Racketeering Activities By The Department of Justice!!!
In March 2003, the Honorable Glenn Fine, Inspector General for the Department of Justice, filed audit Report No. 03-17, titled "The U.S. Trustee Program's Efforts to Prevent Bankruptcy Fraud and Abuse." The Report was made available at www.usdoj.gov/oig. The report reveals that at the request of Lawrence Friedman, Director of the Executive Office for United States Trustees, the Management and Planning Staff (MPS) of the Department of Justice Management Division recommended that the United States Trustee Program develop an "Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative." Petition preparers are defined by the United States Trustee Program as anyone who is a non-licensed attorney who prepares a bankruptcy petition for filing, for a fee.
(PRWEB) August 18, 2004 -- The Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative included
creating a national database of petition preparers on Lawrence Friedman's
reasoning that it is to aid in the detection of fraudulent activity. The audit
report did not explain how entering petition preparers in a database would
detect fraudulent activity.
Federal statute 11 U.S.C. Section 110
provides for non-attorneys to prepare petitions and charge fees. Lawrence
Friedman's Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative rebels against Section 110,
misusing it to put non-attorney petition preparers out of business and into
bankruptcy.
An April 2004 edition of FSB reported that one petition
preparer found a "client" was paid $400 by a local attorney to come in with a
concealed tape recorder. In an article written by Adam Liptak, published in the
New York Times, it was reported that in the last seven years, United States
Trustees filed almost 4,000 motions seeking to stop bankruptcy petition
preparers or to reduce their fees.
It is reasonable to say that the
public and media presumes that all proceedings in bankruptcy courts pertain to
bankruptcy cases as debtor-creditor issues. The same is true for most petition
preparers. In spite of the Constitution that provides a trial by jury in
lawsuits over $20.00, bankruptcy courts deprive individuals of property and
liberty without jury trials. Petition preparers are not provided with an option
for trial by jury. They are denied trial by jury as bankruptcy judges interpret
the third-party matter as "core" procedure. [1]
Petition preparers are
denied court provided legal counsel, although some complaints threaten criminal
charges and imprisonment. Believing that truth and justice is the American way,
many petition preparers continue to use computer programs to generate
"cookie-cutter" forms based on information provided to them by their customers.
They are unaware of the Inspector General's Report revealing a designed and
planned "Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative," that creates wrong by misusing an
ambiguous and vague statute.
For decades, controversy regarding
bankruptcy court corruption rang throughout America. In 1931, William J.
Donovan, House Committee on the Judiciary, Administration of Bankrupt Estates,
71st Cong. 3d Sess. (Comm. Print 1931), recommended that Congress rectify the
corrupt administration of bankruptcy cases by creating a Federal Bankruptcy
Commissioner. Solicitor General Thomas Thacher, Report to the President on the
Bankruptcy Act and its Administration in the Courts of the United States, Dated
December 5, 1931, reprinted in S. Doc. No. 65, 72nd Cong. 1st Sess. (1932)
recommended legislation that would remedy cronyism and the lack of
administrative oversight in bankruptcy cases by authorizing career civil servant
bankruptcy administrators to oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases); In
1973, the Report of the Commission of the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States,
H.R. Doc. No. 137, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (1973) recommended legislation to improve
bankruptcy administration and reduce cronyism by transferring administrative
functions to an administrative body staffed by civil servants.
The prior
system's commingling of trustee supervision and the adjudication of disputes
between trustees and third parties in bankruptcy courts resulted in unduly close
relationships between bankruptcy judges and trustees that fostered cronyism and
insider influence and abuse. (H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 92 (1977).
Now in 2004, it is apparent to many Americans that the United States Trustee
Program is an institution continuing the same corruption and cronyism, which has
advanced into a racketeering operation designed to also hinder justice. As a
component of the Department of Justice, there is no impartial law enforcement
agency to investigate. Upon information and belief, all complaints and
correspondence alleging corruption in the United States Trustee Program,
(including cronyism with bankruptcy judges), submitted to members of Congress
and Glenn Fine's office, are forwarded to the Executive Office for United States
Trustees. Upon information and belief, all responses from the Executive Office
for United States Trustees recommends that parties obtain private legal counsel
and pursue "civil options."
