Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Judiciary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (313)	11/26/2007 3:14:46 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 817

OT: As I just wrote on another subject: A fully functioning capitalist marketplace is the best protection against tyranny.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (313)	9/23/2008 3:56:52 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 817

Judge Orders Victim to Pay Back Thief Monday, September 22, 2008 NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Mark Poveromo feels ripped off twice over. A judge ordered him to repay money he collected from a builder convicted of stealing from him — and told him to kick in the thief's attorney fees and court costs, too. Legal experts say the case, in which a criminal matter in Connecticut intersects a bankruptcy judgment filed in St. Louis, shows a need for Congress to revise the nation's bankruptcy laws to better treat people who are awarded money as part of a ruling in a criminal case. "This is an outrageous decision," said Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's University and a bankruptcy expert. "I think it's a miscarriage of justice." "I can't even begin to fathom it," Poveromo said. "Crime does pay." The case began in 2006, when Poveromo hired Mark R. Koch of Illinois for an $80,000 project to construct a building for his pet food business in Thomaston, Conn. Poveromo paid $39,500 up front, but Koch never did any work, according to court documents. Poveromo filed a criminal complaint. Koch was convicted in Connecticut of first-degree larceny in April 2007 and ordered to pay restitution. Koch paid $25,000 and began monthly payments to Poveromo on the balance, but that's when the law turned on Poveromo. Two months before his conviction, Koch filed for bankruptcy protection in St. Louis, halting any monetary claims against him. Poveromo says notices of the bankruptcy filing were sent to Poveromo's old business address and he didn't see them. Koch then filed a complaint to the bankruptcy court accusing Poveromo of intentionally violating the stay on claims by having him arrested to collect on his debt. Judge Charles Rendlen III agreed with the builder. In a ruling filed in December, and without hearing from Poveromo, Rendlen noted "the highly suspect timing" of Koch's arrest and conviction after filing for bankruptcy. The judge said Poveromo intentionally violated the bankruptcy stay on claims by causing Koch's arrest to collect on the debt. "Allowing a creditor to use the threat of incarceration on charges related to a prepetition debt undermines the most fundamental premise of bankruptcy law: the guarantee of equal treatment among creditors pursuant to the bankruptcy code," Rendlen wrote. Rendlen ordered Poveromo to pay back the restitution Koch had given him as well as attorney's fees and costs. Poveromo tried to challenge the ruling, but failed to get it overturned. The judge also rejected Poveromo's request to appear by telephone instead of traveling to St. Louis because he cares for his elderly sick parents. "The inconvenience experienced by the defendant's parents does not outweigh the need of the court to observe the defendant in person as he gives his testimony, to allow the court to best weigh his credibility," Rendlen wrote. Poveromo said he had to pay for airplane tickets to St. Louis for a hearing on the case and couldn't get a refund after Koch's attorney asked for a delay. Poveromo said he reluctantly accepted a settlement reached a few weeks ago in which he was able to keep the nearly $28,000 Koch had given him but did not collect on the balance he was owed based on what the Connecticut court had ordered. His attorney, Jeff Weisman, decried the ruling. "I think it's an injustice to individuals who are victimized," Weisman said. Koch's bankruptcy attorney, Robert Eggmann, declined to comment on the settlement and said the bankruptcy ruling speaks for itself. Rendlen did not return a telephone message seeking comment. Court officials cited a policy that judges do not comment on their decisions. Jack Williams, resident scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute, said the case highlights an area of the law that Congress should fix by expanding the exception to the stay of bankruptcy claims in criminal cases so that criminal restitutions can go forward during bankruptcies. He said the ruling is not unusual in finding a violation of the stay, but said other judges may not have sanctioned Poveromo. Bankruptcy attorney Stuart Hirshfield said he agreed with the ruling because a stay of claims is fundamental to bankruptcy cases and violations are dealt with severely. He also said when a party fails to appear, the judge has to rule on what is known and the judge believed there was adequate notice. Sabino, the bankruptcy expert from St. John's, said problem lies primarily with the judge's interpretation of the law. Poveromo said he has since hired another contractor to construct the building for his business. He said he's struggling after spending $10,000 on lawyers while business has slowed amid a weak economy, but is determined to persevere. "It's tough times," Poveromo said. "I'm not going to let this criminal ruin my business." foxnews.com

To: goldworldnet who wrote (313)	11/9/2010 8:43:33 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 817

Judicial Watch obtains emails contradicting Justice Dept. official’s sworn testimony about New Black Panther case By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer 11/09/10 11:30 AM EST Judicial Watch has obtained Justice Department emails that seem to contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Perez asserted that none of Justice’s political leadership had anything to do with the in the decision to stop pursuing voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panthers seen standing in front of a polling place in Philadelphia brandishing weapons during the 2008 election. The emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The new documents include a series of emails between two political appointees: former Democratic election lawyer and current Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli. Both DOJ officials were involved in detailed discussions regarding the NBPP decision. For example, in one April 30, 2009, email from Hirsch to Perrelli, with the subject title “Fw: New Black Panther Party Update,” Hirsch writes: Tom, I need to discuss this with you tomorrow morning. I’ll send you another email on this shortly. If you want to discuss it this evening, please let me know which number to call and when. These emails were put in further context by an updated Vaughn index obtained by Judicial Watch, describing NBPP documents the Obama DOJ continues to withhold. These documents, which were attached to the DOJ’s Motion for Summary Judgment filing, include a description of a May 13 email chain that seems to suggest political appointee Sam Hirsch may have been orchestrating the NBPP decision. Acting DAAG [Steven Rosenbaum] advising his supervising Acting AAG [Loretta King] of DASG’s [Hirsch’s] request for a memorandum by the Acting DAAG reviewing various options, legal strategies, and different proposals of relief as related to each separate defendant. Acting DAAG forwarding emails from Appellate Section Chief’s and Appellate Attorney’s with their detailed legal analyses including the application of constitutional provisions and judicial precedent to strategies and relief under consideration in the ongoing NBPP litigation, as well as an assessment of the strength of potential legal arguments, and presenting different possible scenarios in the litigation. [Emphasis added] Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Thomas Perez testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political appointees were involved in the NBPP decision. Perez suggested that the dispute was merely “a case of career people disagreeing with career people.” In fact, political appointee Sam Hirsch sent an April 30, 2009, email to Steven Rosenbaum (then-Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Rights) thanking Rosenbaum for “doing everything you’re doing to make sure that this case is properly resolved.” The next day, the DOJ began to reverse course on its NBPP voter intimidation lawsuit. There’s a lot to unpack here and Judicial Watch has lots more details at their website. And for those of you that have been following this story very closely, here’s the PDF of the actual emails obtained by Judicial Watch dev.www.washingtonexaminer.com