In a previous post, I examined the incestuous relationship between Paul Singerman and other Berger Singerman insiders and Gibraltar Bank (see also here). Berger Singerman is the lead law firm for the trustee in the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler bankruptcy. It has spearheaded the "immunization" of Gibraltar and those associated with Gibraltar, in the Gibraltar Bank scandal — a scandal that parallels the TD Bank scandal. The Gibraltar immunization extends to Berger Singerman itself, its insider co-investors with Rothstein in Gibraltar, and to others who aided in orchestrating the purchase of Gibraltar Bank ... the bank Scott Rothstein said was essential to carrying out his scheme.
Rothstein testified that a major reason for his participation in the purchase of Gibraltar Bank was that inquiries into his Gibraltar accounts would then be stopped. So the "carrot" to Rothstein joining with Berger Singerman insiders in the Gibraltar purchase was a cessation of inquiries into the Ponzi scheme; and the "stick" was continued inquiries at Gibraltar, which could result in the quick collapse of the Ponzi scheme. Not much of a choice.
In my March 9, 2012 post, I stated the following:
"Everyone following the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy case should recognize what is really happening:
Berger Singerman is making many quick "pennies on the dollar"
settlements. Those paltry settlements all have buried clauses that
immunize the targets from victim lawsuits — the real "carrot" to settle.
A large part of those paltry settlements then go to Berger Singerman
for legal fees — and Berger Singerman is thereby able to protect
themselves (and friends) from many embarrassing questions and potential
civil claims, including aiding and abetting and civil RICO claims,
regarding Gibraltar"
A few days ago, Civil RICO claims were permitted by U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard to be added to Emess Capital's complaint against TD Bank, thereby showing the viability of filing such claims against Gibraltar Bank and those connected to the Rothstein scheme — claims I pointed out were apropos in Gibraltar's case.
The still open issue is why haven't Civil RICO claims been used against Gibraltar Bank yet? Is it because Berger Singerman obtained immunization for Gibraltar and those connected to Gibraltar, thereby protecting themselves and their own multimillion dollar investments in Gibraltar? Civil RICO claims against Gibraltar, along with aiding and abetting claims, could enmesh Berger Singerman insiders as co-defendants based on allegations they played a crucial role in carrying out Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme.
Showing posts with label Gibraltar Private Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gibraltar Private Bank. Show all posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Scott Rothstein - TD Bank Wins One
TD Bank just won a victory before Judge Marra in federal district court. Judge Marra ruled TD Bank has the right to have a jury trial conducted in the district court, not the bankruptcy court, because it did not consent to a bankruptcy court jury trial.
The only question is if they want to go before a jury ... and I don't only mean TD Bank. The elephant in the room throughout the whole Scott Rothstein bankruptcy is that Berger Singerman insiders, including Paul Singerman, partnered with Rothstein to buy Gibraltar Bank, arguably a bank more important to Rothstein's schemes then TD Bank.
Clearly, Berger Singerman insiders are presumed to have inside knowledge of Rothstein's scheme — through due dilligence and similar efforts used in evaluating their Gibraltar investment and their partner, Rothstein, who they were investing with.
At the time of the purchase all the warning signs were in place, including the many internal complaints about Rothstein's accounts. Rothstein has already testified that the key reason for his investing in Gibraltar Bank was to block all internal investigations of his accounts.
The conflict problem — so the public was informed and it was dutifully reported — was "solved" by hiring another law firm to sue Gibraltar. The problem then disappeared from public view, as "solved."
But, the conflict problem was never solved because Gibraltar played a central role in the Ponzi scheme. Berger Singerman had retained such a degree of control over the bankruptcy estate that Paul Singerman negotiated the sweetheart Gibraltar bankruptcy settlement that immunizes Gibraltar from other claims by Rothstein's victims — and protects Berger Singerman insiders' investment in Gibraltar.
The ploy of hiring another firm to give the appearance of a "solved" conflict, worked very well indeed.
TD Bank's "Best Defense" - What Happened To The In Pari Delicto Defense ... It Worked In The Madoff Case?
It is so far very strange that the issue of "in pari delicto" has not yet hit any headlines in this case (See my previous post on this subject). Remember, that well settled defense theory says, in essence, that if two parties work together on a scheme, then one of those schemers (in this case the bankruptcy estate) cannot sue third parties on behalf of innocent victims.
To make the in pari delicto concept clearer: picture two muggers assaulting a victim. One of the muggers sues another alleged accomplice to the mugging to compensate the victim. The sued alleged accomplice raises the in pari delicto defense claiming an accomplice cannot sue him to compensate the victim.
This very important defense issue, a few days ago, became the subject of an appeal in the Second Circuit in the Bernie Madoff bankruptcy case. The appeal came after two Madoff bankruptcy trustee lawsuits against financial institutions were thrown out based on the in pari delicto defense. Those cases parallel the Scott Rothstein case against TD Bank.
Everyone following the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy case should recognize what is really happening:
Berger Singerman is making many quick "pennies on the dollar" settlements. Those paltry settlements all have buried clauses that immunize the targets from victim lawsuits — the real "carrot" to settle. A large part of those paltry settlements then go to Berger Singerman for legal fees — and Berger Singerman is thereby able to protect themselves (and friends) from many embarrassing questions and potential civil claims, including aiding and abetting and civil RICO claims, regarding Gibraltar.