Senator John Kerry has been informed of the
designed operation to place petition preparers out of business through the U.S.
Trustees' violation of RICO and the Sherman Acts. Upon information and belief,
Kerry received a complaint from a Massachusetts constituent and instead of
taking it as a matter before Congress to establish a special committee to
conduct public hearings, he instead forwarded the complaint to Lawrence
Friedman. Friedman, who birthed and carries forth the "Anti-Petition Preparer
Initiative", responded in the most unduly critical, condescending, and
accusative manner against the petition preparer. The petition preparer is now in
Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and owes thousands of dollars in bankruptcy court ordered
legal fees. Senator Kerry has been asked to address this issue, along with the
overall issue of bankruptcy court corruption in his campaign for president.
Senator Kerry remains silent.[2]
Since about the year 2000, U.S.
Trustees have used Section 110 to allege charges of unlicensed practice of law
(UPL) against petition preparers. Bankruptcy court decisions have included that
anything more than typing information provided by the debtor is practicing law.
Yet, petition preparers have been found in violation of Section 110 when the
information provided by the debtor is incorrect. Petition preparers have been
found in violation of Section 110 for UPL when providing debtors with
publications written and provided by United States Bankruptcy Courts to the
public. Some judges have decided that transferring information to a type-written
form to prepare bankruptcy petitions is practicing law unless the person works
for a licensed attorney. Yet, in the state of Maryland, Jason Searns, General
Counsel for We The People, has been charged with aiding a petition preparer to
practice law without a license.
One might ask how this is possible. Why
is it that petition preparers do not appeal decisions to a higher court? One
reason, and a documented one, is that most appeals filed to bankruptcy court
orders are pursued by large corporations. Appeals in federal court are simply
unaffordable to the average person. An additional reason is that attorneys
representing non-franchise associated petition preparers, generally withdraw
from cases, leaving defendants vulnerable and exposed to the twisting and
hypocritical arguments of U.S. Trustees. That is, if petition preparers can find
attorneys knowledgeable of this well-hidden law. The majority of attorneys has
no knowledge neither experience with Section 110 and must place a significant
amount of time into research. Case decisions that benefit petition preparers are
unpublished. They cannot be used in pleadings to support the interpretation and
decisions that benefit petition preparers. Attorneys representing petition
preparers pursue settlements and voluntarily agreements that the petition
preparer will cease doing business as an alternative to litigation. The same
goal is reached, which is to remove competition with attorneys for those seeking
debt relief.
Attorneys do not shy away from conveying that practicing
law in the federal system is complicated. Federal Rule only provides ten (10)
days to file a notice of appeal. This makes it impossible for anyone who does
not have an attorney during the proceedings to obtain replacement counsel, have
that counsel brought up-to-date on the case, know the issues, and file notice of
appeal in compliance to the ten day Rule.
The aforementioned is
demonstrated now in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Maryland, case number 03-08247. Demetrius Nickens, a 23 year old
African-American, decided to help the poor by preparing bankruptcy petitions at
the affordable price of $185.00. Demetrius had previously worked in collections
and as a paralegal. Information provided to the public by the United States
Trustee Program leads them to believe that filing chapter 7 bankruptcy is a
simple matter, although the forms and calculations might be complicated.
Demetrius opened for business and has since helped approximately 600 individuals
receive debt relief. For attorneys preparing the same amount of petitions at
$1,500 each, Demetrius has cost them $900,000.
