RE: Adversary Proceeding #: 9:11-ap-01252-RR
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Central District of California (Santa Barbara)
Jimmy altered his name to be harder to track? His family’s chemical corporation spells it Matteson’—Score another one for the artful dodger.
James Grover Mateson (aka: Jimmy, Big Spender; dob: 11-22-61; 611 Capitol Way S, #506, Olympia, WA 98501) likes to be known as the fabulously privileged straight white patriarch with a conscience and penchant for social/racial justice. The truth falls a wee bit short of that self aggrandizement. Jimmy (and codefendant Alan Crutchfield of Imverse Asia Inc.), it seems, has a history of taking other peoples money/property and not paying them back. His bankruptcy filed circa 2011 left him sans portfolio, in breach of contract, and under a cloud of officially lodged allegations such as: willful and malicious injury, false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud ($270,000), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, and implicitly unjust enrichment. Where the social justice lies in that equation is left to the reader’s imagination.
“That Superior Court Action was based on Defendants’ ongoing Ponzi Scheme and with the Defendants’ and each of them intending to defraud Plaintiff by obtaining money from Plaintiff based on a personal loan to Defendants; and Defendants, and each of them, had no intent to ever repay the loan,” stated the victim’s (Bree Walker Lampley) attorney, Dianne B. Weissburg, referring to a judgement against their company, Imverse Asia Inc.
The trouble with Jimmy is pretty soon he runs out of other people’s money and, of course, he has all the characteristics of a dog except loyalty.
9-11-ap-01252-RR 9-11-ap-01252-RR_Pwitlst 9-11-ap-01252-RR_Pxlst 9-11-ap-01252-RR-Cmplnt 9-11-ap-01252-RR-Dbrief 9-11-ap-01252-RR-DecWsbrgNoRcpt 9-11-ap-01252-RR-Dwitlst 9-11-ap-01252-RR-JimDec 9-11-ap-01252-RR-JimRSP
[9-11-ap-01252-RR-Pcmplnt] 9-11-ap-01252-RR-StatRpt 9-11-ap-01252-RR-Summs 9-11-ap-01252-RRdecWeissbrg 9-11-ap-01252-RRjdgmnt 9-11-ap-01252-RRJimXbitsNdx 9-11-ap-01252-RRndx
(*Please note bracketed link above for court record of stipulation to fraud along with other bad acts by James Grover Mateson (AKA: Jimmy) AND Alan Crutchfield (CEO) AND their corporation, Imverse Asia, Inc.*)
As to Jimmy’s personal Chapter 7 filing itself, replete with convenient omissions (Media Island assets), sworn diminutive income assertions and expenses to match, as well as the sworn claim he no longer had any shares in his uncle’s chemical corporation (but failed to list it as a transfer of assets to an insider), the following bankruptcy court documents are laid out below:
4-1 9-11-bk-12680-RRdock 9-11-bk-12680-RR-VeriCrdLst 9-11-bk-12680-RR-ss# 9-11-bk-12680-RR-PerSchd 9-11-bk-12680-RR-PayStbs 9-11-bk-12680-RR-OrdCmply 9-11-bk-12680-RR-NotCert4 9-11-bk-12680-RR-NotCert3 9-11-bk-12680-RR-NotCert2 9-11-bk-12680-RR-NotCert 9-11-bk-12680-RR-Not341 9-11-bk-12680-RR-dschrg 9-11-bk-12680-RR-close 9-11-bk-12680-RR-ch7pet 9-11-bk-12680-RR-ch7not 9-11-bk-12680-RR-Cert 9-11-bk-12680-RR-AdvCmplnt 4
Roll another one, just like the other one.
It would appear the Big Spender is spent, has hidden his assets, enthusiastically embraced sham corporations as a tool to fleece his flock and misappropriate the commons. Tom Nogler was right when he characterized this man as a fast talker–smooth talking fast walking mohair Jim. He’s now in the midst of Olympia and a fresh crop of suckers. Still, it must sting just a little to be reduced to picking the bones of Media Island instead of the corpulent bodies of his accustomed high rollers. Bon Appetit, Jimmy.