The only question is if they want to go before a jury ... and I don't only mean TD Bank. The elephant in the room throughout the whole Scott Rothstein bankruptcy is that Berger Singerman insiders, including Paul Singerman, partnered with Rothstein to buy Gibraltar Bank, arguably a bank more important to Rothstein's schemes then TD Bank.
Clearly, Berger Singerman insiders are presumed to have inside knowledge of Rothstein's scheme — through due dilligence and similar efforts used in evaluating their Gibraltar investment and their partner, Rothstein, who they were investing with.
At the time of the purchase all the warning signs were in place, including the many internal complaints about Rothstein's accounts. Rothstein has already testified that the key reason for his investing in Gibraltar Bank was to block all internal investigations of his accounts.
The conflict problem — so the public was informed and it was dutifully reported — was "solved" by hiring another law firm to sue Gibraltar. The problem then disappeared from public view, as "solved."
But, the conflict problem was never solved because Gibraltar played a central role in the Ponzi scheme. Berger Singerman had retained such a degree of control over the bankruptcy estate that Paul Singerman negotiated the sweetheart Gibraltar bankruptcy settlement that immunizes Gibraltar from other claims by Rothstein's victims — and protects Berger Singerman insiders' investment in Gibraltar.
The ploy of hiring another firm to give the appearance of a "solved" conflict, worked very well indeed.
TD Bank's "Best Defense" - What Happened To The In Pari Delicto Defense ... It Worked In The Madoff Case?
It is so far very strange that the issue of "in pari delicto" has not yet hit any headlines in this case (See my previous post on this subject). Remember, that well settled defense theory says, in essence, that if two parties work together on a scheme, then one of those schemers (in this case the bankruptcy estate) cannot sue third parties on behalf of innocent victims.
To make the in pari delicto concept clearer: picture two muggers assaulting a victim. One of the muggers sues another alleged accomplice to the mugging to compensate the victim. The sued alleged accomplice raises the in pari delicto defense claiming an accomplice cannot sue him to compensate the victim.
This very important defense issue, a few days ago, became the subject of an appeal in the Second Circuit in the Bernie Madoff bankruptcy case. The appeal came after two Madoff bankruptcy trustee lawsuits against financial institutions were thrown out based on the in pari delicto defense. Those cases parallel the Scott Rothstein case against TD Bank.
Everyone following the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy case should recognize what is really happening:
Berger Singerman is making many quick "pennies on the dollar" settlements. Those paltry settlements all have buried clauses that immunize the targets from victim lawsuits — the real "carrot" to settle. A large part of those paltry settlements then go to Berger Singerman for legal fees — and Berger Singerman is thereby able to protect themselves (and friends) from many embarrassing questions and potential civil claims, including aiding and abetting and civil RICO claims, regarding Gibraltar.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Raj Rajaratnam Convicted ... But Local Bankruptcy Insiders Helped Bear Stearns — the "Big One" — Get Away
No conviction could have been simpler to obtain than one for the theft of massive amounts of wiretap information and other protected law enforcement materials ... that was engineered, for Bear Stearns benefit, by local bankruptcy insiders and Bear Stearns senior management.
Convictions of senior Bear Stearns managing directors Mark Lehman and Daniel Taub would have been so simple. And, through the leverage of Bear Stearns senior management facing long prison terms, have led to a successful outcome — instead of the notorious botched result — in the Bear Stearns Cayman Islands CMO Hedge Fund trial ... a trial that otherwise had to rely on ambiguous emails.
In 2006, Paul S. Singerman of Berger Singerman confessed to being instrumental in funneling a flood of illegal wiretap results and other extensive protected law enforcement materials (he euphemistically termed "discovery") to Bear Stearns:
"one of the purposes of Title Ill is to prevent unlawful communications intercepts being used for "private financial gain" .... Sharing the contents of the discovery ... with Lawrence's largest creditor— Bear Stearns & Co. ... was entirely appropriate so that they could determine what, if anything, in the discovery obtained might be useful to them"
The open and shut simplicity of a prosecution of Bear Stearns senior management — for serious violations of federal wiretap law — would have prevented Bear Stearns' later 30 billion dollar sale of worthless CMO's from their Cayman Islands hedge funds to the U.S. taxpayer. That sale would have been politically impossible.
From late 2004 on, even before Paul S. Singerman's confession was made, I had filed extensive documentation, including hidden bills, that plainly showed the thefts were routinely occurring. The documentation showed how Bear Stearns was regularly funneled the massive amount law enforcement material they were illegally receiving. It was that documentation then led to the confession by Mr. Singerman in court papers.
A successful prosecution of Bear Stearns insiders was a much simpler matter than the Raj Rajaratnam conviction — itself, the Wall Street Journal identified as having a "simple" prosecution theory as the reason for its success — because the theory was basic and so easy to prove since a confession already existed.
The means to convict senior Bear Stearns management had been filed (and sent to the local U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida) in more than enough time to prevent the greatest con in US financial history: the 30 billion dollar sale of worthless CMO's held in Bear Stearns' Cayman Islands hedge funds — the very CMO's Bear Stearns insiders made billions creating — to the US taxpayer.
