were appointed."
This is not the whole story. He pitched himself to the Creditors while working for the Debtor, and billed the Debtor for this time. Also you in the Judge Dunn Audio of February 11th 2009, you see that Judge Dunn seemed to be the one pushing for Obsidian to take over the Trustee Job. How in the world did the U.S. Trustee come to appoint Kevin Padrick, knowing full well he had been under contract with the debtor? And don't forget Tonkon Torp Leon Simson use to work with DOJ Trustee Pamela Griffith.
Q. Who invited you to the creditors' meeting to interview for this position?
A. To the creditors' meeting? I don't think there was a creditors' meeting."
He pitched himself to the Creditors. Judge Dunn even talked about this presentation in the Court Audio of the Hearing of February 11th 2009.
Q. So you went to a creditors' meeting and gave a talk in order to get this job, and you did not have a contract with Summit, and then you were just appointed?
A. No. We were interviewed by the U.S. Trustee's Office. It's not a creditors' meeting.
Q. So you had no signed contract with Summit at any time?
A. Yes, we had a signed contract with Summit. You asked whether we had a signed contract with the parties who stole the money, and the answer is we never had a signed contract with them. We had a signed contract with Summit for the purpose of liquidating the assets for the benefit of the victims."
I did not ask him if he had a contract with the parties who stole the money, I asked him if he had a contract with Summit and he said, flat out NO. Now he is saying Yes. I asked this (Q. Did you have a contract with the Summit principals before you were appointed as the trustee?) as you see in the transcript, and I asked this (Q. No signed contract whatsoever?) Both times he flat out said, NO.
Q. Was it unusual to be appointed as a trustee by a federal judge, or is that standard practice?
A. It's standard practice to appoint trustees, and it's not unusual at all to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee."
Really well there was internal emails that said it was an extraordinary and costly thing to do and it was NOT in the best interest of the Creditors.
Q. Did you ever deny any legitimate offers before your commission was in place?
A. Didn't deny any legitimate offers."
This too is not true as Internal Documents Show.
MS. COX: No further questions. "
David Brown Obsidian Finance Principal Testimony
Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011, even though at Obsidian V. Cox, the "Trial, David Brown did not seem to remember some of this.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group talks about a Bank VP who refused to testify or even swear to this being fact, yet apparently is the reason for this whole hullabaloo.
This Declaration is in the Exhibits of this complaint..
David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Obsidian Renewables, Sage Renewables, Energetics Solar and many other Oregon Solar Companies, was allowed in a Federal Court of Law, to simply state that his company lost millions over my ONE Blog Post. And between the date of the post which was December 25th 2011 and the Date that the Obsidian V. Cox Lawsuit was filed, which was January 14th, less than 20 days later.
I gave the Courts over 547 pages of my source for the post I was on trial for and it was thrown out as "Hearsay" , yet all David Brown, and Patricia Whittingon of Obsidian Finance Group had to do was simply state that they lost millions with no proof what so ever, Clearly violating the Federal Rule of Evidence and seriously discriminating against Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox.
This, on top of the fact that both David Brown, and Patricia Whittington of Obsidian Finance Group had admitted under Oath that they did not read the subject blog post during that time frame, and seem to have no way to really prove that this blog post had anything to do with any decision making at all.
David Brown was allowed to simply state a loss, though it was hearsay, and though the Bank VP did not show up, and with no documents, spreadsheets, or sworn statement of any kind. Even though, at my hearing the Day Before the Trial, Called "PreTrial Conference", Judge Marco Hernandez clearly told David Aman, Tonkon Torp attorney for the plaintiff, that David Brown would not be able to simply state a loss and that the Bank VP would have to Testify. Here is the Court Transcript:
**Hearing November 28th 2011, Day Before Obsidian V. Cox Trial**
Page 11,12 and part of 13
The Court: (aKa Judge Hernendez)
"The next thing that I know that I took a look at
and that was raised -- actually, I don't know if this one
was raised or not, but it is an issue that's been
floating around, and it's an issue that I consider to be
so obvious that I have to raise it,
and that has to do with a couple of your witnesses
that are going to be testifying to conversations they had either with --
I think one was with a bank, or perhaps they both were to
lenders, about how the effects -- or how the blog posts
have affected their business relationships with your
And to the extent that that testimony is in the
realm of hearsay, it's not coming in.
And I recognize that you reported a difficulty, in that the people that
you would like to subpoena and have come testify don't
want to do that because they don't want to incur the
wrath of defendant in this case, but that's not an
exception to the hearsay rule. It still is hearsay.
So unless you can point to some exception, it's
not coming in.
MR. AMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
It's being offered for a non-hearsay purpose,
which is the effect on the listener and the listener's
state of mind.
So in these cases, the third parties are
reporting that they have a certain reaction to
statements, and they're reporting their state of mind.
It's not being offered for the
truth of the matter asserted.
It's being offered for the state of mind of
the third parties who are reporting the information to the witnesses who are going to come testify.
No. You haven't convinced me.
It's not admissible.
If you want them, subpoena them, get them in
Then the defendant has the opportunity to
cross-examine on the issue which you really want, and
that is "We've lost business as a result of this."
You need to have a person come in and testify that they made
a business decision based on that blog, and that business
decision is "We're not going to Obsidian," and that's why
you're entitled to damages.
And I'm giving this to you now, so if you want to
rush out and put a subpoena in those individuals' hands,
go ahead and get that done.
As to her other objections, they're overruled.
Let's look at the -- as far as witnesses go. " **
Yet the Very next Day Judge Hernandez allowed a stated loss and did not follow through with the above.
It was about ONE Blog post, sounds here like Judge Hernandez also is leading the direction that this is about more then one post when the trial was about one post.
I was not told I could "rush out" and subpoena another witness. This Bank VP did not show up to testify, did not sign a sworn statement, and yet the very next day Obsidian Finance Group witnesses David Brown and Patricia Whittington were, indeed, allowed to speak in the "realm of hearsay"
"The Court: No. You haven't convinced me. It's not admissible."
And the Very Next Day it Happened Anyway.
What Changed Overnight?
Was there an "exception" pointed to that I was not involved in. Did David Aman meet with Judge Hernandez that night and talk about Defamation laws that would allow only stated loss and that it was applied, Judge Hernandez seemed to have an exact opposite view of that subject the next day.
"the third parties are reporting that they have a certain reaction to statements", says David Aman, so 4th Party David Brown is going to Testify that 3rd Party Bank VP had a "Certain Reaction"?
I, Pro Se Defendant Blogger Crystal Cox was not given another night to round up a "witness" that was previously undisclosed, yet David Aman, Tonkon Torp attorney for the Plaintiff was.
The "listeners state of mind", yet my "state of mind" when I posted was not allowed and actual malice, as Judge Hernandez specifically said, did not apply to me in this case.
At the Obsidain v. Cox tiral David Brown Testified to Hearsay and he David Brown stated a loss that did not truly exist from December 25th 2010 to January 14th 2011 and in fact David Brown testified that he had not even read the blog post they sued me on during that time, so how did he come to believe that particular blog post caused any financial damage? Was that not Hearsay? Yet Judge Hernandez allowed this Testimony in, Why?
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011.
David Brown says he makes this statement on personal knowledge, and if called to testify he could attest to the facts herein, yet on the stand when called to testify, he avoided it.
the First page (Page 2, Document 30 of Obsidian V. Cox), of the Declaration of David Brown of Obsidian Finance Group is the, I swear it's true and personal knowledge bullshit ( though he not even read the blog post during the time he alleged it cost Obsidian Millions).. anyhoo...
He says he is focused on Solar Power Projects, thing is folks, it seems to me that, David Brown did not have a clue what Kevin Padrick was really up to as the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy, all he knew is mass amounts of money was coming into his company, Solar connections were being made and whether Obsidian Finance was an "Insider" or not was the farthest thing from David Brown's mind, in my Opinion and assessment of the situation.
In his declaration David Brown says "in particular projects using solar tax credits as a primary vehicle to assist in obtaining finance".
In using "tax credits" for anything, that makes you of public concern right. Yet Judge Hernandez claimed that Cox’s reporting was not of public concern, Cox alleges that he did this to protect Obsidian and portland Elite law firms.
It is public tax dollars that fund such and it is the public who use the wattage that pays for the wattage contracts that Obsidian Finance Group has with PG and E, Bonneville, Pacific Power and Such.
They get tax breaks and they get huge money loaned at great rates and get tax credits, so essentially they set up Solar Farms for free and sell back the Electricity with Bonneville, PG &;E, Energy Northwest, Pacific Power and others to the general public who paid for them to have tax breaks in the first place.
Getting these FREE tax credits is more than just a tax write off , it is an asset, one they can get loans, leverage on and was given to them free by Tax Dollars, State Programs, and Government Programs. This is of massive public concern. And they had trouble getting a loan against this asset from one bank VP because he allegedly read my blogs that exposed the TRUTH about these guys. So they sued me, Crystal Cox for 10 million dollars for defamation, without even asking for a retraction or telling me what blog post they were suing me over. So the entire case was about this VP not giving them a loan on this FREE asset given by the Government to them, and yet Hernandez ruled it was not of public concern.
Also note that Tax Credits are bought and sold, they are an asset like real estate or other assets and you can get loans via this asset, and in this case the "asset" was given by a FREE Government Program given by the State of Oregon, even though David Aman, flat out lies in his Objection for a New Trial in saying that Obsidian Finance Group was not involved in a Government Program and thereby not a public figure that is a Flat Out LIE, as a Bankruptcy is a Federal Program and so is the Oregon BETC Solar Tax Program.
