Conspiratorial Behavior

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=90 BGCOLOR="#006699" TEXT="#080000" background="22dfd5a3.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="53" >Wells of Justice</FONT>     |     <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Times New Roman" ><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Wells of Justice"><U>Home</U></A></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="purpose.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Our Purpose"><U><B>Our Purpose</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="cases.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Cases"><U><B>Cases</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="decisions.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Court Decisions"><U><B>Court Decisions</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="bpps.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Bankruptcy Petition Preparers"><U><B>Bankruptcy Petition Preparers</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="victims.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="For Victims"><U><B>For Victims</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="articles.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Articles"><U><B>Articles</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="letters.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Letters to Public Officials"><U><B>Letters to Public Officials</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="info.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Information"><U><B>Information</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="reports.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Reports"><U><B>Reports</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="rockford.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="About Rockford"><U><B>About Rockford</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="sitemap.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Site Map"><U><B>Site Map</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="links.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Informative Links"><U><B>Informative Links</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="contact.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact"><U><B>Contact</B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#FFCC66" TEXT="#080000" background="22ed2043.jpg"> <div> <B><U>CASES</U></B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="extortion.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Clear Case "><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A Clear Case of Extortion</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" ><B>(</B>Illinois)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="system.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="System"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700f099000000.png" HEIGHT="16" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A System Gone Wrong</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" ><B>(</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >Arkansas)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="abuse.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Abuse of Authority"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Abuse of Authority</B></U></A></div> <div> (Illinois) </div> <div> <A HREF="arizona.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Arizona"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Bankruptcy attorney indicted for embezzlement implicates Bankruptcy Judge and others.</B></U></A></div> <div> (Arizona)</div> <div> <A HREF="memphis.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Memphis"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Bankruptcy Court Corruption in Memphis</B></U></A></div> <div> (Tennessee)</div> <div> <A HREF="or_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Corruption in OR"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Bankruptcy Court Corruption in Oregon</B></U></A></div> <div> <B><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"> </U></B><A HREF="betrayal.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Betrayal"><U><B>Betrayal</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Illinois) </FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="charis.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Charis Hospital"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Charis Hospital</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Louisiana)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="conspiratorial.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Conspiratorial Behavior"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Conspiratorial Behavior</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Illinois)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="confidence.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Confidence Crime "><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Confidence Crime</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Illinois)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="confidence.