This far dwarfed the 20 million dollar insider case of Raj Rajaratnam.
Of course there is much more to this story, as hinted at in the Paul Singerman confession. Particularly the strange manner, theories, and events by which the illegal wiretapping was obtained and justified. All of these matters, presenting a far different picture than previously publicized about the longest civil contempt case in US federal court history, has begun to be fully documented in this blog.
Confession by Paul S. Singerman that Bear Stearns illegally obtained federal law enforcement tapes
Convictions of senior Bear Stearns managing directors Mark Lehman and Daniel Taub would have been so simple. And, through the leverage of Bear Stearns senior management facing long prison terms, have led to a successful outcome — instead of the notorious botched result — in the Bear Stearns Cayman Islands CMO Hedge Fund trial ... a trial that otherwise had to rely on ambiguous emails.
In 2006, Paul S. Singerman of Berger Singerman confessed to being instrumental in funneling a flood of illegal wiretap results and other extensive protected law enforcement materials (he euphemistically termed "discovery") to Bear Stearns:
"one of the purposes of Title Ill is to prevent unlawful communications intercepts being used for "private financial gain" .... Sharing the contents of the discovery ... with Lawrence's largest creditor— Bear Stearns & Co. ... was entirely appropriate so that they could determine what, if anything, in the discovery obtained might be useful to them"
The open and shut simplicity of a prosecution of Bear Stearns senior management — for serious violations of federal wiretap law — would have prevented Bear Stearns' later 30 billion dollar sale of worthless CMO's from their Cayman Islands hedge funds to the U.S. taxpayer. That sale would have been politically impossible.
From late 2004 on, even before Paul S. Singerman's confession was made, I had filed extensive documentation, including hidden bills, that plainly showed the thefts were routinely occurring. The documentation showed how Bear Stearns was regularly funneled the massive amount law enforcement material they were illegally receiving. It was that documentation then led to the confession by Mr. Singerman in court papers.
A successful prosecution of Bear Stearns insiders was a much simpler matter than the Raj Rajaratnam conviction — itself, the Wall Street Journal identified as having a "simple" prosecution theory as the reason for its success — because the theory was basic and so easy to prove since a confession already existed.
The means to convict senior Bear Stearns management had been filed (and sent to the local U.S. Attorney's Office in Florida) in more than enough time to prevent the greatest con in US financial history: the 30 billion dollar sale of worthless CMO's held in Bear Stearns' Cayman Islands hedge funds — the very CMO's Bear Stearns insiders made billions creating — to the US taxpayer.
This far dwarfed the 20 million dollar insider case of Raj Rajaratnam.
Of course there is much more to this story, as hinted at in the Paul Singerman confession. Particularly the strange manner, theories, and events by which the illegal wiretapping was obtained and justified. All of these matters, presenting a far different picture than previously publicized about the longest civil contempt case in US federal court history, has begun to be fully documented in this blog.
Confession by Paul S. Singerman that Bear Stearns illegally obtained federal law enforcement tapes
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Scott Rothstein Redux Part 2: - More On The Gibraltar Bank "Settlement"
Either nobody read the Rothstein/Gibraltar Bank settlement ... or really cares that the Rothstein victims are being so freely victimized again.
Look closely at the reported Gibraltar - Rothstein "settlement" terms:
1. Gibraltar Bank will pay ten million dollars to the trustee. A large part of that amount will go into the pocket of Berger Singerman — controlled by Gibraltar stockholders Paul Singerman and other still unidentified Berger Singerman honchos (co-shareholders with Scott Rothstein in Gibraltar) — to pay for legal fees to Berger Singerman. That ten million is the maximum cap Gibraltar will be responsible for because the "settlement" bars victims from suing Gibraltar and part of the recovery from the insurers will be kicked back to Gibraltar! Berger Singerman double dipping not only protects their honchos' multimillion dollar holdings in Gibraltar, but they will collect more millions in legal fees from the "recovery."
2. Ten million dollars will be paid by Gibraltar's insurers — not Gibraltar, of course.
3. And here's the Berger Singerman triple dip: The Gibraltar bank's $50m claims against its liability insurers will be litigated by Berger Singerman because those claims are being assigned to the bankruptcy estate!
How sweet it is ... to be a bankruptcy insider like Paul Singerman!
There really is no shame here. The Rothstein victims are being victimized a second time through the stroke of a bankruptcy insider's pen ... by no less than Scott Rothstein's Gibraltar co-shareholders!
For the paltry sum of 10 million dollars — an amount that is a maximum cap and which will most likely be substantially reduced by recovery from insurers because of the recovery kick back to Gibraltar bank — hundreds of millions in Gibraltar (and Berger Singerman honcho shareholder) liability to Rothstein victims is evaded by the "settlement."
Toronto-Dominion Bank was not lucky enough to have bankruptcy connected insiders, such as Berger Singerman honchos, as shareholders. TD Bank was recently hit with a $67m judgment and more claims are moving through the pipeline.