Kevin Padrick, Patricia Whittington, and David Brown grow richer daily while they lie to federal judges, charges huge fees, sue anyone who disagrees with them and cause havoc wherever they go and create victims of hard working American citizens. While they rake in the money, as PUBLIC tax dollars, Public Utility Dollars, Solar Loans, Bankruptcy Crisis, Government Handouts, and seizing other people's property and lives.
So as number 3, page 2 of David Brown's Declaration says he uses Tax Solar Credits to fund solar projects. What that says to me is that the Oregon Government Gives them an Asset for FREE, that Asset is a "Tax Credit" and this is used to get a loan from a bank to further fund their Solar Projects to get energy from the SUN for FREE and sell it back to you in the form of a public utility, electricity VIA wattage contracts with Bonneville, PG and E, Energy Northwest, Pacific Power or Some other Party in that Business.
David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group / Obsidian Renewables wanted to get all the tax credits they could, whether based in law or not, and they even sued the State of Oregon for not letting them cheat the system.
The Oregon SOS site has David W. Brown owning several solar business names, this is so he can apply to the State of Oregon in different names of different companies to attempt to get 10 Million in Solar Credits for each business name he starts, yet all owned by the same entity.
According to the Oregon SOS site, David W. Brown has the business name, LOST FOREST SOLAR LLC, Sage Renewables, Energetics Solar, Obsidian Renewables, Outback Solar, and many others.MN Services s the Registered Agent Miller Nash address and their Lobbyist Brian Doherty..
David Brown and Ewan Rose of Obsidian are a registered lobbyist.
And David Brown acts, claims under Oath that I am the only one with an issue and that they are not of public concern, this all involves the public at large and even public utilities and public tax dollars.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on to say that earlier this year.., so earlier in 2011 which rules out the time between December 25th 2010, which was the Exact Date of the Blog Post I was on trial for, and the 31st of December, being the end of the year. So that leaves January 1st to January 14th, 2011 for this to have actually happened, as January 14th is when Obsidian Finance Sued me, and January 19th was when I emailed them to offer my services to "Settle" and not spend a year in court and waste public dollars on a frivolous, year long legal battle that is still going. AFTER the Lawsuit was Filed, yet daily they accuse me of extortion, in this offer, even though they flat out asked me to commit a crime in one of their "offers to settle", "Settlement Communications".
So, this is number 3 page 2 is saying to me that, that there were on going discussions, the whole year, and that the bank decision was not about the blog post they sued me on and that this is a flat out lie or at least a serious stretching of possible facts.
What does Earlier this Year mean exactly?
They sued Jan. 14th over a blog post of December 25th 2010.
And this alleged loss of million in revenue, allegedly caused by a blog post of Dec. 25th, 2010, at the end of the year is simply NOT True. And yet they have ruined my life, my family connections, my reputation, my business, my health, my ability ot get a job, a client or rent a home, in extreme retaliation of me reporting the real news of the Summit Bankruptcy.
Sure seems of "Public Concern" to me.
This bank has, to this day refused to be named, why? If the Bank VP really read that post, why not contact me and I would have sent documents to show my source?
If there was a Bank VP and real due diligence was done with any kind of intelligence, then why not contact the source? And if this VP really did his Due Diligence, well then certainly they read the Objection to the Fees in the Summit Bankruptcy, Read the Cascadia Homestreet Bank Lawsuit, Read the Mark Neuman Deposition, Watch Videos of Kevin Padrick speaking from his own mouth, saw the contract where Kevin Padrick - Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Summit - the Debtor BEFORE they filed for Bankruptcy and turned on their own clientand researched the Bankruptcy Laws that apply to such behavior.
Surely this Alleged Bank VP saw the concerned citizens of Lake County and the allegations of Proxy Fights over the Oregon Trail incident, Surely the Bank VP watched the Video Deposition of Stephanie DeYoung and read the documents on Summit1031BkJustice.com which was a blog talking about the exact same documents, legal cases, videos, depositions and insider emails as I was. (that blog went down the day after my Trial).
Surely the Bank VP listened to the Judge Dunn Hearing Audio and could hear for themselves that this judge was strongly suggesting Obsidian Finance Group, an Entity, to be the Bankruptcy Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy knowing full well that Obsidian, Kevin Padrick was under contract with the Debtor, as he himself approved that $100,000 payment. And surely the Bank VP did not rely on the information of one blogger without doing further research. That makes no good financial sense to me.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on in number 4 page 2, to say:
" 4. During the discussions, the VP contacted me and raised serious concerns about the statements that Ms. Cox had made about Obsidian on her websites, particularly the allegations of criminal misconduct, including those involved alleged solar tax credit crimes.
I had an approximately 45-minute conversation with the VP in an effort to persuade him that the statements were false, and the material on the websites should not be of any concern.
The VP expressed concern that this information was "out there", and that there seemed to be no constraints or limits on what Ms. Cox would allege and publish."
David Brown says, "including those involved alleged solar tax credit crimes" yet you see below in his under oath trial testimony he said the bank VP was not concerned with tax fraud.
Ok so, in regard to this David Brown Deposition, the concern was, not if the information was true or not, because simply contacting me or reading documents could prove that, it seems the Information being "Out There"was the alleged concern, of the "Supposed" Bank VP.
And it seems that David Brown, in his effort "to persuade him that the statements were false", seemed to fail and that led him to blame me, Crystal Cox Blogger.
The Bank VP could not be persuaded of the alleged "statements are false", so David Brown obviously had no proof the statements were false.
All anyone has to do is read the documents, the proof and there it is, suspected tax fraud, suspected bankruptcy code violations and more and NOT by me but by a group of people involved and not all investors, creditors but attorneys, and insider emails, documents and contracts and even videos of Kevin Padrick.
I simply got the story found and they retaliated for 3 years and counting.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 page 2-3, number 5 says:
*"5. I recently had several follow up conversations with the VP in an effort to secure a declaration from him for use in responding to the pending sua sponte motion for summary judgment. He ultimately decided not to sign the declaration because, he explained to me, he was afraid Ms. Cox could begin making false and damaging statements about him and/or the bank on her websites." *
Judge Hernandez gave David Aman another day to bring in the Alleged Bank VP to testify against me, and Judge Hernandez said, stated loss was not good enough, this is in the PreTrial Hearing Transcripts of Nov. 28th 2011, the day before the Trial. As we see above in the part of the PreTrial Hearing regarding this issue.
The Declaration from David Brown, Obsidian Finance Group, Signed July 22nd 2011 goes on in number 6 to say,
"6. The VP explained that as a normal part of my due diligence for every potential borrower, he conducts Internet searches using search engines such as Google. In his experience, this is a standard practice in the banking industry and in business in general. That is my experience as well."
So if this is true, then surely the Bank VP researched all the links I gave to documents, videos, proof and I was not simply the reason for the denial of the 10 Million Loan, but it sure seems that the TRUTH was the reason for the denial, as if the Bank VP read my blogs with an open mind then he would have followed it through to the links in the posts to information, documents, court cases, videos, depositions, insider emails that WERE not written by me, blogger Crystal Cox.
Here is a Bit of the Trial Transcript with
David W. Brown, Obsidian Finance UNDER OATH.*Page 163
Line 1 Through 13
David Brown Testimony At Obsidian V. Cox Trial Nov. 29th 2011
"We never did get that loan, though we're still --
we're still trying. And so I don't think he -- I mean,
because it's a bank, he can't read allegations of fact
and not investigate. I mean, he has to discharge his
But it wasn't so much that he was actually
concerned that we had committed tax fraud as what's --
what the heck is going on here, and "Am I going to have
some kind of impact on my reputation or on me as a result
of adding you as" -- we would have been a new customer,
so he was saying "adding you as a new customer."
So I'm not sure where that's going to finally
Page 147 bottom through 160 of Obsidian V. Cox, Trial Transcripts
Line 22, page 147 Through page 160 bottom
I Question David Brown of Obsidian Finance Group
" BY MS. COX:
Q. Were you aware of all of Kevin Padrick's duties and responsibilities as a trustee of the Summit bankruptcy?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Were you aware that -- well, let me redirect that question. Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Summit; and Summit was their client, which we've already had testimony for. What was Obsidian Finance Group under contract with Summit to provide for the $100,000 in this contract we've discussed here?
A. Okay. So typical with a bankruptcy engagement, the bankruptcy estate asks a financial advisor to sign what's called an engagement letter, which is what I assume is referred to as the contract.
So under this engagement letter, it sets out what it is that the financial advisor will evaluate and how they'll go about that. There's usually terms about what people will be assigned to the case, what the hourly billing rates will be. There's information about what information the company will provide and what are called deliverables, what the financial advisor expects to provide.
That engagement letter is the relatively standard form; that is, if you saw two or three, you'd have a pretty good sense of what most of them look like. And they're entered into at the beginning, before the financial advisor has all the information necessary to make a judgment as to where this case will actually go. And so I think the Summit engagement letter was entered into -- typically entered into before you begin the engagement. It's what kind of kicks off the engagement.
Q. So Obsidian Finance Group was under contract, got privy to financial information from Summit under this contract. It would be reasonable to believe that they did get privileged and financial information as representing Summit with this contract?
A. I think the thrust of your question is correct. I don't -- privileged, I'm not so sure about that, because when a company files for bankruptcy, their books are pretty much open. They're not allowed to keep financial secrets from the creditors.
But -- so without using the word "privilege," yes, I think Summit was obligated under the engagement letter to provide us with detailed financial information; and I know they provided us with a lot of financial information.
Q. Was Obsidian Finance Group under contract with Summit before they filed for bankruptcy?
A. Like an awful lot of larger bankruptcy cases, the activity starts a couple of days before the bankruptcy filing is made. Our first contact -- and I'm recalling out loud here. But our first contact on the case came from a law firm, which has got a very well-understood reputation to be a leading bankruptcy law firm. And it was about a new client that that law firm had.