Perhaps the banks won’t notice the details of your bankruptcy when you try to float that $70,000 loan on the back of the Media Island house you never intend to pay back? But anybody with common sense would steer well clear of you–hence your specialty in coaxing $ from those without any. Fools and their money is the name of your game. But now we get to witness Arthur Miller’s Death Of A Salesman–Soapy Smith in the 21st Century! Paper Moon and Mournful Meek, you’re an epilogue cut strait from a chapter of Con Men, Strumpets, And Smoothies. Got a bridge you can sell us?
MATESON CHEMICAL Ripoff Reports, Complaints, Reviews, Scams, Lawsuits and Frauds Reported
There may be more reports for “Mateson Chemical”
For more results perform a general search for “Mateson Chemical”
10:32 AM
08:55 PM
Jimmy seems married to the idea of using his 501(c)3 corporation (MI) and its assets effectively as his personal piggy bank, the IRS and the state might feel compelled to reexamine its tax status, now and heretofore. PLUS, there’s essentially no statute of limitations on bankruptcy fraud. Moreover, there is evidence of an IRS tax lien against Jimmy which the Thurston County Auditor records payment toward in excess of $17,000.
Mateson Chemical take my family company from me and misrepresent facts to tie me in litigation/ hasn’t sent me any w2’s or any company earnings or loss statement for the past 12 yrs. although I am a shareholder.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
I am the executrix of this ongoing Estate of Jean F. Mateson. My father left a company all all of the assets from his lifetime in his company. He died in 1992 and I have been pursuing a re evaluation of this estate since then. I have documentation and referenced to documents that no assets of any value were included in the VALUE. This would encompass trademarks, formulas and all intellectual property rightfully belonging to the “heirs” The present ‘President” has singlehandedly managed to terrorize all of the other owners into accepting some kind of pay off.
They are listed, as my sister as a Director or the Vice President, but has pursued many other careers since then and admits she hasn’t had anything to do with the present operations, although I understand she receives compensation and full benefits from the company.
I have terrorized by this now president and his ” high paid attorney”. They have done everything to me including to and not limited to terrorizing my attorney, who was just asking for the simple treatment and respect for me as a shareholder. They put together a law suit bring suit against me for frivolous things that occurred during the operations of the estate, whereby I was trying to expose the criminal behavior in the final estimate of the estate. (I have all documents to back up my statements)
The now President is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to terrorize me, without the courtesy of any financials or allowing me access to property I am part owners to. The 1025 East Montgomery Ave. Phil. Pa. every time I try to gain access they have called the police and filed against me once again frivolous law suits. ( I have not received any financials about the company and am denied any access to the books and records) I REFUSED TO DO MY TAXES WITHOUT MY RECORDS AND DON’T BELIEVE I SHOULD. No records ever supplied to me!
I am presently FILED in The Supreme Court of Appeals asking to be heard on the true merits of my case. I have been denied due process in the lower courts because I believe the Judge is involved. As I have been told by a large amount of lawyers this Attorney is ” wired” to this judge. Can you imagine in this century we are denied access to the court system to be heard, because the other PARTY IS USING YOUR MONEY TO KEEP YOU TIED UP IN LITIGATION UNJUSTLY! This needs to be exposed and this guy running my company needs to be put in jail. He has also threatened the lives of anyone who gets involved including a CPA as I was told!
I am presently unemployed and have asked for assistance to help pay my bills, why in this free world is this “person” allowed to continue driving the most expensive cars, buying million dollar homes and I am passed off and threatened if I try and get what belongs to me? I need help exposing this “fraud”!
Stephanie
Wilmington, Delaware
U.S.A.
*UPDATE Employee: Setting the record straight on behalf of the company.
Setting the record straight on behalf of the company.
AUTHOR: Mateson Chemical Corporation – (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, September 17, 2008Re: Report # 359790
Hello. If you are reading this, you have been exposed to a letter written by a woman named Stephanie. The purpose of our letter is to set the record straight on behalf of Mateson Chemical Corporation (MCC), its stockholders, employees, clients, and vendors.