Look closely at the reported Gibraltar - Rothstein "settlement" terms:
1. Gibraltar Bank will pay ten million dollars to the trustee. A large part of that amount will go into the pocket of Berger Singerman — controlled by Gibraltar stockholders Paul Singerman and other still unidentified Berger Singerman honchos (co-shareholders with Scott Rothstein in Gibraltar) — to pay for legal fees to Berger Singerman. That ten million is the maximum cap Gibraltar will be responsible for because the "settlement" bars victims from suing Gibraltar and part of the recovery from the insurers will be kicked back to Gibraltar! Berger Singerman double dipping not only protects their honchos' multimillion dollar holdings in Gibraltar, but they will collect more millions in legal fees from the "recovery."
2. Ten million dollars will be paid by Gibraltar's insurers — not Gibraltar, of course.
3. And here's the Berger Singerman triple dip: The Gibraltar bank's $50m claims against its liability insurers will be litigated by Berger Singerman because those claims are being assigned to the bankruptcy estate!
How sweet it is ... to be a bankruptcy insider like Paul Singerman!
There really is no shame here. The Rothstein victims are being victimized a second time through the stroke of a bankruptcy insider's pen ... by no less than Scott Rothstein's Gibraltar co-shareholders!
For the paltry sum of 10 million dollars — an amount that is a maximum cap and which will most likely be substantially reduced by recovery from insurers because of the recovery kick back to Gibraltar bank — hundreds of millions in Gibraltar (and Berger Singerman honcho shareholder) liability to Rothstein victims is evaded by the "settlement."
Toronto-Dominion Bank was not lucky enough to have bankruptcy connected insiders, such as Berger Singerman honchos, as shareholders. TD Bank was recently hit with a $67m judgment and more claims are moving through the pipeline.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Scott Rothstein Redux: - The Gibraltar Bank "Settlement" ... He Lives In Spirit!
The spirit of Scott Rothstein is alive and well ... in a local bankruptcy court as shown by the just announced "settlement" of the bankruptcy estate of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler with Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust. Unfortunately, its what you don't read in public reports that really counts since there are several "elephants in the ointment" in this so-called "settlement."
For the inquisitive, do a quick search for "in pari delicto in bankruptcy". Or simply look at the Eleventh Circuit case Official Com. of Unsecured Creditors of PSA, Inc. v. Edwards, 437 F. 3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2006).
Even quicker, in layman's terms, the concept of "in pari delicto" means the Rothstein Rosenfedt estate cannot sue, let alone settle, claims for damages to Rothstein's victims because Rothstein Rosenfedt was a perpetrator of the crime.
So what's going on here? The answer is to first remind oneself of a cardinal rule of local bankruptcy ethics: there aren't any when large $$$ are at stake. And the corollary rules: things are rarely what they seem; and follow the $$$.
Principal owners of Gibraltar bank are Berger Singerman honchos Paul Singerman and other unidentified Berger Singerman partners. Their investment in Gibraltar runs into the many millions but the full amount and degree of ownership is guarded with a level of secrecy that Iranian nuclear honchos can only envy. Berger Singerman is the lead attorney for the Rothstein estate.
Paul Singerman et al were Scott Rothstein's partners (co-shareholders) in Gibraltar bank. Because of normal due diligence standards, including the knowledge of Gibraltar owners of the extensive money laundering activities and who knew what and when, and recent Scott Rothstein's deposition disclosures on Gibraltar, it is clear Singerman honchos have a wealth of information about the involvement of Gibraltar bank's owners and employees ... and their liability. Of course, not a single Berger Singerman honcho has been deposed to get to the bottom of the Gibraltar fiasco.
In the "there is no shame" category:
The "settlement" includes a key provision that the Rothstein victims cannot sue Gibraltar bank! The Berger Singerman multi million dollar Gibraltar investments are now safe!
The "settlement" fine print also contains provisions that may ultimately bolster Berger Singerman honchos Gibraltar investments by millions.
It was just announced that the Rothstein estate is suing to block Rothstein's victims from suing Gibraltar bank in Broward county.
Lastly, for anyone who is gullible enough to believe the public announcement of a 65 million dollar potential "recovery" for Rothstein victims ... the check is in the mail.
For the inquisitive, do a quick search for "in pari delicto in bankruptcy". Or simply look at the Eleventh Circuit case Official Com. of Unsecured Creditors of PSA, Inc. v. Edwards, 437 F. 3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2006).
Even quicker, in layman's terms, the concept of "in pari delicto" means the Rothstein Rosenfedt estate cannot sue, let alone settle, claims for damages to Rothstein's victims because Rothstein Rosenfedt was a perpetrator of the crime.
So what's going on here? The answer is to first remind oneself of a cardinal rule of local bankruptcy ethics: there aren't any when large $$$ are at stake. And the corollary rules: things are rarely what they seem; and follow the $$$.
Principal owners of Gibraltar bank are Berger Singerman honchos Paul Singerman and other unidentified Berger Singerman partners. Their investment in Gibraltar runs into the many millions but the full amount and degree of ownership is guarded with a level of secrecy that Iranian nuclear honchos can only envy. Berger Singerman is the lead attorney for the Rothstein estate.
Paul Singerman et al were Scott Rothstein's partners (co-shareholders) in Gibraltar bank. Because of normal due diligence standards, including the knowledge of Gibraltar owners of the extensive money laundering activities and who knew what and when, and recent Scott Rothstein's deposition disclosures on Gibraltar, it is clear Singerman honchos have a wealth of information about the involvement of Gibraltar bank's owners and employees ... and their liability. Of course, not a single Berger Singerman honcho has been deposed to get to the bottom of the Gibraltar fiasco.
