On or about May 14, 2003, assistant U.S. Attorney Howard D. Sukenic presented an indictment to Arizona's Federal District Court of bankruptcy attorney Robert Suzenski. Suzenski was indicted for "Embezzlement of Public Money, Embezzlement against Estate, and False Oaths and claims against the victim, Robert E. Reed. This indictment came almost 18 months after Stephanie Suzenski, Robert Suzenski's daughter who was his law clerk and is now an attorney notified current bankruptcy clients of Robert Suzenski's disqualification from practicing law in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona.

On January 9, 2003, the same list of bankruptcy clients was sent to Larry Watson, an U.S. trial attorney for the Office of the Trustees in Phoenix. The list prompted an investigation into Suzenski's other clients; however, the crimes were only prosecuted for Robert Reed, not the other victims on the list.

On June 24, 2004, Robert Reed received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stating that he was being notified pursuant to federal law of court proceedings relating to the criminal litigation of the case against Suzenski and that Suzenski formally pled guilty of embezzlement of public money. Other bankruptcy clients of Suzenski on the list say that they did not receive that notice.

However, on August 4, 2004, the other bankruptcy clients of Suzenski received a letter from the State Bar of Arizona stating that Suzenski was suspended on March 20, 2003 and that the files that were recovered by their office would be transferred to the respective clients. The letter also stated, "We are also unable to take any legal action on your behalf, either in connection with the case Robert Suzenski was handling for you, or in connection with any claims you might have against Suzenski as a result of any errors or omissions committed by Attorney Robert Suzenski in his representation of you."

The interesting thing about this case is that other bankruptcy clients of Suzenski allege that he had taken funds from them, too. They say that Suzenski had mismanaged their bankruptcy, forging documents and adding his name to checks that were to be paid to creditors, but was instead cashed by him. Yet, no other correspondence or notification was sent to the other clients concerning Suzenski's crimes. In fact, the other clients didn't know that Suzenski was being prosecuted and is imprisoned and still awaiting sentencing.

It is presently estimated that Suzenski took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his clients and this list does not contain all the victims. Nevertheless, with the knowledge that Suzenski had been taking funds from his clients and mismanaged their bankruptcy estates, Reed was the only victim that the U.S. Attorney's office notified and prosecuted the crimes for when it was known and presented in court record that there were others.

In a letter to Suzenski from attorney James F. Kahn, Kahn wrote, "This letter is written to confirm that I will not be available to assist you in resolution of your dispute with the U.S. Trustees Office and Judge Baum relating to the Reed and other matters. ...... Equally, I am concerned about the fact that the Court is proposing to disbar you from the federal bar, deprive all of your other clients of the representation of counsel of their choice and there has not yet been any evidence presented to the Court by way of Affidavit or otherwise (except perhaps whatever concessions you may have made in Court)."

Suzenski told us that he had issues concerning Judge Baum and that at the time, after the first sentencing hearing, he had prepared court documents against Baum concerning those issues. He also said that there were other victims beside Reed. So, why was Suzenski only prosecuted for embezzling funds from Reed's estate when there are many others? The facts of Reed's case compared to another client of Suzenski may reveal the answer.

Robert Reed was taken into bankruptcy by Suzenski in June, 2001. There were other victims whose cases were initiated before Reed. On Suzenski's current list of clients, the oldest case that is still open was petitioned in 1997. The debtor, William Bender was taken into bankruptcy by Suzenski for a $30,000 judgment for fines against Suzenski in litigation for Bender against Suncor Development. Suzenski lost Bender's case on a technicality and when the litigation was over, Suzenski told Bender not to pay the fines, that bankruptcy would get rid of the debt, when Bender was solvent and worth millions just as Robert Reed.

Just as Reed, there was a fiduciary trust and reliance on Suzenski. Both men believed that the judgments against them were not fair and relied on Suzenski's advice in taking care of their dispute. Suzenski's advice was bankruptcy, which in and of itself was fraud because a judgment would be a priority claim in bankruptcy which is not dischargeable. Reed nor Bender knew the law that states: "(a) A discharge …of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt--- (11) provided in any final judgment, unreviewable order, or consent order or decree entered in any court of the United States or of any State,….."

Bender who is 70 years old, is penniless, homeless, and wishes death. Bender, a farmer who owned a nursery business, delivered flowers all over the Phoenix area to major grocery stores, owned millions of dollars of property and has been kept in bankruptcy to strip him of everything he owns including property owned with other family members that had nothing to do with his bankruptcy.