Firstly, be assured that MCC is the same solid company we always have been. We are an environmentally minded organization with a strict policy of integrity and ethics. This is where the problems with Stephanie began.
Stephanie was fired from MCC for cause in late 1997. She had stolen tens of thousands of dollars from the company. At the time, she was an owner of company stock, along with her brothers and sister, in a closely held family business. That meant she had stolen money from her own company and her own family. The system worked; she was caught, fired and our business went on seamlessly. There were no criminal charges filed.
Stephanie no longer owns stock in MCC as she claims in her writings pursuant to the findings of the case to which she refers. She simply has retained voided stock certificates because she continues to evade the Wilmington Sheriff’s Department charged to retrieve them, as verified by their reports.
She is no longer an executrix for the estate of J.F. Mateson either, because the estate was closed and settled by her and her family with all needed signatures, including hers, in the early 1990’s. If the estate were not closed, she and her family would have not had stock to begin with. The company is now more diversified in ownership and steps have been taken to safeguard the future stability of the company stock.
It is true that we have spent a lot of money on legal and court fees to defend ourselves against Stephanie’s legal onslaughts. We would much rather have put those lost funds into employee pay increases or retirement accounts. We were forced to effectively respond to the frivolous lawsuits she and her lawyers have been able to conjure up as a cost of doing business. We have settled this matter over and over in the courts, as evidenced by each successive ruling.
We noticed Stephanie did not use names in the text of her writing. Her lawyers probably incorrectly told her it was not defamatory that way. We will be following up on that with proper legal action immediately. We at MCC accept our duty to the future, for our clients, ownership, employees, and vendors to defend our company from outside malevolent factors, as all companies do.
This report seems to be a reaction of an obviously disturbed individual, still bitter about her justified termination almost 12 years ago. Be assured MCC, its employees, and, or its vendors have not been involved in any payoffs to stockholders or judges as she alleges. There have been no threats to our CPA (President of the CPA ethics division), no fraud, and no terrorizing of anyone either. These claims are untrue and have been written simply to besmirch the good name of MCC. We can only assume that her report is borne out of frustration, due to her own unethical and illegal actions in the past.
We also suggest she go ahead and file her taxes. She has received all the information and documentation she needs in a timely manner to file her taxes, as all our employees have.
In closing we would like to reiterate that Mateson Chemical Corporation is doing fine and its product lines are still the ultimate in quality, performance, and value. Please feel free to see for yourself at www.matesonchemical.com.
*UPDATE Employee: Mateson Chemical Vindicated BY COURT RULING
AUTHOR: Attorney For Mateson Chemical – (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, September 08, 2008 The ridiculous article written by Stephanie under report 359790 has been deemed by the appellate court in Pennsylvania to be totally false. (This decison was entered under docket number July term 2005 , number 1180 and affirmed by the appellate court under Superior court docket 2237 EDA 2007.
These judicial opinions are public record and were not quoted by Stephanie as she intended to harm this company simply because she is angry that she was fired for unlawful conduct.
While she was employed by the company, funds were used by her improperly and she stole corporate records which a court ordered her to return.
The court opinion specifically stated : ” Ms Stephanie Barton wrongfully stock ledgers, the corporate seal and the official records of the Company. This will hold on without authorization. Further, the court ruled: ” she is held falsely held herself out as an officer of the Corporation. On July 26, 2005, this court granted a special injunction to remedy the results of this Barton’s wrongful conduct.
The Company will be filing a lawsuit against the author of the original article as well as anyone else who repeats this information. As the public record shows, it is unfortunate that this woman is permitted to continue to publicly state that which has already been proven by a court to be false. The title of her report itself is malicious and we intend to take a judgment against her for punitive damages to remedy or unlawful conduct.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD R. COOCH NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
RESIDENT JUDGE 500 North King Street, Suite 10400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3733
(302) 255-0664
Bruce W. McCulloch, Esquire
Bodell, Bové, Grace & Van Horn, P.C.