In the "there is no shame" category:
The "settlement" includes a key provision that the Rothstein victims cannot sue Gibraltar bank! The Berger Singerman multi million dollar Gibraltar investments are now safe!
The "settlement" fine print also contains provisions that may ultimately bolster Berger Singerman honchos Gibraltar investments by millions.
It was just announced that the Rothstein estate is suing to block Rothstein's victims from suing Gibraltar bank in Broward county.
Lastly, for anyone who is gullible enough to believe the public announcement of a 65 million dollar potential "recovery" for Rothstein victims ... the check is in the mail.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
How Bear Stearns and Bankruptcy Insiders Laundered Millions ... Without Funds Ever Touching the Bankruptcy Estate
In my earlier posts (with more to follow), I began to show how Bear Stearns, using various bankruptcy insiders and a local bankruptcy court, had installed a self-proclaimed Israeli "assassin" cum secret agent, Juval Aviv (who had been previously indicted and prosecuted by the US Government), to "supervise" the local US Attorney's Office in extensive illegal, secret wiretapping of myself, my attorneys, my friends, my family and reporters I communicated with.
In 2006, I obtained the confession by Paul S. Singerman, of Berger Singerman, that protected law enforcement materials, including the results of the wiretapping, were then secretly funneled to Bear Stearns for their own private use. Bear Stearns was involved in extensive civil litigation in Florida state and federal courts with myself and my family. Anthony Pelicano — the infamous Hollywood P.I. who, similarly, was conducting wiretapping to get information for civil court cases — received 15 years in federal prison for these very actions.
The communications surveillance occurred throughout pending appeals in federal court and ongoing proceedings in Florida state court. It was done without notice — either before, during and after the (still ongoing?) surveillance — to myself, my attorneys, all reviewing courts, and the many other victims. This was completely hidden until late 2004, when the district court ordered the bankruptcy court to disgorge its extensive sealed and off-the-docket court record. Some of that record still remains concealed, despite the order.
To pay Berger Singerman and the extensive crew of secret "officers of the court" (complete with a "black bag" crew) — who were ostensibly retained by trustee Alan Goldberg — a scheme was orchestrated: Bear Stearns would pay the millions in fees, using a phantom "loan." In that way, Bear Stearns superficially protected itself and its agents from investigations into illegal activities, under the rubric of being "officers of the court."
The phantom "loan" funds never passed through any bankruptcy estate accounts or were reflected on any estate financial statements.
Since Bear Stearns paid the secret officers of the court directly, there were no traces in the bankruptcy court record (sealed or public) of their fee payment applications or fee approval orders. Also, the US Trustee was never served with any retention documents for the secret hirees and the key billing records of secret hirees still remain hidden, including those of Juval Aviv and P.I. William Riley.
Even the disclosed billing statements for the "public" hirees, e.g., Berger Singerman attorneys and attorney Michael Budwick, contain no reference to what took place during the secret hearings, or in England. Those statements never disclosed that fees were billed for illegally passing law enforcement tapes and other protected law enforcement materials to Bear Stearns senior managing directors, Mark Lehman and Daniel Taub.
Two of the key documents evidencing this scheme are: 1) the unsigned accounting statement for the bankruptcy estate filed yearly, and 2) the sham "loan" agreement:
This is one of the sham "Independent Estate Property Record and Report" accounting statements that was filed yearly:
Sham bankruptcy estate balance sheet filed by Paul Singerman of Berger Singerman for Alan Goldberg in October 2009.
Never, during a long career as an financial analyst on wall street, have I seen a filing more fraudulent than the above filing. Some reasons for this conclusion are:
— There is no signature or other identification of who actually prepared the accounting report. The only accountant the estate had, was employed for only a few days, early in the bankruptcy case. The accounting firm then immediately left the case ... without issuing any reports. No explanation was given for its removal.
— There is no entry for any part of the sham "loan" purportedly made by Bear Stearns to the estate to pay fees and expenses ... which totaled about $5 million dollars. The statement is a clear admission that no debt was ever owed to Bear Stearns — showing the "loan" agreement was a sham.
— The estate is valued at $20 million dollars. However, it provides no explanation how that value was arrived at. This is a fraudulent valuation since the estate had no asset value for several reasons:
First, Federal District Judge Lawrence King, during earlier litigation with Bear Stearns, ruled in 1996 that the trust had to be directly sued under Federal and Florida law. After that order was issued, Bear Stearns impleaded the trust as a defendant in 1997. So, Florida law was already being applied to the trust and that law required the trust be sued directly. Judge Herbert Stettin (the trustee of the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy estate) represented the trust in federal court.
Because the bankruptcy trustee, Alan Goldberg, refused to sue the trust, the estate's only asset was a worthless claim.
What had occurred in the bankruptcy was that a single line "finding" of estate property was inserted at the end of a discovery sanction order (written entirely by Berger Singerman) that was issued in a bankruptcy discharge objection proceeding held under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Liability in a discharge objection proceeding is legally impossible because the only matter at stake in such proceeding is the denial of a bankruptcy discharge.