So our first engagement was about bankrupt -- our first conversation was about bankruptcy, but I don't remember if that occurred a few days before they filed or a few days after. The engagement letter I referred to I think would have been with the debtor. So I think the engagement letter probably would have been after the filing of bankruptcy. But that's the way it's typically done. It's not necessarily always done that way.
Q. So what did Obsidian Finance Group -- they got services from Summit. What did -- I mean, I don't know this, and I'm not an attorney. What service were they providing for this $100,000? What service did they provide to Summit?
A. Well, the -- Summit was a company that held money of third parties pending those parties entering into the second half of a real estate exchange. So Summit's customers were people who sold a piece of property. Then they gave Summit the money. It's called parking. So Summit holds the money.
Then when it's time for the second transaction, Summit gives the money back so the parties can buy their second piece of real estate. So the first piece of real estate is sold; then the second piece of real estate is purchased. Summit had taken the money of those people out of the account and was having a difficult time paying it back.
So they were in a bad spot, because they had taken this money. And one of the questions was: How do we -- how do we manage this situation so that the parties can still have their like-kind exchanges, so they can get their money back. And that was an urgent and immediate focus, is what happened here?
What's the true story? Did they really take this money and where is it? And how do we get it back and how do we allow these real estate exchanges to finish on time? Because if you do one of these real estate exchanges, you only have six months to do it in. If you don't do it within those six months, then you incur a big tax penalty; and nobody wanted that situation. So I remember that being, you know, one of the -- one of the most urgent focuses of our attention.
Q. So Obsidian was hired to help Summit restructure so that they didn't have to go bankrupt?
A. No. No, I think that wouldn't be correct. "Restructure" is, in the context of a bankruptcy case, actually a word of art, not a word of general understanding.
So "restructure" means that the company is successful and continuing as a going concern.
Once it became clear that the Summit principals had taken the money and they were under criminal investigation, there's really no chance for them to continue as a going concern. So I don't think restructure was going to be possible anymore. And then avoid bankruptcy, no, they had to file bankruptcy because there was no other way to sort out how the remaining money would be apportioned among the various interests.
See, in an exchange account, party 1, party 2, party 3, all their money gets put into the same account. And so when you take half of it, you can't tell whose money you took. And so the bankruptcy process, being a court-supervised process, gives a way to sort out who is going to get the money and how is it going to be applied. So I don't think there was any expectation that we could avoid bankruptcy. Initially, before we understood the magnitude of the problem, I think we were hopeful that we could find a way to restructure.
But I would tell you, we always feel that way. I mean, we always try to be optimistic about the ability of a company to continue as a going concern. But, as I said, once the scope of the problem was discovered, that just wasn't going to be possible.
Q. So you were hopeful to help them restructure and got into this contractual agreement with them. And then how did it come about that your company or someone within your company ended up working for the creditors, which is essentially on the opposite of their client's best interests?
A. Okay. Okay. Well, I think I understand -- I understand what you're asking me. I own a company with Kevin. And if you said, "Well, do you own your company?" I'd say, "Yeah, I own my company." And I feel like it's my company and Kevin's company. But if we go broke and all of our money is lost and we're losing our bank's money, it's not our company anymore.
It becomes the creditors' company. So the law is that if a company becomes insolvent, then the officers of the company and the directors of the company are working for the creditors, not the shareholders. Because Summit was insolvent, the beneficiaries of that engagement letter were not the four principals; it was the creditors. So we were always working for the creditors. Everybody was working for the creditors. That's -- that's the only way it can be when a company is insolvent.
Q. There seems to be some confusion today. Like when you first started talking, you said you were a principal and an owner. So you agree a principal is an owner? I mean, in your case and in the Summit case, it's the same four men that were the principals, that actually owned Summit Accommodators and owned Summit 1031?
A. I think the right answer to that is yes. The word "principal" is not in the statute. Most -- most companies now are what are called LLCs or limited liability companies, and they don't have -- "partner" isn't quite the right word, and so a lot of companies like ours use the word "principal," which is like being a partner, but it's not technically a partner, because a partner is for a partnership.
And Kevin and I don't have a partnership; we have a limited liability company. Summit was also a limited liability company, so if they referred to themselves as principals, I would expect to discover that those people were the owners.
Q. So you feel your company did right contractually by the contract they had with Summit for the $100,000 as their client?
A. I'm actually very proud of the job that we did for Summit. Yes, I think we did very right by it. The whole thing was supervised by the Court and closely followed bythe creditors committee. And yes, I'm very proud of the job we did for Summit.
Q. Before the Court got involved, there was an agreement, the contract that we've discussed here, between Obsidian and Summit. Do you feel that for that $100,000 and that service, that your company did right by Summit, before the trustee thing came up?
A. Well, I'm -- I'm not able, by my memory, to confirm temporally before or after. But we wouldn't have been able to retain any of our fees without court approval; that is, whether we got the fees two days before bankruptcy or two days after bankruptcy, we wouldn't have been permitted to take the money without -- without court approval.
Q. Why did the state of Oregon deny you solar tax credits?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor. This is --
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. As we've discussed earlier about reputation being very important, I'm being accused of being the only one to defame them when there are the solar tax credits, there is lawsuits and other blogs out there about Obsidian. Have you ever read any other blogs talking derogatory about Obsidian in any way?
A. Blogs not -- that I've not identified as being associated with you?
A. Well, I'm not, candidly, exactly sure what you mean by the word "blog," and I want to answer your question candidly. So, for instance, there's a rancher in Christmas Valley who is a few miles from our solar farm, and he sends letters to the paper where he says that solar is a really bad idea. Then those letters get published on the newspaper's website. So I don't know if that's a blog or not. And he's also sent letters to the Oregon Public Utility Commission, and they publish them in their online customer comments. That's all that I can -- that's all that I can recall.
Q. Do you know if there is any other discontent with any other bankruptcy, such as Aloha Lumber or Cascadia or any other companies or bankruptcy proceedings, that there would have been any derogatory information on the Internet about Obsidian regarding --
A. No, not -- not that I -- not that I recall. When we bought Aloha Lumber, that -- it had nothing to do with bankruptcy. It was just a company that we bought. And Aloha Lumber itself, before we bought it, had gotten involved in a lawsuit, which we promptly settled. And that was a contentious matter, and -- and I do think that there was something on the Internet about that. I'm not -- I'm not recalling anything else, no.
Q. When did you first read this blog post that I'm on trial -- the defendant is on trial for?
A. The blog post about the tax fraud I first read in a pleading filed with the court. I think it was an attachment, I'm sure
Q. Do you recall when that was?
A. No. And I have not read every pleading associated with this matter. But it would have been approximate in time to when that pleading would have been filed.
Q. Would that have been around the same time as your declaration?
A. No. It would have been before. It would have been before then, I think, that I read it, yeah.
Q. Did you read the blog post between December 25th and January 14th?
A. Of which year?
Q. December 25th is the date of the blog post. January 2011, this year, was when this case was filed. Did you read the post in between that time?
Q. Do you have proof, documented proof, that anyone read that post during that time and made any financial decisions regarding Obsidian Finance?
Q. Can you -- do you have any proof that I knowingly posted anything false on that blog?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Why -- did you ever ask defendant to remove that blog post?
A. You're talking about did I ask you?
Q. Did you ask me to remove that blog post ever?
A. Until this proceeding, I've never had any contact with you of any kind, no.
Q. So you read the blog post after the filing date of this case, yet your declaration, July 22nd, stated that there was a $10 million loss due to that blog post during that time, the 25th of December to January 14th.
MR. AMAN: Your Honor, if she's going to refer to a declaration, if she wants to put it in front of him, that's one thing.
MS. COX: It's his declaration. Sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize.
THE COURT: You have redirect. You'll have an opportunity then.
You can go ahead and ask your question again.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Do you want me ask it again?
A. No. I think I -- I think I heard you. But you're saying that my declaration says that somebody read that between December 25th and January 14th; and as a result of them reading that, I lost $10 million?
Q. Your declaration says that there was a $10 million loss due to my blog post. And my blog post was December 25th, 2010. This lawsuit was filed January 14th, 2011. So yes, that's what I'm saying.
A. Well, I just don't recall that's what my declaration says. So if you're asking me, is that what my declaration says, I don't know, but that's not what I recall that it says.
Q. Okay. Was the -- you speak of a bank VP that didn't give you a $10 million loan, so it was supposedly -- I mean, it was allegedly a $10 million loss to Obsidian Finance due to my blog post, yet you just testified today you hadn't read that blog post during that time, this -- this 20 days before the lawsuit was filed, after I posted it.
A. I'm struggling with your premise that the July -- or that the January 14th date --
THE COURT: Actually, the problem with that last one is that's not really a question. It's a statement. That's argument. Go ahead and ask a question.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Do you have any proof that anyone that would given Obsidian Finance any money, any revenue at all, seeing that blog post between those dates of December 25th and January 14th, made any financial decisions that cost Obsidian Finance any money at all in that 20-day period?
A. I'm having some trouble with the question. I'm going to try to rephrase it accurately. You're not asking me if I was financially harmed or anything like that. You're saying, do I know somebody who made a decision in a specific 20-day period as a result of looking at a specific blog? Is that what you're asking me?
Q. No. I'm asking you if you have any documented proof that somebody denied you any revenue at all in that period of time due to my blog post.