On August 05, 2004,
Honorable Bankruptcy Judge E. Stephen Derby denied the Law Firm of Resnick &
Abraham's motion to withdraw from representing Demetrius Nickens. Nicken's first
attorney, Tara Knowles of Resnick & Abraham, did not comply with the court's
schedule to conduct discovery. Nickens' trial is scheduled for August 26, 2004,
which essentially places him at a disadvantage, since Tara Knowles & The Law
Firm of Resnick and Abraham did not prepare a witness list, conduct discovery,
neither acquire depositions. The complaint filed against Nickens is by a debtor,
Tracy Lucas. Lucas paid Nickens for services by issuing a check that was
returned for non-sufficient funds. When Nickens sought to collect payment, Lucas
alleged that he violated the automatic stay by seeking to collect a pre-petition
debt. Lucas' complaint also alleges that Nickens committed UPL, and conducts
fraudulent business. Lucas has named the United States Trustee as a witness on
her behalf. Although the United States Trustee did not file the actual
complaint, it is reasonable to believe that his taking a part is to make sure
that procedures and decisions go according to Friedman's Anti-Petition Preparer
Initiative.
In the meanwhile, Nickens has email from at least one
trustee providing evidence of attempting to bait him into practicing law.
Nickens also has tapes of meetings of creditors demonstrating trustees harassing
debtors using petition preparers. Additionally, Nickens has letters from a
trustee's attorney sent to one of Nicken's customers threatening to take her
home by alleging Nickens made a mistake on her petition. In exchange, the
trustee demanded monthly installment payments from the debtor's social security
income. Nicken's has evidence that some trustees do not preside at the meetings
of creditors. In violation of federal bankruptcy law, they send replacements
that are not appointed by the United States Trustee. Upon providing this
information and evidence to Tara Knowles, she "worked out" an agreement with a
trustee to cease harassing one of Nickens' customers. In what can be construed
as retaliation after word got around of Tara Knowles' knowledge, and out of thin
air, the clerk of the bankruptcy court began refusing petitions prepared by
Nickens, and other cases were automatically dismissed on allegations that the
petitions were not prepared properly.
Then Tara Knowles disappeared.
After months of not hearing from her, and with Lucas' complaint pending against
Nickens, Nickens was informed that Knowles had "retired" from the law firm, and
that Phillip Abraham would represent him. Without any meeting or discussion
otherwise, Phillip Abraham introduced that Nickens should agree to a
"settlement" to avoid litigation. Nickens agreed, and Phillip Abraham raised the
amount, then filed a motion to withdraw.
Nickens is now at the mercy of
Bankruptcy Judge E. Stephen Derby, who has already established a 28 Page Order
and Memorandum Opinion in the case.
Your presence at the trial scheduled
for August 26, 2004 is welcomed. Any requests for case documents can be made to:
Demetrius Nickens c/o Document Processing
300 Reisterstown RD
#207
Pikesville, MD 21208
or By Fax 443-628-9154.
Please
submit requests as soon as possible and state if you want hard copy or as a pdf
attachment to email.
Other contacts:
J. Michael Broumas, Attorney
For Tracy Lucas; 410-659-7530
Phillip Abraham, Attorney for Demetrius
Nickens; 410-539-6087
Judge E. Stephen Derby; 410-926-2688
Glenn Fine,
Inspector General for the Department of Justice, 202-514-3435
Lawrence
Friedman, 202-307-1399
[1] The Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal
Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333, vests jurisdiction over
bankruptcy proceedings and the debtor's property in the United States District
Courts. 28 U.S.C. 1334(a), (b) and (d). The 1984 Act divides the district
courts' bankruptcy jurisdiction into two categories: cases under title 11 and
core proceedings, on the one hand, and non-core proceedings that are merely
"related to" title 11 cases, on the other hand. 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(c). The
Bankruptcy Code does not identify non-core proceedings, and as such, bankruptcy
judges generally decide that all matters are core, providing them jurisdiction
to enter final orders without trial by jury.
[2] Senator Kerry's office
forwarded Marion Diamond's letter to Lawrence Friedman. Joseph A. Guzinski,
General Counsel for Lawrence Friedman of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees,
responded, disregarding alleged violations RICO and the Sherman Acts and
conspiracy to extinguish petition preparers by advising Mrs. Diamond to consult
with private counsel.
PRESS CONTACT: Demetrius Nickens, 410-484-6295,
443-628-9154 (fax), e-mail protected from spam bots
# # #
Source : http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/8/prweb150298.htm