In addition, during the secret bankruptcy hearings, Berger Singerman disclosed that Goldberg was suing, in England, the same trustees who were already represented by Judge Stettin in federal court before Judge King. This confirmed that the only estate "asset" was a claim of indeterminate value in England since Goldberg refused to sue in the U.S.
The hidden bankruptcy court transcripts further disclosed that Goldberg was seeking a Mareva Injuction in the England litigation. An English Mareva Injunction is a pre-judgment injunction issued while a claim is litigated. A few months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, SA v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 US 308 (1999), had ruled that Mareva Injunctions (pre-judgment injunctions) were not permitted in U.S. Courts. Berger Singerman, thereby, secretly admitted that all they had was a claim and not a judgment against either myself or the trust.
Goldberg lost his ligation in England, so the value of his "asset" ... was zero. This confirmed that I was in prison to pay a judgment debt that never existed; and that Berger Singerman withheld critical information from myself, my attorneys, and reviewing courts throughout my appeals.
This is the phantom loan agreement between Goldberg and Bear Stearns, dated mid June 1998:
the still-used sham 1998 Bear Stearns-Goldberg finance agreement
One reason the $5 million in payments made by Bear Stearns were not listed on the bankruptcy estate accounting report is that even such a debt could give rise to criminal charges as fraudulent fee claims against the bankruptcy estate, for the theft of law enforcement materials.
Moreover, since none of the secret officers of the court submitted bills for approval, no orders for submitted bills were issued, and no service was made on the U.S. Trustee's Office (required by law to review all bills), the Bear Stearns fee payments were not an estate debt.
Also, even though the loan agreement claims it was reached in mid June, Bear Stearns had already secretly funneled funds to Goldberg's ostensible professionals before that date. See this post.
The "professionals," who received fee payments from Bear Stearns, fall into two categories. First were Goldberg's publicly disclosed professionals, e.g., Berger Singerman attorneys, attorney Michael Budwick.
Mr. Budwick, co-counsel with Berger Singerman, has stated in court filings that he never knew of the secret hearings or the communications surveillance.
The second group were those "professionals," who were ostensibly hired by Goldberg under "seal." This second group included Juval Aviv, P.I. William Riley, Coudert Brothers, and others.
The latter (secretly hired) group all had backdated (nunc pro tunc) individual "sealed" applications filed, and at the related "retention" hearings still undisclosed "results" were reported without the presence of a court reporter.
None of these sealed retentions were lawful because: none of the applications were served on the U.S. Trustee's Office, so they could not be reviewed, as required by law; none of the secret hirees filed their bills, even under seal, (the single exception being Coudert Brothers, which filed bills years later — but Coudert didn't seek approval for payments to it by Bear Stearns and its bills listed Bear Stearns as its client); none of the secret hirees sought or received approval for bill payments. These missing prerequisites to legitimacy invalidated employment by Goldberg and instead the group was employed by Bear Stearns, which paid them.
The "public" group never submitted or released bills that described their actions taken "under seal," even after the record was unsealed.
In 2006, I obtained the confession by Paul S. Singerman, of Berger Singerman, that protected law enforcement materials, including the results of the wiretapping, were then secretly funneled to Bear Stearns for their own private use. Bear Stearns was involved in extensive civil litigation in Florida state and federal courts with myself and my family. Anthony Pelicano — the infamous Hollywood P.I. who, similarly, was conducting wiretapping to get information for civil court cases — received 15 years in federal prison for these very actions.
The communications surveillance occurred throughout pending appeals in federal court and ongoing proceedings in Florida state court. It was done without notice — either before, during and after the (still ongoing?) surveillance — to myself, my attorneys, all reviewing courts, and the many other victims. This was completely hidden until late 2004, when the district court ordered the bankruptcy court to disgorge its extensive sealed and off-the-docket court record. Some of that record still remains concealed, despite the order.
To pay Berger Singerman and the extensive crew of secret "officers of the court" (complete with a "black bag" crew) — who were ostensibly retained by trustee Alan Goldberg — a scheme was orchestrated: Bear Stearns would pay the millions in fees, using a phantom "loan." In that way, Bear Stearns superficially protected itself and its agents from investigations into illegal activities, under the rubric of being "officers of the court."
The phantom "loan" funds never passed through any bankruptcy estate accounts or were reflected on any estate financial statements.
Since Bear Stearns paid the secret officers of the court directly, there were no traces in the bankruptcy court record (sealed or public) of their fee payment applications or fee approval orders. Also, the US Trustee was never served with any retention documents for the secret hirees and the key billing records of secret hirees still remain hidden, including those of Juval Aviv and P.I. William Riley.
Even the disclosed billing statements for the "public" hirees, e.g., Berger Singerman attorneys and attorney Michael Budwick, contain no reference to what took place during the secret hearings, or in England. Those statements never disclosed that fees were billed for illegally passing law enforcement tapes and other protected law enforcement materials to Bear Stearns senior managing directors, Mark Lehman and Daniel Taub.
Two of the key documents evidencing this scheme are: 1) the unsigned accounting statement for the bankruptcy estate filed yearly, and 2) the sham "loan" agreement:
This is one of the sham "Independent Estate Property Record and Report" accounting statements that was filed yearly:
Sham bankruptcy estate balance sheet filed by Paul Singerman of Berger Singerman for Alan Goldberg in October 2009.