A. Okay. I don't have any documents that say that, no.
MS. COX: No further questions. "
At the Beginning, of my Questions, I ask David Brown if he was aware of all of Kevin Padrick's duties and responsibilities as a trustee of the Summit Bankruptcy, and he said Yes, I think so. I ask this is it customary, or even legal for a business part to know, be involved in all the actions of a Trustee? As bankruptcy law talks about a Trustee legally having to be a person and not and entity, and the law is clear that this "person" cannot be an insider.
So did David Brown know, or was he part of the decision making somehow? If so was it legal? If not then how can David Brown tell the alleged Bank VP and the court, the Jury that he was aware of Kevin's actions as Trustee. I don't think David Brown was aware and is simply standing with him to be loyal even in the face of possible indictment as it is clear that there is at least a breach of contract, and violation of attorney and CPA ethics, if not a flat out violation of Bankruptcy Code.
David Brown did not know of Kevin Padrick’s actions in the Summit Bankruptcy yet joined to sue me, Crystal Cox for reporting on Kevin Padrick’s actions. David Brown did not even read the pleadings filed in this case, so it would seem that David Aman did not get his clients approval to file pleadings. David Brown claimes that he had not read the blog post of Dec. 25th 2010, yet here he is suing me, Crystal Cox for 10 million dollars. He has no proof that anyone saw the post, yet sued me for 10 million for this post in which caused him no harm what so ever.
I asked David Brown what Obsidian Finance Group did for the $100,000, under the contract that they had with the Summit Principals, and he goes into a "typical bankruptcy" and a long drawn out answer, thing is Summit had not yet filed for Bankruptcy when they hired Obsidian Finance Group and this dance, and word play is for the jury and is certainly NOT based in the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but I Swear. Why not just answer in regard to Obsidian and Summit, which was the question instead of "typical" and an answer to hypnotize the room, and not really answer.
David Brown says that he assumes by "contract" I mean engagement letter, thing is the definition of engagement letter is contract once signed by the "officers". This was to confuse the jury into thinking that maybe they were not under contract with Summit when clearly they were.
Which is a clearly a breach of contract law and fiduciary duty.
David Brown down plays the contract by acting like it is a standard, form and something done all the time, thing is so what, it was still a legal contract with Summit to provide a service and thereby, in my opinion, made Kevin Padrick an Insider. Then goes on about if I saw a few I would know what they look like, um I have seem more then a few, the point is about this particular contract, this particular blog post and whether Obsidian Finance Group BROKE the Bankruptcy Laws or NOT.
Then he says "I think the Summit engagement letter was entered into.." seriously he "thinks", at this point its his company, and not a Trustee role and he does not even know what the engagement letter / contract was for that his company Obsidian Finance Group had with Summit, yet he wants us to believe that he knew all Kevin Padrick's activities? David Brown did not even understand what the original contract was for little own, 3 years of transactions, sales, 1031 Exchanges and hundreds of other "complex transactions"..
David Brown Says in the above transcript that information they got from Summit was not "privileged", Really? Well it sure was not open to the public, or the Creditors, from what I believe, and Ewan Rose or Obsidian Finance Group seemed to have ran off with software, spreadsheets and a over a decade worth of documents and books and then just did not return, and instead Obsidian Finance Group used this "privileged" information given to them by their client, Summit whom Obsidian was under contract with.. .. and this information was then used to get the Creditors, and somehow Judge Randall Dunn to "appoint" Kevin Padrick As the Trustee in a $40 Million Dollar Bankruptcy when clearly he was an insider and having worked for the debtor he was in violation of a breach of contract and Bankruptcy Law.
David Brown Says, "privileged, I'm not so sure about that, because when a company files for bankruptcy, their books are pretty much open. " First of all folks, when Summit signed the "Engagement Letter" the contract, they had not yet filed for Bankruptcy. And if after they filed, and after Obsidian turned on their clients Summit, well if the "books" were "pretty much open" then how come this issue is not of "Public Concern" and Kevin Padrick is not a Public Figure as Obsidian Finance Group claimed time after time in saying I cannot use actual malice as a defense and Judge Marco Hernandez agreed with them.
He says "they" are not allowed to keep secrets from the Creditors? REALLY? Well did all the Creditors know that Kevin Padrick was under contract with Summit, and that Sussman Shank and many other insiders flat out said, as we see in insider emails, that appointing a Trustee was not in the Creditors best interest and would in fact cost them way more then they should be paying for this service?
David Brown says I think " Summit was obligated under the engagement letter to provide us with detailed financial information" so were they or not, did they or not? Does David Brown know what was going on or not? David W. Brown says, "I know they provided us with a lot of financial information." . When Summit provided ALL this information, Obsidian Finance Group worked for Summit, was under contract, and had been paid $100,000. Then Obsidian used this "a lot of financial information" against their own clients who gave them this information freely and unsuspecting, and they used this to work for the Creditors Committee and against their own client.
I asked David Brown, "Q. Was Obsidian Finance Group under contract with Summit before they filed for bankruptcy? " He talks about the "activity" starts before there is a contract in place between Summit and Obsidian and never really answers if it was before they filed for Bankruptcy or Not?
It is a fact that Obsidian worked with Summit for quite a while before the contract was signed and the contract was signed BEFORE Summit filed for bankruptcy. Obsidian and Kevin Padrick was an insider as a matter of LAW and Kevin Padrick cannot be Trustee, as a matter of law.
David Brown says, "our first contact on the case came from a law firm, which has got a very well-understood reputation to be a leading bankruptcy law firm.", who was this Perkins Coie or Sussman Shank, makes a big difference they were on different teams per say. And well the story goes that William Smith of Smith Properties Bend Oregon is the one that recommended Summit, does David Brown really know what REALLY went on, I say he does not know and is just attempting to protect Kevin Padrick.
I asked again what Obsidian was hired by Summit to do, and he goes into the definition of a 1031 Exchange, that was NOT the Question. Nor did I ask what Summit did as business, I knew that, I wanted to know what Obsidian was hired to do.
I asked David Brown, "So Obsidian was hired to help Summit restructure so that they didn't have to go bankrupt?" David Brown Said, No. NO. as seen in the Transcript above. Yet Schedule A of the December 18th 2008 Engagement Letter, Contract between Summit and Obsidian Finance Group, clearly says that Obsidian will assist the company (Summit) to develop restructuring alternatives.
David Brown says the word "Restructure" is a "word of art", and ya it means that the company is successful and continuing as a going concern, exactly and the contract sure looks like Obsidian Finance Group was hired to help Summit be an ongoing concern, as the services described in Schedule A of that contract sure seem to state to me.
Instead they bankrupted them, as you see in Obsidian Finance’s VP Patricia Whittington’s testimony they did this on purpose, as it was the plan that Summit would not go on as a “going concern”, Obsidian made sure of that and with intention and malice as per Patricia Whittington’s testimony. However they were hired by Summit, Summit became a debor in possession meaning they planned to go on in business. Obsidian made sure they did not go on and in fact went to prison. While Kevin Padrick seizedtheir life’s work, and made millions a year for 5 years. As did others such as Tonkon Torp Law Firm. At the expense of the Crediotors
Obsidian was hired to help with a Plan of Reorganization, with Summit staying as an “an ongoing concern” and paid at a rate of a WHOPPING $600 an hour do this, but instead Obsidian Finance Group took the money, turned on their client, and they were certainly no going concern anymore and in fact got indicted. It is a fact that Obsidian violated their clients who they were under contract with and to the detriment of not only their clients who paid them and had a signed contract, but knowingly to the creditors.
David Brown said that he was proud of the job his company did for Summit. Obsidian drove them further into problems, prolonged asset liquidations, got in the way of transactions to wait for their commission to be approved , got their own clients indicted, set up their clients, seemed to conspire with a federal judge against their clients, seemed to conspire with the bend bulletin and Jeff Manning of the Oregonian to jade the story to look like Obsidian was the hero, when really they were raking in Serious money every month for 5 years.
I asked David Brown, " Do you have proof, documented proof, that anyone read that post during that time and made any financial decisions regarding Obsidian Finance? ", he flat out said No. I asked if he had any proof that I knowingly posted false information and David Aman, David Brown's attorney Objected, see that's the actual malice thing, their state of mind is "IMPORTANT", mine is "IRRELEVANT".
David Brown admits in the above transcript that he never asked me to remove the blog post. Don't you think that would have been prudent? Not to mention Oregon Retraction Laws, which were denied to me as a defense, clearly state that they have to ask and give 2 weeks for each time it is post, printed etc.
David Brown had trouble remembering his declaration, the thing is if it was the TRUTH under penalty of perjury, why not just be able to remember what he said that was allegedly true on the same subject. David Brown admitted to reading the blog post after the filing of this case, yet the Declaration talks about a Bank VP who we talked extensively with and David Brown seems to claim a lost revenue and this the reason of my Trial, my TRIAL was based on ONE Blog Post in which the man who claimed he lost millions, lost a 10 million dollar loan due to this blog post had not even read it?
More of the David Brown Trial Transcripts:
*Page 161 - 162 Trial Transcripts
Line 1 Through End on Both
David Brown Testimony At Obsidian V. Cox Trial Nov. 29th 2011
" REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. AMAN:
Q. You were asked some questions about a conversation
with a bank VP. Can you describe that for the jury,
A. We have a solar project down in Klamath County that I
think is the largest solar project in Klamath County.
It's at a farm that makes potatoes for a potato chip
company. And we own the project. We sell the power to
Pacific Power. The farm is kind of a partner in the
And so we were looking to finance the net cost of
the equipment after the tax credits on that project.
And there's really only one bank in Oregon that's kind of
going out of its way to make a name for itself in
financing solar -- solar projects. And I got a call from
the vice president of the bank, and maybe four or five
times -- after we had already met and talked four or five
And he had completed a Google search of Obsidian,
and he had come across some stuff that he said he found
quite troubling and he needed to talk to me about it.
