Cross Exam starts on page 90 of the Trial Transcripts (?Click Here to View?)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COX:
Q. Mr. Padrick, when did you first see this blog posting on December 25th? When did you first read it?
A. I don't know. Shortly -- I assume shortly after that. I don't -- I try not to look at your sites, so I was alerted by, I think, one of my employees and looked?at it.
Q. And this post caused you financial harm between December 25th and January 14th?
A. I'm sure it did. But more importantly, it's caused me significant harm thereafter and will cause me significant harm for the entirety of my career. "
So this Blog post did not really harm him during that time, yet he filed a Lawsuit for what it might do "thereafter"? I did not make the information up, that is obvious, there is internal emails and documents to support the information, so how did I ruin his career by exposing him for ruining the life, career, and businesses of hundreds?
Q. Why did you not introduce it into this case until July 22nd of 2011?
A. (Pause).
MR. AMAN: You can answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: We did. We told you that the statements about tax fraud that you made were false and you needed to take them down. "
Obsidian simply said to take down all blog posts about them, and most all of these I was granted a Summary Judgement on. It is not enough to just say what I stated was false, why not provide proof? Why not give me an exact blog post? Also they "Told" me to take down the tax fraud posts but did not tell me what posts they were referring to and this was before I posted the Post I was on Trial for.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Why did you not give defendant, me, a blog post to take down? Why did you not ask me take down any particular blog post?
A. I wanted you to take down any post that accuses us of tax fraud, any post. It doesn't make any difference if it was this post or the post on EthicsComplaint.com or the post on ObsidianFinanceGroupSucks.com or any of your many websites. We want you to take them all down."
See this is not relevant, as I was granted a Summary Judgement. And he is talking about other blogs, and giving no specific instance of accusing him of anything. ?He simply wanted all my posts taken down, yet he had no legal right to such.?
Q. Why did you not provide proof to me that that was false so that I could look at it and remove the post?
A. We told you it was false."
Telling me it is False is NOT Enough. I had read internal documents, emails, watched meeting videos, read contracts, read transcripts, read depositions and more. I had plenty of documents to prove to me that there was fraud, collusion and corruption. So why not give any documents at all that proved other wise?
Q. Why did you not provide documented proof of any kind or call me and try to talk to me about it being nonfactual?
A. My attorney sent you e-mails and told you to take it down."
This is not proof of any kind, the Attorney involved in the Corruption I was Exposing, David Aman of Tonkon Torp, told me to take it down? Of course he did, knowing full well he got emails from Attorney Robert Opera long ago that suggested issues of tax problems. And there was other evidence out there. Telling me to take it down was not proof.
Q. What date was that e-mail?
A. It was shortly after the post. I don't know exactly when."
What? Really? Nope, ya got that one wrong, I was not given a Cease and Desist AFTER that Blog Post, I was sent a Cease and Desist BEFORE that December 25th 2010 Blog Post.?
Q. It was December 22nd.
A. Okay. Shortly before that particular post, we told?you to take down the tax fraud posts."
Ok so basically this proves that the wording of the lawsuit, which was exactly the same wording of the Cease and Desist, this was regarding posts prior to December 25th, 2010, which was the date of the Blog Post I was on Trial for, and those posts I seem to have got a Summary Judgement on. The post I was on trial for which asked the question of Tax Fraud was after this date.
Q. Do you have documentation of exact revenue loss due?to this exact blog post in any way?
A. We know that from our -- we have had only one?advisory assignment, new advisory assignment in 2011.?This is -- this is a period of distress in the economy.?It's a period of structuring -- this is the time when we?would normally be involved in the greatest amount of?advisory business. We have had one.?I can give you specific examples of when we have?had a client call us and say that they tried to refer a?new client to us and that client is asking them about?your blog post; and then we had to provide information to?our existing client, to try to go to the potential new?client, and then we didn't get that business.
"Advisory" clients? What? David Brown testified that it was about a Bank VP and a loss of a 10 Million Dollar Loan, and now its alleged advisory clients that you lost millions over. And we are to believe that from December 25th 2010 to January 14th 2011, in 20 days over the biggest Holiday of the year, you lost this many advisory clients for 2011? Really? Or are you talking about AFTER the lawsuit was filed you lost these alleged clients?
Kevin Padrick Continues with his answer
I can give you examples of how businesses that we?have tried to start because our advisory business -- you?killed our advisory business -- where we tried to start?new businesses and fund new businesses. And the people?involved in those businesses would normally want us to be?involved in the business and have said to us they're so?afraid that if -- because of what you said that, one,?either you'll go after them or, two, that the damage as a?result of that blog post will cause their business to be?adversely impacted by our reputation."
Well why did he not provide the examples, provide the proof. I asked all 3 witnesses from Obsidian Finance if they had any documents of Proof and they said no.?
THE COURT: Can you do me a favor and just move?back a little bit from or move the microphone back a
little bit from you.
THE WITNESS: Sorry."
See the Court Clerk commented to me later on this one, Kevin Padrick was angry and all over the microphone. He had to be asked to move back.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Do you have documented proof that this blog post?caused you any financial damage whatsoever?
A. I told you what it is. It's common sense. Anybody?who is in business, anybody in business knows that the?first thing you do --"
Ok so it's just common sense that the exact blog post cost him millions?
Q. Okay.
A. I think I get to answer your question.
THE COURT: Well, actually, you're not answering?her question.?Go ahead.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Did you prove that defendant knowingly -- that I?knowingly posted false information about your company?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. AMAN: Thank you."
Which is odd because Aman claims over and over that I "knowingly" posted false information, yet I am not allowed to ask this of any witness.?
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Have you read any other blogs that talk derogatory?about your company regarding the Summit 1031 bankruptcy?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AMAN: Thank you.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Have you been in other lawsuits?