Never, during a long career as an financial analyst on wall street, have I seen a filing more fraudulent than the above filing. Some reasons for this conclusion are:
— There is no signature or other identification of who actually prepared the accounting report. The only accountant the estate had, was employed for only a few days, early in the bankruptcy case. The accounting firm then immediately left the case ... without issuing any reports. No explanation was given for its removal.
— There is no entry for any part of the sham "loan" purportedly made by Bear Stearns to the estate to pay fees and expenses ... which totaled about $5 million dollars. The statement is a clear admission that no debt was ever owed to Bear Stearns — showing the "loan" agreement was a sham.
— The estate is valued at $20 million dollars. However, it provides no explanation how that value was arrived at. This is a fraudulent valuation since the estate had no asset value for several reasons:
First, Federal District Judge Lawrence King, during earlier litigation with Bear Stearns, ruled in 1996 that the trust had to be directly sued under Federal and Florida law. After that order was issued, Bear Stearns impleaded the trust as a defendant in 1997. So, Florida law was already being applied to the trust and that law required the trust be sued directly. Judge Herbert Stettin (the trustee of the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy estate) represented the trust in federal court.
Because the bankruptcy trustee, Alan Goldberg, refused to sue the trust, the estate's only asset was a worthless claim.
What had occurred in the bankruptcy was that a single line "finding" of estate property was inserted at the end of a discovery sanction order (written entirely by Berger Singerman) that was issued in a bankruptcy discharge objection proceeding held under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Liability in a discharge objection proceeding is legally impossible because the only matter at stake in such proceeding is the denial of a bankruptcy discharge.
In addition, during the secret bankruptcy hearings, Berger Singerman disclosed that Goldberg was suing, in England, the same trustees who were already represented by Judge Stettin in federal court before Judge King. This confirmed that the only estate "asset" was a claim of indeterminate value in England since Goldberg refused to sue in the U.S.
The hidden bankruptcy court transcripts further disclosed that Goldberg was seeking a Mareva Injuction in the England litigation. An English Mareva Injunction is a pre-judgment injunction issued while a claim is litigated. A few months earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, SA v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 US 308 (1999), had ruled that Mareva Injunctions (pre-judgment injunctions) were not permitted in U.S. Courts. Berger Singerman, thereby, secretly admitted that all they had was a claim and not a judgment against either myself or the trust.
Goldberg lost his ligation in England, so the value of his "asset" ... was zero. This confirmed that I was in prison to pay a judgment debt that never existed; and that Berger Singerman withheld critical information from myself, my attorneys, and reviewing courts throughout my appeals.
This is the phantom loan agreement between Goldberg and Bear Stearns, dated mid June 1998:
the still-used sham 1998 Bear Stearns-Goldberg finance agreement
One reason the $5 million in payments made by Bear Stearns were not listed on the bankruptcy estate accounting report is that even such a debt could give rise to criminal charges as fraudulent fee claims against the bankruptcy estate, for the theft of law enforcement materials.
Moreover, since none of the secret officers of the court submitted bills for approval, no orders for submitted bills were issued, and no service was made on the U.S. Trustee's Office (required by law to review all bills), the Bear Stearns fee payments were not an estate debt.
Also, even though the loan agreement claims it was reached in mid June, Bear Stearns had already secretly funneled funds to Goldberg's ostensible professionals before that date. See this post.
The "professionals," who received fee payments from Bear Stearns, fall into two categories. First were Goldberg's publicly disclosed professionals, e.g., Berger Singerman attorneys, attorney Michael Budwick.
Mr. Budwick, co-counsel with Berger Singerman, has stated in court filings that he never knew of the secret hearings or the communications surveillance.
The second group were those "professionals," who were ostensibly hired by Goldberg under "seal." This second group included Juval Aviv, P.I. William Riley, Coudert Brothers, and others.
The latter (secretly hired) group all had backdated (nunc pro tunc) individual "sealed" applications filed, and at the related "retention" hearings still undisclosed "results" were reported without the presence of a court reporter.
None of these sealed retentions were lawful because: none of the applications were served on the U.S. Trustee's Office, so they could not be reviewed, as required by law; none of the secret hirees filed their bills, even under seal, (the single exception being Coudert Brothers, which filed bills years later — but Coudert didn't seek approval for payments to it by Bear Stearns and its bills listed Bear Stearns as its client); none of the secret hirees sought or received approval for bill payments. These missing prerequisites to legitimacy invalidated employment by Goldberg and instead the group was employed by Bear Stearns, which paid them.
The "public" group never submitted or released bills that described their actions taken "under seal," even after the record was unsealed.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
A Letter to The Editor - South Florida Business Journal To Correct Errors
This post is a copy of a letter to the editor at the South Florida Business Journal to correct some errors in a story originally published on my case. It is self-explanatory and corrects substantial factual errors that keep showing up in reports.
Editor,
South Florida Business Journal
Sir:
In searching your website I found several articles on my case that, unfortunately, continue to pop up during Google searches, which is the reason for this letter.
The key article you published was in December 2007 titled: “20-year fight over millions in offshore money isn't over yet”
Because I believe there are serious inaccuracies in the article I would like to have published the following response as either a response to the article or a comment to the article:
“I am the principal, Stephan J. Lawrence, of the article you published titled: “20-year fight over millions in offshore money isn't over yet”.