And so we spent some time talking about various blog
postings that he had come across, and I explained to him
that they were all kind of connected and that there was a
woman in Montana who was kind of on a mission to
discredit Obsidian and that those were her.
And first he said he needed to ask me questions
about whether or not they were true and whether these
statements that he had read were true, and we talked
through that. And I offered to provide him some
additional information, and I explained that our conduct
in Summit was all supervised by the Court and approved by
the Court and the creditors committee and that he could
talk to counsel representing those parties.
But he was also troubled that -- like, Well, why
is this going on? What is there about Obsidian that
causes this to even happen? I mean, what's the rest of
the story, if you will?
So I -- I didn't really know how to answer that,
but I tried to assure him that this was very unusual, we
don't have these problems, and that -- you know, that
these things just happen out there in cyberspace.
But then he asked me if, as a result of doing
business with us, would he be subject to that? Because
he said, "How would I tell my boss that I got us involved
in something like this?" I mean, this is just very, very
hard to explain. And I -- I tried to assure him, but I
don't think I was very successful. That was now several
months ago." *
There is no proof at all that there was any revenue lost over this one blog post.
I want Obsidian to be investigated to ensure they STOP bullying, intimidating and ruining the life of those who stand up to them and tell the truth about them.
He says "we sell power to Pacific Power", yet they are not of Public Concern? WOW !! Talk about railroading a Blogger exposing corruption. And sure are making millions INSTEAD of the ALLEGED losing millions over my ONE blog post, Liar Liar Pants On Fire.
In this under Oath Testimony, David Brown says that "we spent some time talking about various blog postings that he had come across" Another words this one blog post was not the issue but instead "various blog posts".
See Exhibits for Full Trial Transcript and Declaration noted above. As well as the transcript from the hearing on Nov. 28th, 2011 the day bfore the Obsidian v. Cox Trial.
Patricia Whittington Obsidian Finance VP Testimony
Patty Whittington's Testimony Starts on Page 99 Line 7 of the Obsidian V. Cox Trial Transcripts
David Aman, Tonkon Torp is asking the Questions Here
My Comments on Patty Whittington's Testimony is in Blue in the Post Below.
Q. Now, you see the statement, the first statement says that "The Summit principals also did their own 1031 exchanges during the past years as they purchased and sold properties. When you do an exchange, you have deferred gain that you don't pay tax on until you sell the property." Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. And that's consistent with what you saw?
Q. But the next statement says, "When Kevin Padrick, as Chapter 11 trustee, did a turnover of all the assets to his liquidating trust, these deferred gains became tax liabilities to the liquidating trust." Do you see that?
A. I do see that.
Q. And is that accurate?
A. No. That's incorrect."
As a real estate Broker Owner of over a decade, it is my understanding that if you are in the processing of deferring gain, such as a 1031 Exchange does, then, if for any reason that transaction is not completed within the IRS 1031 Exchange Codes, then you, the real estate consumer, are responsible to pay that tax gain.
However, it would seem logical to me that if an "Entity" such as a "Liquidating Trust" took control of that property and you had no way to sell it, to complete the exchange, well then you the victim, in this case the Exchanger, who is also known as the Creditor in the Summit Bankruptcy, as far as I understand it, you would have to pay the tax on that gain, and if you were not in control, I would assume that the Liquidating Trust, the Trustee would have to pay that Tax Gain. Or that, at the very least it would be a "Tax Liability" to that "Liquidating Trust". I don't believe that Patricia Whittington is stating this factually.
Q. The next statement says, "However, Obsidian Finance's accounting staff is conveniently leaving these deferred gains out of their tax returns." Do you see that?
A. I do see that.
Q. And you didn't put them in the tax returns for the liquidating trust because it wasn't required under the
tax code; is that correct?
A. That's correct "
Where is the tax code that proves this? Obsidian Finance Group provided no tax documents, as I requested, in order to prove they paid that gain. Judge Hernandez even discusses this in the motion to deny a new trial, however there was no documents proving that this was not required under tax code. I am not an expert in the 1031 Exchange business, however I have had countless clients partake in a 1031 Exchanges, I have taken over a dozen courses from Starker and other Exchange Companies, as I have been a Real Estate Broker Owner for over a Decade. I still believe that this deferred gain had to be paid, or at least reported in this process. This is just what I believe from my Experience in this Field.
At one point Patricia Whittington talks about Moss Adams doing the Taxes, so why didn't Moss Adams take the stand and testify to this? Why didn't Moss Adams give a Statement? Why did none of them bother to send me a bit of proof and an exact blog post they had issue with, in order that I may consider a retraction?
Q. You also, in your job at Obsidian, you do finance accounting for the company itself, correct?
A. I do.
Q. And since the beginning of this year, what have you seen in terms of the revenues that you've generated from the advisory business?
A. Our advisory business is significantly down this year. "
What does this have to do with this case? The Lawsuit was filed on January 14th 2011, the Blog Post was put up December 25th 2010. This was a 20 Day Period of which only 14 was in the "this year" she is talking about. Homestreet Bank filed an Objection in 2011, and other issues came up for Obsidian, such as the Lake County Oregon residents upset over their Solar Farms, and Oregon Tax Payers upset at the 50 Million in Solar Tax Credits that Obsidian wanted, when denied, they sued the State of Oregon, yet we are to believe that my ONE Blog Post and those 14 days was the problem? Really?
Q. And what would you estimate that it's down from the past?
Patty Whittington Answers this
A. My estimate is about a million dollars this year."
Thing is folks that last year had nothing to do with the Trial really. See I posted the Post on December 25th 2010, and they filed a Lawsuit 20 days later on January 14th 2011.
My infamous email I am accused of Extortion with was sent January 19th 2011, After the Lawsuit was filed. So down a Million, with no proof, no spreadsheets, and this is proof enough for a Federal Court Judge? Think about it folks, they are protecting Judge Randall Dunn, Perkins Coie, Pamela Griffith US Trustee, Sussman Shank, Tonkon Torp, and Obsidian Finance Group who is connected to the biggest money in Oregon and in this year they allege to have lost Millions they signed a MAJOR contract with Pacificorp for Millions a Year, called the Black Cap Project. Also look at YarrowBay and the Cascadia Project and all the money they are making from deals made in that same "this year" that Patty Whittington is testifying to.
Let's start this part on page 107 Line 20 of the Trial Transcripts,
Patricia Whittington Testimony - Obsidian V. Cox
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COX:
Q. This blog post that you just talked about, was the title a question or a statement?
A. I don't know."
MS. COX: Could we -- I guess I have no way to pull it up again.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. But you're familiar with the post where it says "Tax fraud," question mark?
Skip to line 8 where the Document is on the Screen Now.
MS. COX: Exactly what you were saying, where it says, "Tax fraud," question mark. At the top of what you just read, the top of it said, "Tax fraud," question mark, "Brought against the government," question mark, "Gee, ya think," question mark.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Would you say that that's a question or a statement?
A. That's your statement. I actually don't know.
Q. What you just testified to was right below that, just on the screen.
Q. And so that is asking a question about everything beneath that, would you agree?
Q. So you're saying that that's a statement?
A. If you would like me to say those are question marks, yes, I'll say that. If you would like me to say that's a question of everything below, no, I can't actually say that. I don't know."
This part of the Blog Post about Tax Fraud was Clearly in a Question Form, though the witnesses claimed over and over that it was a Statement.
We Continue on page 109, line 3
"Q. Okay. When did you first read this blog post?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was it between December 25th and January 14th, by your recollection?
A. I can only say possibly. It was talked about at our office, so --"
So the Post of December 25th 2010, a Lawsuit filed January 14th 2011, and the VP of Obsidian Finance Group, whom claims they lost Millions over the ONE Blog Post, she had not read the post at that time? Doesn't this seem odd to you?
Q. Do you have any information that proves actual revenue loss due to this exact blog post?
A. No, I don't have that."
So the VP, the gal in charge of the "books" at Obsidian Finance Group, she cannot prove ANY actual Revenue was lost due to that ONE blog post? Hmmmm....
Next, Page 109, Line 12
"Q. Are you aware that Obsidian Finance Group had a contract with Summit at any time?
A. You'll have to -- Summit?
Q. Summit Accommodators?
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."
So Obsidian Finance Group's VP Patty Whittington took in $100,000, and put this permanently into the "books". This money taken for a contract she signed for one of the Principals, Kevin Padrick.
This money was taken in such a way as she knows that a bankruptcy judge would have to "approve" those fees, and as of November 2011, at this Trial, Patty Whittington does not know if this fee was "approved by the bankruptcy court"? Really?
How can this be when clearly almost 2 years had passed, and as Patty Whittington tells us in this transcript, Obsidian took this money onto their books with no refund given. And yet she does not know if it was "approved by the bankruptcy court", this is illegal right?
Q. What is the difference between the Summit Accommodators and the Summit 1031 exchange, just for clarity?
A. According to my information, it was -- one was a dba, doing business as, and one was the company.
Q. Were they the same owners?
A. To my knowledge, yes.
Q. Have you read any other derogatory blogs that say anything negative about Obsidian in any way?
Q. Can you tell me what blogs besides the defendant's, mine?
A. No other ones besides yours."
This is in no way true.
At the time of the Summit 1031 bankruptcy there was lots of blog postings, article and news comments and more. Plus there is David Aman deposing Stephanie Deyoung ( Click Here) and talking about her blog, so he fully knows there is more then just me out there making stuff up to defame an innocent attorney.
Yet David Aman told Forbes, Seattle Weekly and the New York Times that I knowingly posted false information, when to this day I believe it to be True. The Video AGAIN proves that David Aman, Tonkon Torp Attorney new that it was not just me, and that my blogs were not the only one.