1225 North King Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0397
Attorney for Plaintiff
Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., Esquire
Michael J. Custer, Esquire
Morris James LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2306
Attorneys for Defendant
Re: Mateson Chemical Corporation v. Stephanie Mateson Barton
Record No.: 07J-09-114
Submitted: November 15, 2007
Decided: January 15, 2008
On Defendant’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment.
DENIED.
Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is Stephanie Mateson Barton’s (“Defendant’s”) motion to stay enforcement of a judgment entered against her on September 7, 2007 in Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County (“the Delaware judgment.”)
The issue is whether Defendant is entitled to a stay of the Delaware judgment under the Delaware Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.
Act, specifically 10 Del. C. § 4784(a), despite having failed to post security when she appealed the underlying Pennsylvania judgment of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Plaintiff, Mateson Chemical Corporation, had that judgment then transferred to Delaware.
For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that Defendant is not entitled to a stay under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) because she did not “furnish security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by the state in which it was rendered,”1 i.e., 120% of the amount of the Pennsylvania judgment when she filed her appeal, as required by 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a). Therefore, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 17, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, entered judgment against Defendant in Mateson Chemical Corp v. Barton, et. al., (“the Pennsylvania judgment”) in the amount of $117,262.80.2 Defendant filed an appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment on August 17, 2007 to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, but did not post security when she did so.
Plaintiff then had the Pennsylvania judgment transferred to Delaware, and judgment was entered against Defendant in this Court on September 7, 2007.
On October 23, 2007, Defendant filed the present motion to stay enforcement of the Delaware judgment, citing her appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment.
II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Defendant contends that her appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment entitles her to a stay of the Delaware judgment under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a).3 Defendant claims that Pennsylvania law “does not require [her] to post security for satisfaction of the Pennsylvania judgment prior to appealing it to the Pennsylvania Superior Court,” 4 and asserts that she has met her burden under 10 Del. C. 4784(a). Defendant reads 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) as only
1 10 Del. C. § 4784(a).
2 Def. Mot. to Stay Enforcement of J., Ex. A., citing Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1180 (July, 2005).
3 Id. at 2.
4 Id.
2
requiring a defendant to post security in order to effect an automatic supersedeas. [5]
[5] Defendant raises additional arguments in her reply to Plaintiff’s response to her motion. Defendant argues that 10 Del. C. § 4784(b), and 10 Del. C. § 4782, makes Pennsylvania procedural law inapplicable, since, Defendant argues, these statutes establish that “enforcement in Delaware is governed by the procedures and defenses applicable to Delaware judgments.” Def. Reply Br., at 3-4. Defendant also argues in her reply brief that Plaintiff has not taken the necessary steps to have an executable judgment entered in Pennsylvania; namely, filing a praecipe to enter a judgment on the verdict. Id. at 4.
However, the Court will not address these arguments since they were raised for the first time in Defendant’s reply, and Defendant did not attempt to raise them at oral argument. See Thompson v. State, 2006 WL 2096440 (Del. Super.) (“[d]efendant should have raised this argument in his opening brief. The Court ignores the argument advanced in the reply brief”).
6 Pl. Answ. to Def. Mot. to Stay Enforcement of J., at 2.
7 10 Del. C. § 4784(a).
Plaintiff contends that 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) requires an appellant to post bond in the amount of 120% of the amount of the judgment appealed from in order to prevent an execution on the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.6 Plaintiff argues that since Defendant has not done so, she has not met the requirements of 10 Del. C. § 4784(a), which requires an appellant (in the foreign jurisdiction) to show proof that the appellant “has furnished security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by the state in which it was rendered.”7
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The sole question before the Court on this motion is whether Defendant is entitled a stay of judgment under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a). The statute provides the standard of review:
§ 4784. Stay.
(a) If the judgment debtor shows the court that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution has been granted, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the stay of execution expires or is vacated, upon proof that the judgment debtor has furnished security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by the state in which it was rendered….