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Confidence Crime "><U><B>Part 1</B></U></A><B> </B></div> <div> <A HREF="confidence2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Confidence"><U><B>Part 2 </B></U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="confusing.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Confusing Issues"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Confusing Issues</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Illinois)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="itemized_billing_.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Billing"><U><B>(Billing)</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="defaults.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Default"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Default Orders</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Illinois)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="dd.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Doubledipping "><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Double-Dipping</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(California)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="longest.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Longest"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Longest Running Bankruptcy Case? </B></U></A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(California)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="longest2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Part 2 Longest"><U><B>Part 2</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="fearing.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Fearing Couple"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Victims Lack Standing to Exercise Due Process </B></U></A><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(California)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="inslaw.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="inslaw"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The Inslaw Case Series </B></U></A></div> <div> Widespread Corruption In The Federal Bankruptcy Courts </div> <div> <A HREF="polaroid.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Polaroid"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">What Happened to Polaroid?</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Massachusetts)</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="stealingland.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Stealing NonDebtor Owned Property"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Wing0a7300a700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Stealing Non-Debtor Owned Property</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Illinois)</FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="unlawful.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Unlawful Request"><U><B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc99000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Unlawful Request</B></U></A><B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Times New Roman" >(Illinois)</FONT></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B><U>CONSPIRATORIAL BEHAVIOR</U></B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>EVIDENCE OF COLLABORATION</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#update" TITLE="Conspiratorial Behavior"><U><I><B>UPDATE</B></I></U></A></div> <div>   <B>A TRUSTEE INTRODUCES A CHARGE, THEN RESIGNS. THEN RE-ENTERS THE CASE TO DEFEND HIS NON-DEBTOR CLIENT AGAINST THE CHARGE HE INTRODUCED</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Keeping It In The Club</B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>How Three Attorneys</B></div> <div> <B>(Who Are Also Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustees)</B></div> <div> <B>End Up Working In The Same Bankruptcy Case</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A Crime of Confidence</B></div> <div> <B>Fraudulent Charges Filed to Extort Money Under Color of Official Right </B></div> <div> <B>Embezzlement?  Where's the money?</B></div> <bR> <div> Bankruptcy Case Number 99-53279</div> <div> Adversary Case Number 00-07044</div> <div> <IMG SRC="07358060.gif" border=0 width="600" height="6" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> A look at the Yellow Pages for AT&T's online "AnyWho" reveals that there are approximately 540 lawyers in Rockford.  Out of the 540, approximately 49 practice in the area of bankruptcy.  With so many lawyers in the same town, how do three Rockford lawyers manage to work in the same case, when the debtor does not reside in Rockford?  </div> <bR> <div> The debtor began with attorney John Redington of Rochelle, Illinois.  He filed for bankruptcy on October 13, 1999.  He was involved in a divorce preceding when he filed for bankruptcy.  His divorce was finalized in November 1999.  </div> <bR> <div> At the time the debtor filed for bankruptcy, he was co-owner of the marital house.  The house was valued at $89,900 with an outstanding mortgage of $28,000.  That means the house had approximately $61,900 of equity.  Keep that amount in mind.  By the time the debtor attended the Section 341 Meeting, the Circuit Court had decreed the house to his ex-wife.  