See they had already put her to ruins, and she had backed off. Stephanie DeYoung's Blog was not my only source, I had read all the documents on it, watched videos, read court filings, spoke with people involved and did so for years. When David Aman, Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group used their Power and Clout to silence Stephanie DeYoung, the next step was to remove my Internet presence, and they attempted to do that offering deal after deal. Thing is I believe there should be Transparency and Accountability in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts.
And then there is the Witness Write up for this trial ( Click Here) where on page 4 David Aman, Plaintiff Attorney claims that Ms. Studebaker (Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung),"engaged in an internet campaign in an effort to undercut Mr. Padrick’s actions as trustee.". Yet just below in this same document he says it was just me, I will show you that in a moment.
Page 4 goes on to say "She illegally videotaped a meeting with him and was criminally prosecuted for doing so. She ultimately entered into a plea bargain in which she admitted she violated the law in doing so.".
Thing is they pressured her to drop the videos by putting her life under extreme duress and she has 3 young children. She had to do what they made her do. And the video taping of a public meeting, in an issue that involved 100's of victims ( Exchangers, Investors, Creditors, Employees), this was not illegal, and those videos are still online ( Click Here)
The reason for Ms Studebaker's Blog was to provide documents of transparency. She, and others had also filed an objection to the fees that showed the conflicts of interest and possible corruption, Judge Randall Dunn Ignored this very important information (Click Here)
Also in this document, David Aman lies about the funds received by Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung. This Trial is about a Blog Post and whether True or not, yet the Plaintiff's attorney David Aman uses these documents, court filings to defame, harass, and flat out lie about the Summit Bankruptcy Whistle Blower Stephanie DeYoung.
Page 4 of the document called "Plaintiff Witness List" by David Aman Tonkon Torp goes on to say
"Given the nature of Obsidian’s and Padrick’s business, their reputation is critical. They often engage with sophisticated entities and individuals who have little or no experience with Obsidian. It is common for these entities and individuals to review Obsidian’s website and conduct background research on Obsidian, Padrick and David Brown —including using internet search engines."
Why is it ok for Obsidian Finance Group to ruin hundreds of business and lives in their actions in the Summit Bankruptcy but when we expose them, they cry foul, and act like this damaged them? All we did was point out the documents and ask questions, comment and give our professional opinions as we were both in the "Industry" that Summit 1031 Exchange company was involved in, Taxes and Real Estate. Kevin Padrick used his connections to Jeff Manning of the Oregonian to seemingly defame Summit and ruin their lives and reputations, even after they had hired him to advise them. This is Ok? Not in my OPINION.
"Sometime in 2008, defendant Crystal Cox began posting on the Internet about Mr. Padrick and Obsidian on numerous websites that she either already owned or that she purchased. The website postings falsely accused Mr. Padrick and Obsidian of engaging in various unlawful conduct, including bribing judges, tax fraud, fraud against the government, solar tax credit crimes and money laundering. Mr. Padrick did not commit any of the wrongful acts Ms. Cox accused him of. Nor has he been charged with or convicted of any criminal conduct of any kind."
Well actually it was 2009. Insiders first Contacted me in July of 2009. If they thought it was false that many years ago, why wait to years to talk to me in ANY way? Do your research, Follow the Money.
"In December 2010, Mr. Padrick had his attorney send Ms. Cox a cease and desist letter. Ms. Cox responded by requesting that Obsidian pay for her reputation management services. The only reputation damage that had been done was by Ms. Cox herself. The defamatory statements made by Ms. Cox have caused Obsidian and Mr. Padrick to suffer serious damage to their reputation. They have received numerous comments and inquiries from business associates, potential clients, investment bankers, and others concerning Ms. Cox’s defamatory statements."
Again David Aman talks of me "Response", yes my Cease Fire Response dated January 19th 2011, after a 10 Million Dollar Lawsuit was filed against me, I responded by trying to Negotiate a Cease Fire and Stop a year of legal battles, that is now still continuing. Note here that David Aman claims I offer these services for damage that had only been done by me, as this sentence says, "The only reputation damage that had been done was by Ms. Cox herself." So, remember the paragraph before when it was Stephanie DeYoung, then it was Crystal Cox. The Truth is Kevin Padrick ruined his own reputation, we simply got his bad behavior found online where it could be seen in the light of day.
Also not I did not "Request", I negotiated and David Aman asked me my Rates and Services after this, as in part of the negotion ( Click Here for that )
Also on page 6 of that same document, David Aman says this
"Ms. Cox makes the statement that "Padrick just gave away the Summit Shareholders’ interest in Century Drive Mobile Home Park to another owner named Jim Hull. Obsidian did an extensive review of the Century Drive transactions and the value of the property involved. Obsidian determined that the property had no value to the Liquidating Trust because the amount owed to the lender was substantially more than the value of the property. Obsidian also determined that Mr. Hull had been potentially misled by the Summit principals into investing into the Century Drive deal. Ms. Studebaker DeYoung had also been involved in Century Drive with the Summit principals. Mr. Hull advised Obsidian that he wanted to try to salvage the venture. For all of these reasons, Padrick decided to relinquish the interest in Century Drive to Mr. Hull. "
This, as far as I know violates the law, and violates the agreement among owners. Kevin Padrick had no legal right to pick one of the owners and give away the interest of the "others". The other owners were not even notified, this is not based in law, as far as I see it.
Also Note here, Jim Hull was one of those who filed an Objection to the Fees of Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick Obsidian Finance Group, so what kind of deal was REALLY Made.
Back to the Patricia Whittington Testimony, my Comments are in Blue
Q. Did you at any time contact -- When you became aware that this blog post was a problem to Obsidian, did you at any time contact the defendant and ask for this post to be removed?
Q. Do you have any proof that I knowingly posted false information on this blog?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. AMAN: Thank you."
Why can't I ask this? Well they don't want this out there, as this is to do with whether I had actual malice, which I did not have actual malice. Even though David Aman states in many documents and at that trial, that I knowingly posted false information, thing is that is NOT true.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Were you aware of all of Kevin Padrick's duties and activities regarding the Summit bankruptcy?
A. No, I can't say all. Many.
Q. I think I may have asked this, but do you have any proof that there was actual revenue lost between
January 25th -- or January 14th and December -- the prior December 25th, with Obsidian Finance?
A. Yeah, I don't know the dates.
Q. You don't have proof that this exact blog post --
A. No, no."
Ok so again, the VP, who does the books at Obsidian, has no proof that this blog post resulted in lost revenue?
Q. So are you familiar with the bankruptcy code?
A. I'm not a lawyer. So I am familiar with the parts that I've worked with.
Q. Are you familiar with Summit having a contract with Obsidian Finance and taking a retainer of $100,000 to be their client, for Summit to be the client of Obsidian Finance?
MR. AMAN: Objection. That's outside the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that.
THE WITNESS: I can't remember how you started that question. Am I --
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Are you aware of -- You say you do the accounting for Obsidian Finance, right?
Q. Are you aware of a -- or Summit Accommodators, the Summit principals, the owners, had a contract with Obsidian Finance, 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 Summit or was it part of the income of Obsidian?
A. It was not returned to Summit. It was applied against the fees.
Q. Are you aware of what services Obsidian Finance provided for Summit?
A. Well, where do you want me start?
This should not be a hard question. I did not ask what services Obsidian provided for the Creditors, or the Liquidating Trust. I asked " what services Obsidian Finance provided for Summit? "
Q. Would you say that Obsidian Finance Group -- that Summit Accommodators was a client of Obsidian Finance Group 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."
Not sure how the bankruptcy view it? Summit contacted Obsidian before the Bankruptcy was filed.
Ok So Summit was a "Client", well then was Kevin Padrick legally allowed to be a bankruptcy trustee via Bankruptcy Code 1104? Here are some research links for my Readers.
Patty Whittington Questioning Continued
Q. But you -- in your records of your business, there is -- there is documented proof that Obsidian Finance Group was under a contractual obligation, a contract agreement, and paid for those services with Summit Accommodators, Summit principals, those same four men.
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor, misstates her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.
THE WITNESS: I'm not -- I'm not sure I understand. Used their money? Whose?
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. My question is: Was Obsidian Finance Group under a contractual obligation? Was there -- I'm looking for, there was a possible breach of contract. Was Obsidian Finance -- you just testified that they took a $100,000 retainer for service, so that would mean that Summit was a client of Obsidian Finance Group.
Ok so then Obsidian Finance Group clearly violated this contractual obligation as far as I see it.
Q. And this was before Obsidian Finance Group took the job as trustee, which was taking that personal and privileged information and working for the creditors committee, which is essentially on the opposite side, against their client.
A. I'm not sure what you want me to say exactly. I don't --
Q. Okay. I just want you to tell us whether or not Obsidian Finance Group had a contractual obligation to their client, Summit Accommodators."
A. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Because I'm not sure -- I don't quite understand what you're asking,
Ok so now she does not know, but above she said Yes there was a Contractual Obligation. Guess she is a little mixed up.
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.
Q. And this company was Summit?
Q. So you agree there was a contractual agreement between Obsidian Finance Group and Summit?
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.
MS. COX: Can I have a minute to find that exhibit, that contract?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. COX: May I admit this contract into exhibits?
THE COURT: Not exactly just like that. But you may want to show that exhibit to the witness, and maybe the witness can identify it."
We continue on Page 115 Line 1, after the Contract is on the Screen for All to See
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. And Obsidian is your company?
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to this exhibit?
MR. AMAN: No, Your Honor. "
Can you believe that? A Judge asks an Attorney if he wants to object? He never asked me one time if I wanted to object and I was Pro Se.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
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.