I am writing this comment in response to its significant inaccuracies and omissions. Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to speak with the author before its publication and have no doubt misinformation was provided to the author, which I seek to correct, as stated below.
First, for the full history of this bizarre case of the longest civil contempt sanction in US federal court history please visit my blog. It significantly differs in scope and tenor than that presented in the article. For a condensed history follow this link to my Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court.
Here are a few brief responses to some of the factual errors or omissions in the article.
— The 1993 and 1995 litigation details with Bear Stearns, omits the key ruling that Federal District Judge Lawrence King made in his 1996 order: that Bear Stearns could not sue me as a proxy for the trust, since the trust had to be directly sued under Florida law. After that order, Bear Stearns impleaded the trust as a defendant in 1997. So, Florida law was already being applied to the trust ... and that law required the trust be sued directly.
— The trust was represented by Judge Herbert Stettin (the current trustee of the Scott Rothstein bankruptcy estate) before Judge King.
— Goldberg's position was similar to that of Bear Stearns. His two choices were: he could take over Bear Stearns' lawsuit or sue under a similar type bankruptcy avoidance provision. Goldberg did neither. Nowhere in the article is there mention of a judgment ever being entered for liability by either myself or the trust for the trust settlement. Goldberg had declined to sue for liability or to intervene. No such judgment ever existed.
— The article does not explain how the 'liability' element — the required precursor to execution (turn over) — was arrived at. In short, what occurred was a single line was inserted into a discovery sanction order that was issued in a bankruptcy discharge objection proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Liability in a discharge objection proceeding is legally impossible because the only matter at stake in such proceeding is the denial of a bankruptcy discharge. In addition, there is no basis to appeal such a line on the theory that liability had been assigned since liability was never at stake. Indeed, to even attempt to raise such hypothetical future liability in a discharge appeal could be met with sanctions. A basic tenet of bankruptcy is that liability for pre-bankruptcy transfers can only come from actions under both 11 U.S.C. § 550 (to establish who is liable) and under the 'avoidance provisions' of the bankruptcy code (to establish amounts liable for). Both must occur.
— There was no $20 million margin deficit with Bear Stearns. The margin call given was substantially less and was also vastly inflated. The final arbitration award was for about $16 million plus interest. There is no relationship between a margin call amount and any ultimate debt; most margin calls result in no debt owed after liquidation.
— The trades Bear Stearns was given credit for, by the NASD arbitration panel, never existed and were backdated. No explanation was given how an award for non-existent trades, using what has come to be called 'flash prices,' could occur ... since it couldn't. The SEC did nothing to prevent this and a fruitful investigation by a single FBI agent, who took and interest, was quickly shut down. The Options Clearing Corp (OCC) and The Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), after much litigation, both later admitted the trades never occurred. The OCC/CBOE admissions are posted here.
— Florida was not my “new home state.” I became a Florida resident in the early 1980's, long before the 1987 crash. Florida's on line database shows that my main company, Pompano-Windy Partners, Ltd, had myself as its agent along with my home address almost two years before the 1987 crash. I was a Florida resident for years before that date.
— The statement that Goldberg hired Juval Aviv simply to "track down offshore activities" completely omits the incredible scope of what really occurred, all in secret and away from sight of myself, my attorneys, all reviewing courts, and the public. The unsealed documents and transcripts paint a far different picture. See my 2006 Wiretap and Civil Rights Complaint here. It is simply impossible, in this short response, to describe those events, however, my blog will do so. See also Certiorari Petition.
— I have posted excerpts from some of the astounding transcripts of the few secret hearings at which a court reporter was present.
— The bankruptcy record is devoid, except for a single "application" filed secretly in January 2000, of any trace of Aviv's billings statements, applications for payments, orders approving actual payments, or records of payments by Goldberg to Aviv. These are the minimum prerequisites for Aviv having actually been working for Goldberg. Indeed, even the secret"application" for employment by Goldberg was never served on the U.S. Trustee's Office.
— Your description of my wiretap and civil rights complaint omits the key claims, made under Title 3 (the "Wiretap Act"), for illegal and extensive wiretapping done by Bear Stearns through the theft of law enforcement tapes illegally obtained by Goldberg. The article has no mention of the phone surveillance (fully documented in the sealed record and transcripts), how it was done, or that it forms the foundation of my complaint.
Lastly, it is unfortunate my former attorney, Robert A. Stok, was interviewed without my having a chance to respond. The 1997 discovery sanction order — the single line in which was used to imprison me for over six years and assign an over $40 million dollar liability to me — was appealed by Mr. Stok at my direction. At the hearing resulting in the Order, all of my witnesses (including Judge Stettin) were ejected and I was forbidden to present evidence. Mr. Stok then defaulted my appeal; District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks ruled the default was "at worst, bad faith ... or at the very least, negligence or indifference." After Mr. Stok defaulted my appeal, Goldberg's attorney, Berger Singerman, prepared a subordination agreement between Mr. Stok's law firm and Bear Stearns, in which Bear Stearns subordinated their prior lien on my homestead in favor of Stok's law firm for no identifiable consideration and Stok's law firm immediately attempted to foreclose on my homestead … using the subordination agreement. There were other serious matters of dispute between myself and Mr. Stok that are beyond the scope of this limited comment.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)