Keep in mind that a Court of law issued the divorce decree, making it legal and binding to the parties involved and all others.</div> <bR> <div> The original trustee in this case was Bernard Natale.  The first Section 341 Meeting was held on November 18, 1999.  Natale rescheduled it for continuance.  In case documents, he admits that he rescheduled the meeting because he wanted to see the debtor's divorce decree.  In his letter to U.S. Trustee Sheree Dandurand, (which is included in case documents), Natale states:</div> <div> "<I>My concern was regarding the surrender of all interest in the marital home as a potential fraudulent conveyance</I>."</div> <div>  </div> <div> At the continued Section 341meeting, Bernard Natale took a look at the divorce decree and withdrew as trustee from the case.  He explains in his letter to Sheree Dandurand:</div> <div>      "…. <I>I believe that approximately one year ago, the non-filing ex-spouse, (snip), was in my office for a consultation concerning these issues.  My memory was jogged when I further read the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage.  Therefore, I believe I have a conflict of interest and must, unfortunately, resign as Trustee</I>."</div> <bR> <div> Thomas Lester replaced Bernard Natale as trustee.  On February 3, 2000, Thomas Lester entered an "<I>Objection To Exemptions</I>," objecting to the federal homestead exemption of $7,500 as provided by law to the debtor.  There was a problem here, and it occurs first with the attorney filing the bankruptcy.  He was supposed to file amendments to the Schedules to reflect the change of ownership of property and exemptions.  Let's keep in mind that the debtor filed for bankruptcy in October 1999.  Evidently, he did not know what the Judge in Circuit Court was going to decree in his divorce or when it would be final.  Therefore, his Schedules reflect the truth of his ownership in property at that time. When his divorce was decreed, he no longer owned property, and therefore, would not qualify for a homestead exemption.  Since Natale's letter reveals that the wife consulted with him approximately a year earlier, it is reasonable to assume that the divorce proceedings had been taking place for quite some time. </div> <bR> <div> Thomas Lester's objection states that the debtor did not and had not resided in the marital household since September 1998.  Keep that in mind.  Also, ask why the attorney for the debtor, John C. Redington, would enter the homestead exemption on the Schedules if he knew the debtor did not reside in the house?  It seems rather contradictory.  He should have advised his client that if he has not resided in the house for more than one year, then he does not qualify for the homestead exemption.  If the house was sold by bankruptcy court, then the ex-wife would receive half of the proceeds from the sale.  The debtor would receive nothing. </div> <bR> <div> Thomas Lester's objection to the homestead exemption was used to distract from the real issue.  Of course the debtor did not qualify for the homestead exemption, not necessarily because he had not resided in the house, but because he no longer had ownership in the house.  Thomas Lester takes a truth out of context, and objects to the homestead exemption for the <I><B>WRONG REASON</B></I><I><B>.</B></I>  <I><B><U>IF</U></B></I> Thomas Lester objected to the homestead exemption for the <I><B>RIGHT REASON</B></I>, his objection would have been rendered moot.  In other words, you can't argue against a homestead exemption if the debtor does not own the house.  Thomas Lester objected to an exemption for a house that he cannot sell as property of the bankruptcy estate, <U>BECAUSE</U> a Judge in a Court of Law decreed sole ownership of that house to a non-debtor.  There is another reason why Thomas Lester had to object to the homestead exemption for the wrong reason -- he would have forfeited the opportunity to file the fraudulent charges later. </div> <bR> <div> There was no response on behalf of the debtor to Thomas Lester's motion until May 15, 2000.  The debtor reported to us that his original attorney wanted nothing to do with the case after filing his bankruptcy petition.  He referred him to Joseph Olsen, who is also a Chapter 7 trustee.  In several cases, Joseph Olsen has evidenced coming forth representing debtors against trustees. He doesn't win these cases, in the sense that his clients are found innocent.  His clients either purchase their freedom, or Olsen withdraws from representing them.  Cases evidencing this point are numbers 99-52169 and Adversary 99-05071.</div> <bR> <div> On the docket sheet for the subject bankruptcy case, on May 15, 2000, a Minute Order was entered stating that the debtor had until May 30, 2000 to provide a brief in support of his response to the trustee's objection.  Thomas Lester did not wait until May 30, 2000 before launching his next attack, however.  Like the terrorists attacking the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001, Thomas Lester hit the debtor once, distracted his attention to defending himself on the homestead exemption, then hit the ex-wife --- faster, angled and lower than the first hit.  