MS. COX: It's Exhibit 527.
THE COURT: 527 will be received. Now we can turn it on for the jury, and they can
THE CLERK: It's on.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. So this is your letterhead from your company?
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?
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 Obsidian Finance Group and Summit. And this is -- is this the signature of Kevin Padrick?
A. No. That's me.
Q. This is?
A. Yes, PLW.
Q. So you signed for Kevin Padrick?
A. Yeah. He may have been not in the office."
Wow, Patricia Whittington VP of Obsidian, Signs the name of Obsidian Principal Kevin Padrick and does not even know what the contract says or what services is to be provided, because ummmm she is not a lawyer?
Q. So you took a $100,000 retainer, which was taken in as a service. So you were under -- so Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Summit 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."
Look at the details of all this, they were NOT in bankruptcy as of the Date this contract was signed, Summit had not yet filed for Bankruptcy. She should have known what she was signing. This contract is dated December 18,2008. Per Schedule A of this Contract, Summit hired Obsidian Finance Group to help "Restructure", not to help in Liquidating the entire business:
Assist the Company in:
* Evaluating the assets and liabilities of the Company;
* Analyzing and reviewing the financial and operating statements of the
* Analyzing the business plans and forecasts of the Company;
* Development of restructuring alternatives including tax aspects and
implications on various constituents;
* Review and discussion of the potential risks and benefits of various
* Development of shategies to mitigate the potential damages arising from
incomplete IRC Section 1031 exchanges for Company customers;
* Identification of alternatives to optimize liquidation of real estate which we
understand will be available to satisS potential claims in the bankruptcy;
* Implementing critical restructuring altematives;
* Preparation, analysis and explanation of the Plan of Reorganization and
Disclosure Statement to various constituencies; and
o*Other tasks that are necessary or appropriate as requested by the Company in
connection with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
For a complete contract see Exhibits.
Patricia Whittington, Obsidian VP Said, "They were in bankruptcy and they were liquidating, not restructuring" yet the contract clearly says that Obsidian Finance was hired to "Development of Restructuring Alternatives", "Implementing Critical Restructuring Alternatives", "Evaluating the assets and liabilities", Preparing a "Plan of Reorganization" and more.
So clearly Summit and Obsidian 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 Terry Vance was?
Proof that Summit was a Debtor in Possession is in Exhibits.
Summit hired Obsidian to Restructure Debt NOT to Liquidate them. Summit HIRED Obsidian, gave them spreadsheets, software, confidential information, BEFORE Summit Filed for Bankruptcy.
And clearly Summit and Obsidian signed a contract before Summit Filed for Bankruptcy, Obsidian had met with Summit, gathered data, and discussed details for quite awhile, prior to this contract being signed on this date. Obsidian was hired to advise Summit on Financial Matters. Sussman Shank was working for Obsidian, and put out the Press Release (December 2008) that discussed Terry Vance as CRO, and Obsidian.as financeial consultng, as shown in Sussman Shank Summit Press Release Exhibits.
Itis clear in this Sussman Shank Press release, as well as meetings with Summit that Obsidian worked as Summit’s financial client well before they signed the contract and the contract was still signed before they filed for bankruptcy.
It is clear to me and was to ALL parties that Kevin padrick was an insider, as a matter of bankruptcy code and IRS 1031 code and was NOT qualified, as a matter of law, to be the Trustee in the Summit Bankruptcy. He broke the LAW..
On December 22nd 2008, Summit filed an application with the court to Employ Obsidian as their financial consultant. Document 141 Case 08- 37031-rld 11. The courts clearly new Padrick was an insider and it was a violation of Bankruptcy law in order to appoint him as trustee, and it was unnecessary to the estate.
Obsidian took financial data and privileged information and used it against Summit, in what is breach of contract, and sold themselves to the Creditors, as we hear talk about in the Audio of Judge Dunn where he talks of Kevin Padrick's presentation to the Creditors, though in this court transcript, Kevin Padrick says he did not present to the Creditors, but instead interviewed with the Department of Justice.
A shown in Exhibits there is a Bill to Summit for a Meeting with Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie, the Attorney for the Creditors whom used to work under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash Law Firm. Kevin Padrick billed Summit for time to sell himself to the opposite side of them.
Kevin Padrick claimed in emails to Terry Vance CRO ( Click Here ) that he, Terry Vance had sent him to the Creditors Committee, yet he did not. Yet when I asked Kevin Padrick, under Oath at the Obsidian V. Cox Trial, Kevin Padrick said he interviewed with the Department of Justice but did not meet with the creditors committee. This was simply not true.
Kevin Padrick seemed to have had an "IN" with Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie and made a deal with the Creditor Committee, while under contract to help the Debtors in "Development of Restructioning Alternatives", "Implementing Critical Restructuring Alternatives" and other terms of their agreement. This sure seems to make Kevin Padrick an Insider, by bankruptcy code.
While working for the Debtor, Summit, Kevin Padrick's Client, and billing his client, Kevin Padrick had meetings with Tom Stilley and Steven Hedberg, why? He was not authorized by the CRO, Terry Vance nor by the Debtor.
Here is Some Billable Hours
This Press Release written by Sussman Shank, also talks about Obsidian being "Retained".
See Exhibits attached to this complaint.
This seems to say, maybe deliberately, that Terry Vance retained Obsidian, however Obsidian was on board before the filing, so Obsidian Was hired by Summit. Terry Vance, CRO was recommended by Sussman Shank, for the Debtor in Possession Bankruptcy.
We continue with Ms. Cox questioning Patty Whittington, Obsidian Finance VP
Q. Was -- you're saying -- you're testifying that Obsidian -- that Summit was in bankruptcy when they hired Obsidian Finance Group.
A. To my knowledge, yes. We weren't -- we didn't work for them before."
She said we did not work for them. She had just testified above that Summit was client, and they took a $100,000 retainer. Obsidian Did work for "Them", for Summit and was under contract to do so. And Summit was NOT in bankruptcy when this contract was signed.
Q. Mr. Padrick testified earlier that he was -- talked to the Summit principals before they filed for bankruptcy. The records show that he was under contract. This contract was before the Summit 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."
Something like that? Well yes they were preparing and part of that preparing was hiring Obsidian to help restructure debt, NOT to hire Obsidian to participate in a hostile takeover, set up his clients, get everyone fired and seize assets, bank accounts, property and more. Obsidian was NOT involved to Liquidate in a way that Summit would cease to be.
The Summit Bankruptcy was debtor in possession, that is why they hired a Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO), Terry Vance. Though you see in the Mark Neuman Deposition that David Aman was leading the witness and calling it a liquidity crisis, it was not.
Summit did plan to "Go On". Obsidain made sure they did not.
Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group made sure that the business only went on for his pay check, he drowned the Summit Business for his personal gain. And he set up his own clients to be indicted for it. This, using political, judicial and media connections provided a great smoke screen to where the money was really going.
Q. But you are in agreement that Obsidian Finance Group was in contract to represent Summit and took money for those services?
A. We had that agreement, yes.
Q. And that Summit was -- so Obsidian Finance had a contractual obligation to the Summit 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. "
Well it is my understanding that Summit was trying to "Restructure" debt so they could, as a company, go on. That was the only reason to hire Obsidian in the First Place. Obsidian Finance directly interfered with the companies ability to "go on". The only reason to have a CRO, Chief Restructuring Office such as Terry Vance, was to Restructure, NOT to Liquidate and Cease but to, instead "go on".
Q. So Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with Summit 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."
Well that is not what the contract seems to say. The contract, in Schedule A seems to say that "Services" are all about restructuring alternatives, forming plans to reorganize, and more. Did Patty Whittington not even read this contract she signed for Obsidian Principal Kevin Padrick?
Q. This contract with Obsidian Finance Group wasn't to help them reorganize?
A. Unless it says that. In bankruptcy, you can be in Chapter 11 and be liquidating."
Oh now she says, well if it says that. What?
Q. I'm not an attorney either --
Q. -- or a CPA. I'm not sure what this contract means, that Obsidian Finance Group was obligated to Summit. Can I -- can you tell me what this contract says the obligation from Obsidian to Summit 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."
It is what it Says. Hmmm, it sure does not look like it is what it says, as Obsidian sure did Breach this contract for "Reorganization".
Q. Are you aware of any privileged or financial information that Summit -- that Summit provided Obsidian Finance Group before their bankruptcy?
A. Privileged? No.
Q. Did -- was there any software, any database at all that Summit turned over to Obsidian, where Obsidian 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."
So yes then NO. She seems to be saying that the information was given after the filing for bankruptcy, after Kevin was a Trustee, however this is simply NOT TRUE.
Q. Do you feel that Obsidian Finance Group ethically and legally honored their contract with Summit?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have any proof that this exact blog post caused any financial damages on your books to --
caused -- that anybody told you this exact blog post caused a certain amount of provable financial damage to Obsidian Finance?
A. I can't prove what people looked at.
MS. COX: Thank you. No further questions."
Eliot Bernstein added to Obsidian v. Cox 6 months after Trial was over.
In order to discredit information Cox was reporting on the iViewit technology theft, oddly, and outside of law. David Aman of Tonkon Torp Law Firm added Eliot Bernstein to the Obsidian v. Cox case as a named defendant 6 months after the case went to trial and was over. Cox urges the Attorney general to investigate Tonkon Torp’s motive in this issue as Enron went bankrupt due to deals with Proskauer Rose law firm and connections with the iViewit stolen patents. Tonkon Torp was Enron’s bankruptcy attorney. This is also connected to Intel Corp.