3
8 Kontrol Automation, Inc. v. Chesapeake Hydro, Inc., 1989 WL 124897 (Del. Super.).
9 Id. at *1.
10 Id. at *2.
11 Mansfield State Bank v. Cohen, 407 N.Y.S.2d 373 (1977).
IV. DISCUSSION
This Court has previously addressed the issue raised in this case. In Kontrol Automation, Inc. v. Chesapeake Hydro, Inc.,8 this Court also had to decide whether a judgment-debtor was entitled to a stay of execution of a Delaware judgment, despite the judgment-debtor’s having failed to post security when it appealed the underlying Pennsylvania judgment.
In Kontrol, the Court was asked by a judgment-creditor to grant relief of a stay of execution of a Delaware judgment filed against a judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor argued that since it had filed an appeal of the underlying Pennsylvania judgment it was entitled to a stay under 10 Del. C. 4784, despite its not having posted security when filing its appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment. As in the present case, the parties disagreed as to whether an appellant/judgment-debtor had to post security under 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) when filing an appeal.
The Kontrol court held that by failing to post security when appealing the Pennsylvania judgment, the judgment-debtor had not complied with 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a), which calls for “appropriate security in the amount of 120 per cent of the amount found due by the lower court and remaining unpaid” to be furnished by a judgment-debtor. Thus, the Kontrol court held that “§ 4784(a) [did] not apply since [the judgment-debtor] failed to furnish the necessary security bond required for an appeal in Pennsylvania [under] … Rule 1731(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.”9
Nonetheless, the Kontrol court allowed the judgment-debtor a stay of execution of judgment for ten days to give the judgment-debtor the “opportunity to file the necessary security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by Pennsylvania law.”10 The court based this holding on the outcome of a New York state case, Mansfield State Bank v. Cohen11 that had been cited by both parties. In Mansfield, a Texas court had entered default judgment against an individual, and in favor of a bank. The bank then sought to enforce the judgment in New York. The Mansfield court denied the individual’s motion to stay the execution of the Texas court judgment in New York, holding that the individual had failed to file the “supersedeas bond” required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and so was not entitled to a stay in New York.12 Despite so holding, but recognizing that New York courts have “taken a liberal approach to the vacating of default judgments,”13 the Mansfield court stayed execution of the New York judgment for ten days, giving the individual the opportunity to file the necessary “supersedeas bond.”14 Characterizing the Mansfield holding as “persuasive precedent,” the Kontrol court gave the same 10 day opportunity to the judgment-debtor in that case.
4
12 Id. at 375.
13 Id. at 376.
14 Id.
15 Subdivision (b) applies to domestic relations matters, which are not at issue here.
16 See, e.g., In re Meade Land & Development Co., Inc. 1 B.R. 279, 283 (Bankr., E.D. Pa. 1979) (“In appealing this final judgment, the Plaintiff has also chosen not to abide by Rule 1731 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, 42 Pa.C.S.A., as evidenced by its failure to deposit a bond with the Court in the amount of 120% of the judgment. Thus, the decision rendered by the State Court, which has not been stayed during the appeal pursuant to statutory procedure, is considered to be final and therefore provable.”).
17 Oral Arg. Tr., at 7 (November 9, 2007).
18 Id. at 7-8.
The Court declines to accept Defendant’s reading of 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) and 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a). It is clear 1) that Pennsylvania law requires a judgment-debtor to post security in order to effect a stay; and, 2) that it is within the discretion of this Court under the Delaware Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act to deny a motion for a stay of execution if a judgment-debtor has not met the requirements for a stay of execution in the foreign jurisdiction.19
This Court agrees with the Kontrol court that 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) requires a judgment-debtor to furnish security in Pennsylvania in order to effect a stay of execution. 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) states in pertinent part:
(a) …Except as provided by subdivision (b)[15], an appeal from an order involving solely the payment of money shall, unless otherwise ordered pursuant to this chapter, operate as a supersedeas upon the filing with the clerk of the lower court of appropriate security in the amount of 120% of the amount found due by the lower court and remaining unpaid….