On May 18, 2000, Thomas Lester filed an Adversary, "<I>Complaint To Avoid Postpetition Transfer and/or Fraudulent Conveyance</I>."   He named the ex-wife as the defendant. Thomas Lester has now picked up Bernard Natale's original "<I>concern</I>", although Natale counseled the ex-wife on these issues before the debtor filed for bankruptcy.  Thomas Lester intentionally discombobulates the debtor and his ex-wife by coming at them from two directions at the same time. </div> <bR> <div> If anything, Thomas Lester would have to charge the Judge that decreed the divorce for a postpetition transfer and fraudulent conveyance of property, and not the debtor.  It is reasonable to conclude that with Bernard Natale's counseling, the ex-wife would not have agreed with the Circuit Court's decree of sole ownership of the house to her if it was going to lead to her being charged with fraud. Thomas Lester is alleging a fraudulent charge against the ex-wife for doing something that the Circuit Court decreed. </div> <bR> <div> In Thomas Lester's Complaint, he alleges in Item 12:</div> <div> <I>"The Debtor was insolvent on the date the transfer was made or became insolvent as a result of the aforedescribed transfer, as evidenced by the Debtor's filing of his bankruptcy proceeding less than one month before the transfer."</I></div> <bR> <div> Keep in mind that in February 2000, Thomas Lester objected to the homestead exemption alleging that the debtor had not resided in the home since September 1998.  He must have forgotten that, because now he alleges that the transfer of property, of a house the debtor had not lived in for over a year, caused the debtor to become insolvent, ONE MONTH after he filed for bankruptcy.   While omitting the fact that the Circuit Court decreed the transfer, Thomas Lester is accusing the man of BECOMING insolvent BECAUSE ownership of the property was transferred ONE MONTH AFTER the man filed for bankruptcy.  Thomas Lester twists the truth by stating the debtor filed for bankruptcy less than one month BEFORE the transfer.  Yes, the debtor did file for bankruptcy one month before the transfer.  However, that evidence also says that the debtor did not become insolvent because of the transfer.  With a twist of words, Thomas Lester masks the truth.</div> <bR> <div> The ex-wife, now legal, sole owner of the house BECAUSE a JUDGE in the CIRCUIT COURT decreed the house to her ownership, has to retain legal representation for her defense.  Who do you think comes in to defend the ex-wife as legal counsel?  <B>Bernard Natale</B>.  The same Bernard Natale who introduced the charge of fraudulent conveyance of property BEFORE he remembered that he counseled the ex-wife on matters concerning her divorce, the house, and the debtor's consideration that he needed to file bankruptcy.  The original trustee that <B><U>introduced </U></B>there was a fraudulent conveyance of property, Bernard Natale, is the same attorney that enters the case to defend the ex-wife against the charge <I><B>HE</B></I><I><B> initially introduced. </B></I></div> <bR> <div> Why hold Bernard Natale responsible for introducing and entertaining the charges?  Why couldn't Thomas Lester come up with the "<I>concern</I>" on his own accord?  In Natale's letter to U.S. Trustee Sheree Dandurand, he states:</div> <div>      "<I>When that appointment has been made, please advise and I will provide the new Trustee with all documents in my possession so that he may review the matter and make an appropriate determination</I>."</div> <bR> <div> Based on this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Thomas Lester picked up where Bernard Natale left off.  It is also reasonable to conclude that the ex-wife retained Natale for her defense because she took Natale's advice during her consultation with him.  Surely, she would expect for him to quote the laws to the Court that he told her would protect her and her home if and when her husband became her ex-husband and filed for bankruptcy.  Natale, evidently gained the exwife's confidence, and she trusted him to argue on her behalf so she would not be found guilty for fraud and lose her home. </div> <bR> <div> Did Natale defend her?  He stated in her answer to trustee Thomas Lester's charges</div> <div>      …" <I>the act was done in fulfillment of a court ordered obligation pursuant to the dissolution of marriage of the parties."</I></div> <bR> <div> Natale also asked that the Court enter an order dismissing Thomas Lester's complaint.  That was on June 6, 2000.  </div> <bR> <div> Thomas Lester requested the bankruptcy court to enter an order avoiding the transfer of property that another court has already decreed.  That is impossible.  This is not an appeal to the orders of Circuit Court.  It's a fraudulent charge that requests Judge Manuel Barbosa to enter an order outside of his jurisdiction -- and Judge Barbosa does not throw the motion out. </div> <bR> <div> U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Manuel Barbosa wants respect for and obedience to his orders and decisions.  Yet, he ignores the authority of other courts, and disrespects those Judges' decisions and orders.  Judge Manuel Barbosa is not a Judge in the Court of Appeals.  