Bender, traumatized by the events in his case, was told by Judge Baum after Suzenski ripped him off and was disqualified as his attorney, not to come back to his Court without an attorney. Bender wanted justice, but Baum was not going to allow him to pursue justice without an attorney under his rule and direction. Reed was told the same thing. Just as Reed with no more money and no source to get or earn money to pay an attorney, had to give up his constitutional right to pursue justice for the crimes committed in his bankruptcy in order for the attorney to represent him. He has had to give up property to the attorney for payment to supposedly prevent the taking of his property that he has left for no valid or legal reason, and certainly not to pay creditors because there aren't any to pay.

If we reflect on the pattern and practice of the Arizona bankruptcy system in other cases, there is a very good chance that Bender will lose his property anyway, and his new attorney will still benefit from the property that Bender conveyed to him for attorney fees while the rest of the proceeds will be distributed to the looters.

This is the new organized crime syndicate whereas there is a pattern and practice of allowing illegal acts to be committed through legal means and our government is complying with and facilitating the crimes better known as racketeering and this is what Suzenski was threatening to expose.

In Reed's case, the records show that $83,000 that should have been paid to Reed's son-- wasn't. CitiCapital stole their trucks while under "stay". Six trailers containing Reed's clients' merchandise had been pillaged causing further harm to the business. Phoenix police were called in for the robbery, however one report wasn't filed and the report that was filed was tampered with to cover the theft. $50,000 was also extorted from Reed's son supposedly to buy back their trucking business. However, by the time the money was forwarded to the trustee, the trustees had ruined the business causing the lost of many of their clients and tens of thousands of dollars by shutting down their business for no good reason.

Suzenski was irate about what had happened to Reed and his son. Letters written to CitiCapital's attorney, Mary Farrington-Lorch reveals that he threatened to seek redress for the crimes; however, his effort was thwarted because he had to defend himself supposedly for not turning over Reed's son's funds of $83,000. There appeared to be a dispute over the funds that belong to Reed's son, a secured creditor, who never got the funds that were due him. This was the obvious beginning of Suzenski's woes.

With the knowledge that Suzenski had mismanaged Reed's bankruptcy and the bankruptcies of his other clients, Reed and the others were left in an even more vulnerable position where the trustees and their cohorts would not have any obstacles to their racket. Instead of giving the victims an opportunity to correct the wrongs, clients were further raped by the depraved and corrupt bankruptcy system leaving certain bankrupts destitute and emotionally and financially broken.

With Suzenski's practice and freedom in jeopardy, Reed was further injured when his son purchased new trucks to replace the trucks that were taken by CitiCapital only to have them confiscated with other personal property that did not belong to Reed's bankruptcy estate. Titles to the trucks were fraudulently conveyed to the creditor York Papago, who owned the property that housed the business. With permission from Anthony H. Mason the trustee for Reed's estate, the nonbankrupt's property was auctioned off on the internet with the knowledge and approval of the Court.

The proper authorities have been notified. The crimes are posted on www.americancitizenscoalition.org website. However so far, all that has been done are retaliatory actions using racism, intimidations, and threats to continue the cover up and prevent the prosecution of the crimes.

Suzenski had helped the trustee extort $50,000 from Reed's son, but when they shut down the business that Reed's son was supposedly buying, Suzenski seemed to have had enough and had initiated a claim against Reed's trustees. When he could no longer represent Reed, he referred Reed to another attorney, Keith Knowlton who made a feeble attempt to help Reed, but backed away from the case. Was he threatened, too?

So far, he has not disclosed why. With the assistance and aid of the Court and bankruptcy administrators, the perpetrators of the crimes against Reed were free to continue to rape him and his family of their constitutional rights and property.

In the meantime, Suzenski's clients ask what happened to Stephanie Suzenski. Why wasn't she prosecuted when it appeared that she was just as involved in their cases as he was? We don't have the answer, but Stephanie commented during the first sentencing hearing for her dad, that, ""they" are very intimidating".

Stephanie worked with her father and knew of his criminal acts. She was in danger of being included in the plot being orchestrated by the miscreants to disbar and convict her dad. Was she forced to cooperate with the wrongdoers? Did the corrupt and dangerous government officials force Stephanie to turn against her dad, or did she turn against her dad on her own volition?

All the victims coming forward to date have insisted that Stephanie was very familiar with their cases and that they were shocked to hear about her new job where she is now getting a check from the taxpayers as a Maricopa County Attorney when in fact she was part of a law firm that bilked hundreds of thousands dollars from clients under the protection of the U.S. Government. Stephanie is no doubt being monitored by the wrongdoers and like her dad, is not allowed to communicate with the victims.

It is now known that Suzenski and perhaps many other attorneys bring their clients into Arizona's corrupt bankruptcy system whereby they are profiled and categorized by U.S. Trustees. Then the U.S. Trial Attorneys assist in appointing a bankruptcy panel trustee. The bankruptcy judges are completely informed regarding the financial status of each and every bankrupt. Then they begin to rig the proceedings to strip and plunder bankruptcy estates.