The statute clearly requires a judgment-creditor to post security to effect a supersedeas.16
At oral argument counsel for Defendant acknowledged that since his client had not posted security in Pennsylvania, she is not eligible for supersedeas, automatic or otherwise, in Pennsylvania.17 Defendant’s counsel agreed with the Court’s understanding that, in Defendant’s view, “theoretically, the Plaintiff could execute on the judgment in Pennsylvania, but … [under] 10 Del. C. 4784(a) …, Plaintiff could not execute on it in Delaware.”18
5 6
19 See, e.g., 30 Am. Jur. 2d Executions, Etc. § 783 (2007) (“[a] request by a judgment debtor to stay the execution of a foreign judgment [is] properly denied where the judgment debtor, alleging that the foreign judgment was being appealed in a foreign court, failed to post the necessary bond incident to such appeal”); 30 Am. Jur. 2d Executions, Etc. § 331 (2007) (“[a] trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a judgment debtor’s complaint contesting the validity of a foreign judgment if the debtor fails to post the required bond
The Court declines to accept Defendant’s reading of 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) and 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a). It is clear 1) that Pennsylvania law requires a judgment-debtor to post security in order to effect a stay; and, 2) that it is within the discretion of this Court under the Delaware Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act to deny a motion for a stay of execution if a judgment-debtor has not met the requirements for a stay of execution in the foreign jurisdiction.19
Nor does the Court find any reason to go beyond the plain wording of the statute by granting any additional time, such as ten days, to Defendant to post security in Pennsylvania, and, to this limited extent, this Court declines to follow Kontrol’s grant of a ten day period in which to allow the judgment-debtor to post security in the foreign jurisdiction.
The Court holds that Defendant is not entitled to a stay under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) because she failed to post the necessary security when filing her appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment as required by 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a).
V. CONCLUSION
For the preceding reasons, Defendant’s motion to stay enforcement of judgment is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
___________________
oc: Prothonotary MatesonCorp-v-StephanieBarton07J-09-114
This reporter got a call early this Sunday morning (10-23-22) from Alan Crutchfield (ibid) excoriating the journalism found here for the temerity of publishing his name as Jimmy’s codefendant along with his company, Imverse Asia, Inc, for a Santa Barbara Superior Court (California) lawsuit wherein ALL the defendants stipulated to fraud and other deceptive business practices. (See the bracketed link above adjacent to Crutchfield’s name bearing the transcript of these admissions through his attorney.)
Alan repeatedly insisted it was a gross violation of fairness and journalistic ethics to include his name as Jimmy’s codefendent, arguing it was somehow misleading in the face of the ensuing bankruptcy adversarial proceeding (litigation) which Alan vacuously claimed exonerated him (and Jimmy) from the stipulated admission of fraud in the record of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Alan conflates “exoneration” with a bankruptcy discharge and that court’s judge finding the plaintiff (Bree Lampley) had failed to present enough evidence to pierce the corporate veil. That’s hardly an exoneration and excused the bankruptcy judge from needing to try the merits which were outside of the core function of bankruptcy proceedings in the first place.
The defendants themselves, in their pro se brief, argued and invited the bankruptcy court to provide them relief under the corporate veil theory. It did so. Yet they remain on record as having stipulated to fraud in the Santa Barbara Superior court case. This was all documented and links provided from the time this article was first published. Those links remain…including the ones bearing the defendants’ arguments advocating for themselves, pro se.
This Blog is a proud member of the 5th Estate, an advocate of adversarial/Gonzo journalism, and does not cede editorial control to discomforted subjects objecting to publishing public records or how its articles are formatted. Alan’s complaints were met with an invitation to post his own rebuttal in this very forum. He already did that at the time of the referenced legal proceedings in a court of law, a court of record. In America, unlike Europe, Alan does not have a right to require the internet to forget.
The truth is a perfects defense against specious claims of libel/slander. It is what it is.
If we don’t exercise these rights, we WILL lose them!
“Journalism is publishing what some don’t want printed. All else is PR/Advertising.” -W.R. Hearst-