Racketeering Activities By The Department of Justice!!!

August 18, 2004 -- The Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative included creating a national database of petition preparers on Lawrence Friedman's reasoning that it is to aid in the detection of fraudulent activity. The audit report did not explain how entering petition preparers in a database would detect fraudulent activity.

Federal statute 11 U.S.C. Section 110 provides for non-attorneys to prepare petitions and charge fees. Lawrence Friedman's Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative rebels against Section 110, misusing it to put non-attorney petition preparers out of business and into bankruptcy.

An April 2004 edition of FSB reported that one petition preparer found a "client" was paid $400 by a local attorney to come in with a concealed tape recorder. In an article written by Adam Liptak, published in the New York Times, it was reported that in the last seven years, United States Trustees filed almost 4,000 motions seeking to stop bankruptcy petition preparers or to reduce their fees.

It is reasonable to say that the public and media presumes that all proceedings in bankruptcy courts pertain to bankruptcy cases as debtor-creditor issues. The same is true for most petition preparers. In spite of the Constitution that provides a trial by jury in lawsuits over $20.00, bankruptcy courts deprive individuals of property and liberty without jury trials. Petition preparers are not provided with an option for trial by jury. They are denied trial by jury as bankruptcy judges interpret the third-party matter as "core" procedure. [1

Petition preparers are denied court provided legal counsel, although some complaints threaten criminal charges and imprisonment. Believing that truth and justice is the American way, many petition preparers continue to use computer programs to generate "cookie-cutter" forms based on information provided to them by their customers. They are unaware of the Inspector General's Report revealing a designed and planned "Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative," that creates wrong by misusing an ambiguous and vague statute.

For decades, controversy regarding bankruptcy court corruption rang throughout America. In 1931, William J. Donovan, House Committee on the Judiciary, Administration of Bankrupt Estates, 71st Cong. 3d Sess. (Comm. Print 1931), recommended that Congress rectify the corrupt administration of bankruptcy cases by creating a Federal Bankruptcy Commissioner. Solicitor General Thomas Thacher, Report to the President on the Bankruptcy Act and its Administration in the Courts of the United States, Dated December 5, 1931, reprinted in S. Doc. No. 65, 72nd Cong. 1st Sess. (1932) recommended legislation that would remedy cronyism and the lack of administrative oversight in bankruptcy cases by authorizing career civil servant bankruptcy administrators to oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases); In 1973, the Report of the Commission of the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, H.R. Doc. No. 137, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. (1973) recommended legislation to improve bankruptcy administration and reduce cronyism by transferring administrative functions to an administrative body staffed by civil servants.

The prior system's commingling of trustee supervision and the adjudication of disputes between trustees and third parties in bankruptcy courts resulted in unduly close relationships between bankruptcy judges and trustees that fostered cronyism and insider influence and abuse. (H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 92 (1977). Now in 2004, it is apparent to many Americans that the United States Trustee Program is an institution continuing the same corruption and cronyism, which has advanced into a racketeering operation designed to also hinder justice. As a component of the Department of Justice, there is no impartial law enforcement agency to investigate. Upon information and belief, all complaints and correspondence alleging corruption in the United States Trustee Program, (including cronyism with bankruptcy judges), submitted to members of Congress and Glenn Fine's office, are forwarded to the Executive Office for United States Trustees. Upon information and belief, all responses from the Executive Office for United States Trustees recommends that parties obtain private legal counsel and pursue "civil options."

Senator John Kerry has been informed of the designed operation to place petition preparers out of business through the U.S. Trustees' violation of RICO and the Sherman Acts. Upon information and belief, Kerry received a complaint from a Massachusetts constituent and instead of taking it as a matter before Congress to establish a special committee to conduct public hearings, he instead forwarded the complaint to Lawrence Friedman. Friedman, who birthed and carries forth the "Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative", responded in the most unduly critical, condescending, and accusative manner against the petition preparer. The petition preparer is now in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and owes thousands of dollars in bankruptcy court ordered legal fees. Senator Kerry has been asked to address this issue, along with the overall issue of bankruptcy court corruption in his campaign for president. Senator Kerry remains silent.[2

Since about the year 2000, U.S. Trustees have used Section 110 to allege charges of unlicensed practice of law (UPL) against petition preparers. Bankruptcy court decisions have included that anything more than typing information provided by the debtor is practicing law. Yet, petition preparers have been found in violation of Section 110 when the information provided by the debtor is incorrect. Petition preparers have been found in violation of Section 110 for UPL when providing debtors with publications written and provided by United States Bankruptcy Courts to the public. Some judges have decided that transferring information to a type-written form to prepare bankruptcy petitions is practicing law unless the person works for a licensed attorney. Yet, in the state of Maryland, Jason Searns, General Counsel for We The People, has been charged with aiding a petition preparer to practice law without a license.

One might ask how this is possible. Why is it that petition preparers do not appeal decisions to a higher court? One reason, and a documented one, is that most appeals filed to bankruptcy court orders are pursued by large corporations. Appeals in federal court are simply unaffordable to the average person. An additional reason is that attorneys representing non-franchise associated petition preparers, generally withdraw from cases, leaving defendants vulnerable and exposed to the twisting and hypocritical arguments of U.S. Trustees. That is, if petition preparers can find attorneys knowledgeable of this well-hidden law. The majority of attorneys has no knowledge neither experience with Section 110 and must place a significant amount of time into research. Case decisions that benefit petition preparers are unpublished. They cannot be used in pleadings to support the interpretation and decisions that benefit petition preparers. Attorneys representing petition preparers pursue settlements and voluntarily agreements that the petition preparer will cease doing business as an alternative to litigation. The same goal is reached, which is to remove competition with attorneys for those seeking debt relief.