The evildoers had helped illegally confiscate millions of dollars from Suzenski's clients. Suzenski could have continued getting away with robbing his clients and sharing the wealth with the other wrongdoers had he not been so adamant about exposing the corruption. Meanwhile, the miscreants collectively decided that they could not let all the victims be found out. So they denied the other victims justice by not including them on the victims list and lied to them concerning the circumstances surrounding Suzenski robbing their estates.

The recent discovery of more victims proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Arizona's Department of Justice condones and aids federal and state judges in raping and plundering Arizona residents. A criminal investigation has uncovered 20 bankruptcy cases so far that clearly chronicle a pattern and practice of corruption.

Gary L. Stuart, Charles W. Wirken, and Linda Perkins were the "Probable Cause Panelist" who made the decision to disbar Suzenski. When Suzenski was brought up on charges, an order was signed by Judge Baum freezing all Suzenski's operating bank accounts. Suzenski's trust account held funds that belonged to his clients and his client's estate. To date, there is no proof that any of the clients got their money back, not even Robert Reed.

In Judge Baum's order of December 20, 2002, he designated Diane Ellis as Director of the Lawyer Assistance Program, and Loren J. Braud, as Deputy Chief Bar Counsel for the State Bar of Arizona, as the only authorized signatories on all Suzenski's bank accounts. He also ordered the financial institutions at which the accounts are located to cooperate with the U.S. Trustees, the State Bar of Arizona, the federal government including the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.

The order evidences that there was an investigation, so why was Reed named as the only victim? Surely the evidence proved that there were more victims than just Reed. In that same order, another interesting thing to point out is that Baum states, "As to disbursement or transactions involving funds or assets of this bankruptcy case (Reed's), this Court retains sole original jurisdiction. Furthermore, if the Court is satisfied that the assets and funds of this bankruptcy case have been clearly identified or traced or if good cause is demonstrated, the Court may consider an appropriate request or motion to, or may sua sponte, modify this order in order to prevent material prejudice to clients (note the plural) of Mr. Suzenski or parties having no connections with this case. The State Bar of Arizona will not be required to bear any burden in making such applications… It is the intent of this Court to retain sole original jurisdiction….."

It looks like there were many officials that knew for certain that there were other victims of Suzenski. Just recently, Jan Lieberman, one of the other victims on the list called Larry Watson, the trial attorney for the U.S. Trustees in Phoenix and left a message asking why he wasn't on the victim's list.

Watson returning the call from his home claimed that the other victims weren't notified because Suzenski hadn't taken his medication for his mental illness and had not signed the plea agreement. He said that Suzenski's trial was scheduled to be held in February this year, and referred Lieberman to an investigator.

Watson lied to Lieberman. Suzenski had already made a plea agreement in June, 2004, after he had been taken to a mental institution in California. The mental evaluation was scheduled by the Court for thirty days. However, he was held there for three months. Suzenski said he had to petition the Court for his release from the institution.

So far, Suzenski has been incarcerated for almost two years and at the first sentencing hearing, Reed was told that Suzenski was scheduled to be released for time served that day. But now all that has changed and Judge Carroll, Suzenski's presiding judge, angrily recused himself from the case when Suzenski insisted on changing his plea.

During the phone conversation with the investigator, the investigator told Lieberman that the Stones' website proves that they are "crack pots" saying, "whose gonna arrest President Bush". He also told the victim that his bankruptcy was closed and that was the reason he was not included as a victim. However, the victim's bankruptcy is still open, just as other victims of Suzenski.

Once again, that phone conversation coupled with court records and other documents prove a blatant disregard of constitutional rights of American citizens. The crimes are unending and more victims are coming forth. When will our executive governmental officers do their job? When will they enforce and follow the laws? When will they arrest the officials that have committed the most depraved and heinous crimes against the elderly, the vulnerable and the unsuspecting? We don't have the answer, do you?

Once again the laws are well established and easily understandable. The laws pertaining to "Victim's Rights", states as follows: As a victim of a crime in Arizona, you have a Constitutional right to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment or abuse throughout the criminal process. All state, county, and municipal justice agencies and courts in Arizona are required to perform certain duties to ensure that you receive your rights. You are considered a victim for victims' rights purposes if the offense committed against you is… a felony, a misdemeanor involving physical injury, the threat of physical injury, or a sexual offense.

The law also says that the victim shall also have the right to the assistance of the prosecutor; that the prosecutor shall have the responsibility to inform the victim of the rights provided by the rules and by law, and provide the victim with notices and information which the victim is entitled by. The denial of this right is just one more predicate act of RICO to hide Arizona's corrupt bankruptcy system.

Presented here in under FAIR USE NOTICE: This section may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically granted by the copyright owner. This material is being made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this section is distributed without profit.