He has no authority, neither jurisdiction to vacate the orders of another Court neither order people to disobey those orders.  Judge Barbosa does not deny the trustees' motions when they ask for him to enter an order outside of his jurisdiction.  Judge Manuel Barbosa, by virtue of the knowledge of his position, knows or has reason to know, when he cannot lawfully grant the requests of trustees.  Case documents evidence that Judge Manuel Barbosa allows, entertains, and even holds trials based on the unlawful requests of the trustees. </div> <bR> <div> Thomas Lester would need to go back to the court that decreed the divorce and have that Judge withdraw his order.  Requesting bankruptcy judge, Manuel Barbosa, to enter an order avoiding the transfer of property, is ignoring that the transfer was court decreed.  What trustee Thomas Lester asks for IS NOT the same as appealing another judge's decisions.  Essentially, what the trustee is asking Judge Barbosa to do is DISREGARD the orders of another Court.  Judge Manuel Barbosa has demonstrated in other cases that he disregards the orders of other Courts to lead the defending parties to believe he will find them guilty of bankruptcy fraud. </div> <bR> <div> Did Judge Manuel Barbosa dismiss Thomas Lester's complaint in June 2000?  No.  Did he dismiss Thomas Lester's complaint in July 2000?  No.  August 2000?  No. From June 6, 2000 until September 2000, Judge Barbosa made ABSOLUTELY NO RULING on the guilt or innocence of the ex-wife.  He did not dismiss trustee Thomas Lester's unlawful request.  Neither did he honor it.  After filing false charges, and asking Judge Barbosa to rule outside of his jurisdiction, they wait their victims out.  Behind the scenes, the attorneys for the Defendants are leading them to believe that silence is the same as guilt.  It's a confidence game of saying "The Judge really doesn't want to send you to prison. He really doesn't want to take your home away from you."  In the meantime, a continuance here and there helps the trustee/attorneys add to their time, which adds to their fee.  Also during this time, Judge Manuel Barbosa, the trustees, and attorneys involved, are all working according to plan to convince their victims that they must buy their freedom.</div> <bR> <div> On September 7, 2000, Thomas Lester filed a motion to compromise.  The hearing on the motion to compromise was scheduled for September 27, 2000.  Thomas Lester writes in his motion to compromise, item 9:</div> <div> "<I>Given the uncertainty of litigation in attempting to challenge a divorce decree, and given the costs of litigating, the settlement offer of $5,000.00 is in the best interest of the Estate and its creditors</I>."</div> <bR> <div> The statement, "<I>uncertainty of litigation in attempting to challenge a divorce decree," </I>reflects that Thomas Lester had no lawful jurisdiction to ask Judge Barbosa to avoid the transfer.  He knew that in order to void the transfer, he would have to go to the Court decreeing the divorce and litigate the matter.  Thomas Lester, representing the United States Government, asked the bankruptcy court to do something outside of its jurisdiction.  He alleged false charges to justify the request.  Bernard Natale is making money from the ex-wife.  Joseph Olsen is making money from the debtor by arguing a moot homestead exemption issue.  They're all making money from the victims while leading them to believe that Judge Barbosa can overturn or otherwise disregard the decree of the Circuit Court. </div> <bR> <div> Let's recall that in his motion to compromise, Thomas Lester states that $5,000 is in the "<I>best interest of the Estate and its creditors</I>."  Remember the approximate equity in the house?  $61,900.  The non-debtor owner would receive half, leaving approximately $30,950 for <I>the "best interest of the Estate and its creditors</I>."  If Thomas Lester and Judge Barbosa could lawfully order the sale of the house, the "<I>Estate and its creditors</I>" would have approximately $30,950, less realtor's commission, Lester's recovery commission and compensation, and costs associated with the sale, to pay debts declared in the bankruptcy.   Who would exchange $30,950 for $5,000?  That, in fact, is indeed a fraudulent conveyance of property, or otherwise, it's a bribe, and the guilty parties are trustee Thomas Lester and Judge Manuel Barbosa.  For $5,000, they drop the fraudulent charges requesting Judge Barbosa to enter an order he cannot lawfully enter. </div> <bR> <div> According to the debtor, Joseph Olsen, Bernard Natale and Thomas Lester were working things out so neither he, nor his ex-wife, would go to prison for bankruptcy fraud.  The compromise, as he understood it, was to avoid prosecution if the ex-wife did not surrender the house.  Why would she surrender the house when a Court of Law decreed it to her?  Like professional con artists, their motives are hidden under an agenda of saving or protecting the victim from harm and/or loss.  They would have their victims to believe that their requests to surrender the property are to help the victim avoid additional legal fees and prosecution on charges of bankruptcy fraud.  