THE COURT: Wait a minute. That means you get to?answer the question.
MS. COX: Oh, sorry.
THE WITNESS: Yes. A blog from the daughter, who?was the recipient of stolen monies from Summit 1031, and?who is the daughter of one of the parties indicted by the?federal grand jury. So that's the only other one."
This is not true, this is misleading and defamatory, she was not the recipient of stolen money. And the part about reading her site too? Wait... I thought I was the only one in the Entire World who spoke negatively of Saint Kevin Padrick? Now there is another? WOW.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. That's the only one that you've ever read?
A. That's the only other one that I've ever read.?That's what you asked me.
Q. Have you heard of any other blogs talking derogatory?or news articles about your company whatsoever?
A. No. "
This is not true as there is issue with Longview Fibre, with Lake County, with Solar Tax Credits, with HomeStreet Bank and more and people were, yes, talking about it and he knew it.?
Q. Have you been accused of anything similar to what I?write about in any other legal cases, such as the
Cascadia case?
A. Tax fraud? No.
Q. I did not accuse you of tax fraud. I asked you a?question. I'm talking about deferred gains, conflict of
interest, issues regarding a bankruptcy proceeding. Have?you ever been accused by any other federal court?
A. No. We have been -- we have had -- in the Cascadia?case, there was a -- the Court said that a portion of our?fees would not be allowed due to?a conflict of interest?occurring on a certain date. Fees were allowed prior to?that, but not after then.
It had nothing to do -- it was a technical issue.?The creditors actually wrote a paper in support -- the
actual creditors of the case actually wrote a paper in?support of our position."
It was not a "technical" issue, it was the fact that Kevin Padrick took advantage of clients in distress to make a good deal for Obsidian, and they now own part of Yarrowbay over it all. It is about undisclosed conflicts of interest, read this opinion, look into the story. I am not the reason for Kevin's bad reputation, he is.?( Click Here for the Homestreet Bank / Cascadia Case) .
Q. Do you have documented proof of the percentage you?quoted earlier, the money you got back for the victims??Do you have documented proof for the Court of getting?that money back for the victims or is it just stated?
A. No, we have documented proof."
Why was I not allowed this in discovery?
Q. Did you have a contract with the Summit principals?before you were appointed as the trustee?
A. No."
Hmmm.. Well this is a flat out lie. Not only was the contract signed before Summit Filed for Bankruptcy, but also months before he was appointed as trustee.?
The Obsidian Contract with Summit was Signed December 18th 2008, Summit Filed for bankruptcy on the 19th of December 2008, and Kevin Padrick was appointed as Trustee on February 17th 2009.?
Q. No signed contract whatsoever?
A. No signed contract with the Summit principals?whatsoever; and I would not have had a signed contract?with the principals, period.
Q. That's not true.
THE COURT: That's a statement, not a question."
Well it is not true, Kevin was trying to get tricky on what the "Summit Principals" were, yet we see by David Brown and Patricia Whittington's testimony, that indeed this is the same 4 men. Kevin Padrick flat out LIED under Oath.?
MS. COX: Sorry.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm leaning too far?forward again.
BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Who appointed you? How did you get the job as the?trustee for the Summit bankruptcy?
A. We went through the interview process with the U.S.?Trustee's Office, and we were appointed."
This is not the whole story. He pitched himself to the Creditors while working for the Debtor, and billed the Debtor for this time. Also you in the Judge Dunn Audio of February 11th 2009, you see that Judge Dunn seemed to be the one pushing for Obsidian to take over the Trustee Job. ?How in the world did the U.S. Trustee come to appoint Kevin Padrick, knowing full well he had been under contract with the debtor? And don't forget Tonkon Torp Leon Simson use to work with DOJ Trustee Pamela Griffith.?
Q. Who invited you to the creditors' meeting to?interview for this position?
A. To the creditors' meeting? I don't think there was a?creditors' meeting."
He pitched himself to the Creditors. Judge Dunn even talked about this presentation in the Court Audio of the Hearing of February 11th 2009.
Q. So you went to a creditors' meeting and gave a talk?in order to get this job, and you did not have a contract?with Summit, and then you were just appointed?
A. No. We were interviewed by the U.S. Trustee's?Office. It's not a creditors' meeting.
Q. So you had no signed contract with Summit at any?time?
A. Yes, we had a signed contract with Summit. You asked?whether we had a signed contract with the parties who?stole the money, and the answer is we never had a signed?contract with them. We had a signed contract with Summit?for the purpose of liquidating the assets for the benefit?of the victims."
I did not ask him if he had a contract with the parties who stole the money, I asked him if he had a contract with Summit and he said, flat out NO. Now he is saying Yes. I asked this (Q. Did you have a contract with the Summit principals?before you were appointed as the trustee?)?as you see in the transcript, and I asked this?(Q. No signed contract whatsoever?)?Both times he flat out said, NO.?
Q. Was it unusual to be appointed as a trustee by a?federal judge, or is that standard practice?
A. It's standard practice to appoint trustees, and it's?not unusual at all to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee."
Really well there was internal emails that said it was an extraordinary and costly thing to do and it was NOT in the best interest of the Creditors.?
Q. Did you ever deny any legitimate offers before your?commission was in place?
A. Didn't deny any legitimate offers."
This too is not true as Internal Documents Show.
MS. COX: No further questions. "
Originally Posted At
http://kevinpadrickobsidianfinance.blogspot.com/2012/04/kevin-padricks-testimony-in-obsidian-v.html
Source: http://www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/2012/10/kevin-padricks-testimony-in-obsidian-v.html
scarlett johansson bill clinton andy roddick Costa Rica Earthquake sandra fluke kellie pickler costa rica
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.