As seen in the hearing, Judge Randall Dunn, in total violation of bankruptcy law, moved to appoint Obsidian Finance Group as trustee, even though that is the DOJ's job, and an "entity" cannot be a trustee so he then appointed Kevin Padrick as an individual.
Some Timeline Information
Early 12/2008 Summit Principals see a liquidity concern coming in two or three months.
Early 12/2008 Principals meet with Susan Ford at Sussman Shank.
Early 12/2008 Susan Ford recommends Chapter 11 Debtor in Possession bankruptcy
Early 12/2008 Susan Ford recommends Terry Vance to come in and run show as CRO
Early 12/2008 Key Bend Developer refers Summit Principals to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group
Early 12/2008 Padrick, owner of Obsidian Finance Group, meets w/Principals
Early 12/2008 Kevin Padrick sells himself to Summit Shareholders.
Early 12/2008 Summit principals give OK to hire Padrick and Obsidian.
Obsidian Finance gets $100k, Signs contract
12/18/2008 Summit files Chap. 11- focuses on selling properties and investments to pay back creditors.
12/19/09 Summit's website explains Obsidian Finance Group's roll as hired by Terry Vance, CRO, as financial consultants to help Summit restructure debt and sell properties to those with "deep pockets" that Kevin Padrick claimed he knew in order to get Summit to sign that original contract. ( once an insider Kevin Padrick saw how much money and potential there was in this bankruptcy so he screwed over his own client and pitched his friends and colleagues (Leon Simpson of Tonkon Torp, Pamela Griffith of the Department of Justices, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie) and he became trustee, essentially against the best interest of his clients he was under contract with and in violation of bankruptcy code as he was then legally an "insider".
Obsidian did not do the job they were supposed to do, instead they charged the estate to get a better job by working for himself instead of for Terry Vance.
Late 12/2008 New Summit CRO Vance hires Obsidian Finance Group and Kevin Padrick as approved by Summit Principals to help liquidate assets.
Late 12/2008 Summit Principals provide Padrick with all financial information on properties
01/2009 & 02/2009 Kevin Padrick works with his former colleague from Miller Nash, now at Perkins Coie, Steven Hedberg, more than Terry Vance to take Terry's place. This is not working to help Obsidian's clients, Summit.
02/2009 Kevin Padrick, while on paid time and under contract with the Summit Principals sells himself to the Creditors Committee to be the bankruptcy trustee, even though internal emails between all parties made it clear that appointing a trustee was an extreme and unnecessary step and was NOT in the best interest of the creditors.
2/10/09 - Sussman Shank and Perkins Coie Law Firms file a joint motion to replace Terry Vance as CRO with Obsidian Finance as CRO. In the document it says that Terry Vance was on board with replacing himself with Obsidian.
Recordings &; EMAIL Show that Terry Vance was not on board and had not been communicated with.
2/11/09 - Judge Randall Dunn, Susan Ford of Sussman Shank, Kevin Padrick, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie, M. Vivienne Popperl of the U.S. Trustees Office, decide in a hearing 2-11-2009, as the record shows, to appoint Kevin Padrick as trustee. Even though this was extreme, he was an insider, there was objections and evidence that showed this was not in the creditors or investors best interest and was a violation of bankruptcy code, still they appointed Kevin Padrick as Trustee.
2/12/09 Obsidian Finance Group, Ewan Rose, and Kevin Padrick went to Bend to give Summit a Presentation instructed by Judge Randall Dunn at the 2/11/09 HEARING. Stephanie DeYoung recorded this meeting. Kevin Padrick later conspired with the Bend Oregon police and D.A. Patrick Flaherty to file criminal charges illegally and unconstitutionally against Stephanie DeYoung. This video is still online to this day, at
2/12/09 KEVIN PADRICK was tardy bay about 40 minutes. He was having trouble landing his plane. You all know how that goes. So a lot went on in this 40 MINUTES. It is like a picture of time.
WHAT HAPPENS AT THE 02/11/09 HEARING DOES NOT MATCH WHAT HAPPENS AT THE 2/12/09 OBSIDIAN FINANCE PRESENTATIONS.
2/12/09 The U.S Trustee Office was notified of Summit's concerns. Terry Vance puts his name in the hat. US Trustee chooses KEVIN PADRICK as trustee because an entity cannot be a trustee.
Result - Kevin Padrick got himself appointed trustee where he personally gets paid:
1) 3% on the assets (including $15 million of cash already sitting there- that's a cool half million up front),
2) 15% on the on all liquidated assets, proceeds from bonds, and proceeds from actions against third parties.
3) 10% success fee for recovery of assets in excess of principal claims of $13 million. He also can choose to share a part of the success fee with his own attorney, Tonkin Torp.
4) His charge rate at $600/hour for all time spent being the trustee of the Summit Accommodators Liquidating Trust, and
5) His charge rate $600 and the charge rate of all other profesisonal services (including those from Obsidian) to pursue all third party claims, assets of principals and third party claims against financial institutions. Oh yes, that is right Kevin Padrick is not ACCOUNTABLE to anyone.
6) The agreement allows Kevin Padrick to pay his attorneys', Tonkon Torp, hourly rates at $600/hour.
PADRICK BLOWS OFF REAL PROPERTY OFFERS PRIOR TO THE PLAN CONFIRMATION BECAUSE HE DOESN'T GET THE BONUS PAY (15% AND 10%).
Once plan is confirmed, Padrick sort of works at selling properties. More wastes time with lawsuits where he is accusing everyone of aiding and abetting. What does UMPQUA SAY ABOUT THIS?
Fees are so far around $5 Million at this time. A year later and the situation has exploded from $13 Million in Claims to $40 Million in Claims.
Creditors get change on the dollar of what they would have got if they Reorganization was handled with the Highest Fiduciary Duty.
Many other events happened, I can provide emails, names of possible witnesses or other information as needed by any special investigators.
Objection to the Fees, a court motion with Exhibits and Evidence filed in Summit Bankruptcy Case.
Judge Randall Dunn Suggest Kevin Padrick be Trustee (Also in hearing noted above)
Email from Susan Ford, Sussman shank attorney to all parties that appointing a Trustee was not in the best interest of the Creditors.
Cox’s Trial Documents
Obsidian v. Cox Trial Transcripts
Motion to Exclude Sean Boushie Hearing Transcript Nov. 18th 2011
Nov. 28th Hearing Transcripts
David Brown Declaration July 22nd 2011, Obsidian v Cox Case
Cascadian, Homestreet Lawsuit Showing Pattern and History (RICO), as Kevin Padrick had an objection to fees there as well and was accused of misleading his clients and liquidating them.
David Aman Robert Opera Email Discussing Tax Issues
Proof Summit Bankruptcy was a Debtor in Possession yet Obsidian VP Claimed Different
Sussman Shank Summit Press Release
Document Showing Summit was Billed for Kevin Padrick's meeting pitching himself to the Creditors against the best interest of his own clients. And essentially giving the opposition information regarding his own client.
Mark Neuman Deposition
See Transcripts from Obsidian v. Cox Trial where Patricia Whitington states that it was their intention to liquidate, to bankrupt
See David Brown Testimony
See Kevin Padrick Testimony under Oath
Stephanie DeYoung Deposition
Possible Witnesses other then listed above.
Stephanie DeYoung, Bret DeYoung, Bend D.A. Patrick Flaherty, Guy Vernon,
PacifiCorp Buys BlackCap, PacifiCorp Wattage Contracts
PacifiCorp Michael Dunn, Judge Randall Dunn, Judge Michael C. Sullivan, Bend D.A. Patrick Flannery, Tonkon Torp Attorney David Peterson, later became lobbyist, attorney Leon Simson, attorney David Aman, attorney Haley Bjerk,
U.S. Trustee Responsible for Oversight was Pamela Griffith and Robert D. Miller Jr., DOJ attorney was M. Vivienne Popperl.
CRO Terry Vance
Patty Whittington Obsidian
Kevin Padrick Obsidian
Perkins Coie's Role in the Summit Bankruptcy and Information Suppression
Judge Michael Simon
Jeanette L. Thomas
Judge Marco Hernandez
Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Gordon Smith
Judge Michael C. Sullivan
St. Charles, Cascade Health
Tom Stilley, attorney Sussman Shank
Susan Ford, attorney Sussman Shank
Patricia Whittington was on the board of Cascade Health (Sageview Mental Institute). Kevin Padrick and David Aman got Stephanie DeYoung's files in total violation of her HIPAA rights and used those against her in further retaliation, suing, litigation and harassment.
Bend Oregon Connected Parties
DA Patrick Flaherty
Valerie Wright, Attorney
Wright Van Handel LLP
Kevin J. McCarty, Attorney
Not Limited to, but Some:
Solar Companies Created and Connected
Black Cap Solar Project
Lake County Solar Farms
Lost Forest Solar
Energetics Solar Farm
AE Solar Energy
BETC Solar Credits
Old Mill Solar
Obsidian Finance Solar
Sage Renewables Solar
Miller Nash Law Firm
Pacificorp Solar Acquisition
Solar Asset Fund
Solar Development Fund
Solar Lending Program
Solar PV Project
Solar Investment Group
Advanced Energy Industries
Advanced Micro Devices
Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick and David Brown as well as Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Tonkon Torp lawyers David Aman and Steven Wilker have bullied me, sued me, harassed me, threatened and intimidated me, conspired with others to incite hate and harass me, criminally slander and defame me in big and small media world wide, flat out lie about me with actual malice, ruin my life and family relationships, ruin my ability to get an income or rent a home, and all to hide their involvement in the high finance crimes and unethical actions behind the scenes of the Summit Bankruptcy.
/s/ Crystal L. Cox
Crystal L. Cox"
Posted by Crystal L. Cox at 3:26 PM