Or, they can pay a "fine" and save legal fees challenging the trustee's allegations, and retain their property.  Of course, a trial will result in more hearings, more pleadings, more time off work, etc., and you can always be declared guilty, fined, and lose your property.  It will cost you more than $5,000 to fight the trustee, even if you win.  Such logic sounds very reasonable.  However, when such logic is delivered by professionals when you have been falsely and unjustly charged, and the Judge cannot comply with the requests of the trustee, the logic is used as confidence to extort money from unsuspecting victims. </div> <bR> <div> The truth is that if they could have gotten the ex-wife to voluntarily surrender the house, her nightmare would have started, instead of ending.  When people have surrendered property in other cases, the trustees begin the game of punishing them for their voluntarily submission.  For example …</div> <bR> <div> Without entering an unlawful order voiding the transfer and demanding turnover of the property, Judge Barbosa can now enter an order to sell property that has been voluntarily surrendered.  His order generally includes that the residents must cooperate with realtors in showing the house to perspective buyers.  The house is not shown.  The realtor provides a list of dates they called to make an appointment to show the house and received no answer.  A month or so later, the trustee charges the person with contempt of court for not cooperating with realtors, and demands that they vacate the house and turn over the keys to him.  Cases in point where this is evidenced; 98-54233; 0071172; 9950046; 00-70649.  Judge Barbosa enters the order for eviction ordering the property vacated within 5 days of the entry of the order.  The act of putting people out of their homes by alleging they have not cooperated with realtors, AFTER they have voluntarily surrendered the house, provides opportunity for the attorney to come to the rescue.  Enter <I>good cop</I>.  The attorney will ask if the people want to "<I>settle the matter</I>" to avoid being evicted.  </div> <bR> <div> In at least two cases we are aware of, trustee Thomas Lester has evicted people from homes before there was a purchase offer, then sold the houses to realtors.  In both cases, he did not recover enough money to pay off mortgage balances and other judicially decreed liens.  Both of those cases were filed in 1999, and both are still pending.  Bernard Natale also represented the debtor in one of those cases.  Upon the testimony of the debtors, trustee Thomas Lester threatened to sell their homes unless they gave him money.  They resisted the forceful coercion and voluntarily surrendered their homes.  In exchange, Thomas Lester subjected them to charges for contempt, eviction, and penalizing them of their homestead exemption, while keeping their cases open.  Even without paying the homestead exemption, there is not enough money from the sale of their homes to pay outstanding mortgages, judicially decreed liens, and Thomas Lester's compensation and recovery commission.  The sales were not for the benefit of creditors, but acts of vindictiveness and harmful retribution.   </div> <bR> <div> Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees in the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, play a confidence game of filing charges ranging from distorted facts to absolute falsehood, to coerce debtors and non-debtors into agreeing to give them money.  The attorneys for the defendants do not challenge such charges to prove their clients' innocence.  The case in subject is one where all the attorneys involved are also Chapter 7 trustees colluding together.  However, there is another case involving another bankruptcy trustee, where the attorney for the debtor agreed not to contest the case, (Case number 98-53595, docket entry no. 20, page 20, item 2).  Under the guise of <I>helping</I> them, the cohort attorneys convince their clients that giving the trustee money will put an end to their nightmares. </div> <bR> <div> By forcing the non-debtor in this case to <I><B>voluntarily </B></I>surrender the house, Judge Barbosa, Thomas Lester, Joseph Olsen and Bernard Natale would not be suspect of committing extortion under color of official right of the United States government.  If the non-debtor had surrendered the property, <I><B>WHY</B></I> it was surrendered would be hidden from case documents.  The end they reached is that the Judge did not order the property vacated and the turning over of keys <I><B>UNTIL AFTER</B></I> the property was surrendered.  Therefore, they have done nothing illegal other than file false charges against the debtor and exwife to persuade her to "<I>cooperate</I>" with the bankruptcy court.  Since the people "cooperated," they must have been guilty of the charges entered against them.  Why else would they voluntarily "<I>cooperate</I>" with the court if there was the possibility of being proven innocent?  </div> <bR> <div> As with other financial confidence crimes, the victims will be further victimized when explaining why they voluntarily surrendered the property if the law was in their favor, AND when represented by legal counsel.  