Attorneys do not shy away from conveying that practicing law in the federal system is complicated. Federal Rule only provides ten (10) days to file a notice of appeal. This makes it impossible for anyone who does not have an attorney during the proceedings to obtain replacement counsel, have that counsel brought up‑to‑date on the case, know the issues, and file notice of appeal in compliance to the ten day Rule.

The aforementioned is demonstrated now in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, case number 03-08247. Demetrius Nickens, a 23 year old African-American, decided to help the poor by preparing bankruptcy petitions at the affordable price of $185.00. Demetrius had previously worked in collections and as a paralegal. Information provided to the public by the United States Trustee Program leads them to believe that filing chapter 7 bankruptcy is a simple matter, although the forms and calculations might be complicated. Demetrius opened for business and has since helped approximately 600 individuals receive debt relief. For attorneys preparing the same amount of petitions at $1,500 each, Demetrius has cost them $900,000.

On August 05, 2004, Honorable Bankruptcy Judge E. Stephen Derby denied the Law Firm of Resnick & Abraham's motion to withdraw from representing Demetrius Nickens. Nicken's first attorney, Tara Knowles of Resnick & Abraham, did not comply with the court's schedule to conduct discovery. Nickens' trial is scheduled for August 26, 2004, which essentially places him at a disadvantage, since Tara Knowles & The Law Firm of Resnick and Abraham did not prepare a witness list, conduct discovery, neither acquire depositions. The complaint filed against Nickens is by a debtor, Tracy Lucas. Lucas paid Nickens for services by issuing a check that was returned for non-sufficient funds. When Nickens sought to collect payment, Lucas alleged that he violated the automatic stay by seeking to collect a pre-petition debt. Lucas' complaint also alleges that Nickens committed UPL, and conducts fraudulent business. Lucas has named the United States Trustee as a witness on her behalf. Although the United States Trustee did not file the actual complaint, it is reasonable to believe that his taking a part is to make sure that procedures and decisions go according to Friedman's Anti-Petition Preparer Initiative.

In the meanwhile, Nickens has email from at least one trustee providing evidence of attempting to bait him into practicing law. Nickens also has tapes of meetings of creditors demonstrating trustees harassing debtors using petition preparers. Additionally, Nickens has letters from a trustee's attorney sent to one of Nicken's customers threatening to take her home by alleging Nickens made a mistake on her petition. In exchange, the trustee demanded monthly installment payments from the debtor's social security income. Nicken's has evidence that some trustees do not preside at the meetings of creditors. In violation of federal bankruptcy law, they send replacements that are not appointed by the United States Trustee. Upon providing this information and evidence to Tara Knowles, she "worked out" an agreement with a trustee to cease harassing one of Nickens' customers. In what can be construed as retaliation after word got around of Tara Knowles' knowledge, and out of thin air, the clerk of the bankruptcy court began refusing petitions prepared by Nickens, and other cases were automatically dismissed on allegations that the petitions were not prepared properly.

Then Tara Knowles disappeared. After months of not hearing from her, and with Lucas' complaint pending against Nickens, Nickens was informed that Knowles had "retired" from the law firm, and that Phillip Abraham would represent him. Without any meeting or discussion otherwise, Phillip Abraham introduced that Nickens should agree to a "settlement" to avoid litigation. Nickens agreed, and Phillip Abraham raised the amount, then filed a motion to withdraw.

Nickens is now at the mercy of Bankruptcy Judge E. Stephen Derby, who has already established a 28 Page Order and Memorandum Opinion in the case.

Your presence at the trial scheduled for August 26, 2004 is welcomed. Any requests for case documents can be made to:

Demetrius Nickens c/o Document Processing
300 Reisterstown RD #207
Pikesville, MD 21208

or By Fax 443-628-9154.

Please submit requests as soon as possible and state if you want hard copy or as a pdf attachment to email.

Other contacts:
J. Michael Broumas, Attorney For Tracy Lucas; 410-659-7530
Phillip Abraham, Attorney for Demetrius Nickens; 410-539-6087
Judge E. Stephen Derby; 410-926-2688
Glenn Fine, Inspector General for the Department of Justice, 202-514-3435
Lawrence Friedman, 202-307-1399

[1 The Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333, vests jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings and the debtor's property in the United States District Courts. 28 U.S.C. 1334(a), (b) and (d). The 1984 Act divides the district courts' bankruptcy jurisdiction into two categories: cases under title 11 and core proceedings, on the one hand, and non-core proceedings that are merely "related to" title 11 cases, on the other hand. 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(c). The Bankruptcy Code does not identify non-core proceedings, and as such, bankruptcy judges generally decide that all matters are core, providing them jurisdiction to enter final orders without trial by jury.

[2 Senator Kerry's office forwarded Marion Diamond's letter to Lawrence Friedman. Joseph A. Guzinski, General Counsel for Lawrence Friedman of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, responded, disregarding alleged violations RICO and the Sherman Acts and conspiracy to extinguish petition preparers by advising Mrs. Diamond to consult with private counsel.

PRESS CONTACT: Demetrius Nickens, 410-484-6295, 443-628-9154 (fax), dnickens@freshstart911.org



This article courtesy of http://www.aboutbankruptcysite.com.
You may freely reprint this article on your website or in
your newsletter provided this courtesy notice and the author
name and URL remain intact.

Submit Your Article