Law enforcement agencies presume that legal counsel would not allow their client to be victim of coerced extortion, and would bring it to the Judge's attention.  When the Judge is a main participant in the organized extortion ring, the victim loses credibility and is considered as nothing more than a person dissatisfied with Judge Barbosa's decisions.</div> <bR> <div> On September 27, 2000, Judge Manuel Barbosa granted the order approving the compromise. On July 5, 2000, Judge Barbosa denied the trustee's motion objecting to the homestead exemption.  It took him five months to decide on an issue that was moot to begin with.  Unhindered, at the same time, Judge Barbosa intentionally continued the adversary complaint alleging fraud until September.  </div> <bR> <div> According to the debtor, he and his ex-wife each paid half of the $5,000 compromise.  That was back around October 2000.  His case is still not closed.  As of this date, Thomas Lester has not filed a Final Report to distribute the money to pay debts.  Chances are he will consume the majority of the $5,000 as and for his compensation and recovery commission.  He will allege that the debtor was uncooperative, causing him to spend time preparing for, and attending hearings.  The end result will make "<I>the benefit to the Estate and its creditors</I>" an obvious fabrication.  In the meantime, the debtor is still under the authority of bankruptcy court because his case has not closed. </div> <bR> <div> What is important to note here, is that Thomas Lester admits, in his Motion for the compromise, that the bankruptcy court's hands were tied unless he went back to the Circuit Court to litigate the matter.  So, why did Thomas Lester and Judge Manuel Barbosa accept the $5,000? </div> <bR> <div> Under the umbrella of the authority of their positions, Chapter 7 trustee Thomas Lester and Judge Manuel Barbosa will undoubtedly say that the debtor and his ex-wife <I>voluntarily</I> gave $5,000 to the bankruptcy estate.  They will no doubt add that the debtor and his ex-wife "cooperated" with the court, to avoid the <I>appearance</I> of committing a fraudulent conveyance of property.  They were not forced to do so in obedience to any of Judge Barbosa's orders, because he never ruled on the charges.  Is it for the benefit of creditors?  No.  It's been over a year since Thomas Lester received that $5,000 and the creditors have yet to receive one penny. </div> <bR> <div> This case is another example of how financial confidence crimes of extortion and embezzlement are committed by officers of the United States government, under color of law, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.  Any trustee retaining "compromises" or "settlements" for more than a year can use it for his own personal, financial benefit.  No one is making him report the money by filing a Final Report.  The Court sure isn't. Where's the money, and why is it taking so long to file a Final Report?  Maybe the trustee bought Enron stock?</div> <bR> <div> <I><B> <A NAME="update"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></I><I><B>UPDATE!</B></I></div> <div> On April 18, 2002, Chapter 7 trustee Thomas Lester filed a Final Report in this case. <I> </I><I><B>He is diverting the $5,000 compromise and all interest to his incentive commission, expenses, and compensation.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> The Final Report confirms what the Debtor reported to us, that is, that he and his ex-wife each paid half of the $5,000.  In the Final Report, filed as docket entry no 27 in bankruptcy case number 99-53279, trustee Thomas Lester reports on page 12 that he received $2,500 on September 27, 2000, and $2,500 on October 2, 2000.  <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#CC0000" FACE="Bookman Old Style" ><B>For over two and a half years</B></FONT>, trustee Thomas Lester has had the money and not reported it in a Final Report to close the case.  His Initial Projected Date of Final Report, recorded on page 11, was May 1, 2001.  The trustee missed that date by almost a year, and it is reasonable to conclude by his undue delay for not reporting receipt of the money was intentional.  </div> <bR> <div> Chapter 7 trustee Thomas Lester goes into lots of explanation concerning why he spent so much time in the case.  The total of his compensation, expenses, and incentive commission is $6,180.53 … more than the $5,000 compromise and interest earned in over two years.  Trustee, Thomas Lester, disallowed all claims in the case.  He was clearly working this case for his own financial enrichment.</div> <bR> <div> In his explanation, trustee Thomas Lester mentions that Judge Barbosa ruled against disallowing the homestead exemption.  Trustee Lester claims that Judge Barbosa's decision "<I>severely compromised the Trustee's position and bargaining power in the adversary proceeding.</I>"  (Page 20, para 3 of the Final Report)  He does not explain how.  Maybe his intent was to have the Debtor pay him an additional $7,500 for property the trustee could not sell anyway.  </div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="conspiratorial_m.htm" TITLE="Conspiratorial Behavior"><U><B>Back to Top</B></U></A><B>        </B></div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>