I know that Attorneys with anything to Do With Real Estate Consumer Issues like to PUSH the issue of, NOT Disclosing all Pertinent Information to the Real Estate Consumers, Real Estate Victims so that they cannot possibly make an informed decision.
r
You see, Stephanie Studebaker- DeYoung is one smart cookie, she wanted no mistake Ever Being Made that What Was Said at this Presentation was Really Said.
r
She obviously knew that later it would be a case of I did not say that. And how is she suppose to protect her future, her reputation and her father's company, as well as Consumers Rights - banking on Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Financial to tell the truth later about what was said at this meeting. Or that Kevin Padrick would even Remember it, well as it REALLY happened anyway.
r
the Only way to Ensure that the TRUTH was Preserved and that Real Estate Consumers would have access to FULL Disclosure of how this all played out was to RECORD this Closed Door Meeting.
r
Now she recorded it Right there in front of them all. Her Laptop had a Camera, they all do these days, the light was on and the Recording was Blatant and Obvious.
r
Still Kevin Padrick, in all his Arrogance threw his weight around and gave the What For and how is Going to be Speach along with HEY We were on this Right Away SOUND OFF and well he NEVER ever expected a Recording of What he Said.
r
So Stephanie Studebaker-DeYoung put this Recording on her blog, that has TONS of Consumer Valuable information, to update Consumers, Creditors on the Progress of the Summit 1031 Exchangers Bankruptcy and to let the Creditors / Consumers know what was Really Going on behind the Closed Doors of their Real Estate Transaction. That Quite Frankly really does Affect them.
r
Is the Truth Criminal?
r
Is Disclosure Criminal?
r
r
You see, Stephanie Studebaker- DeYoung is one smart cookie, she wanted no mistake Ever Being Made that What Was Said at this Presentation was Really Said.
r
She obviously knew that later it would be a case of I did not say that. And how is she suppose to protect her future, her reputation and her father's company, as well as Consumers Rights - banking on Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Financial to tell the truth later about what was said at this meeting. Or that Kevin Padrick would even Remember it, well as it REALLY happened anyway.
r
the Only way to Ensure that the TRUTH was Preserved and that Real Estate Consumers would have access to FULL Disclosure of how this all played out was to RECORD this Closed Door Meeting.
r
Now she recorded it Right there in front of them all. Her Laptop had a Camera, they all do these days, the light was on and the Recording was Blatant and Obvious.
r
Still Kevin Padrick, in all his Arrogance threw his weight around and gave the What For and how is Going to be Speach along with HEY We were on this Right Away SOUND OFF and well he NEVER ever expected a Recording of What he Said.
r
So Stephanie Studebaker-DeYoung put this Recording on her blog, that has TONS of Consumer Valuable information, to update Consumers, Creditors on the Progress of the Summit 1031 Exchangers Bankruptcy and to let the Creditors / Consumers know what was Really Going on behind the Closed Doors of their Real Estate Transaction. That Quite Frankly really does Affect them.
r
Is the Truth Criminal?
r
Is Disclosure Criminal?
r
Well David Arman of Tonkon Torp LLP Seems to Think SO.
r
This Really Happened, this was REALLY said what Could Kevin Padrick / David Aman Possible want to hide? They are quite wordy and pushing VERY hard to SHUT UP the TRUTH.. Why?
R
Well Here is David S. Aman, Partner, Tonkon Torp LLP Email THREAT to Stephanie Studebaker - DeYoung demanding that She Remove her Vidoes of This Meeting
r
r
This Really Happened, this was REALLY said what Could Kevin Padrick / David Aman Possible want to hide? They are quite wordy and pushing VERY hard to SHUT UP the TRUTH.. Why?
R
Well Here is David S. Aman, Partner, Tonkon Torp LLP Email THREAT to Stephanie Studebaker - DeYoung demanding that She Remove her Vidoes of This Meeting
r
***********
Ms. Studebaker:
As you know, I represent Kevin Padrick. It has come to our attention that you have posted a video on http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/ of a meeting involving Kevin Padrick and others. The video posting includes an audio recording of the meeting. You have also posted a transcript made from the audio recording.
Mr. Padrick and the other Obsidian personnel did not consent to being recorded at the meeting nor did they know they were being recorded. As a result, the person responsible for surreptitiously recording the meeting committed a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(1)(c). Moreover, your subsequent posting of the illegal recording and transcript constitute an additional Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(1)(e).
We request that you take the video posting and transcript off the website immediately. Please confirm by email to me no later than 3 p.m. today that you have done so, and that you will not engage in further criminal conduct with respect to the recording and transcript.
Regards,
David S. Aman
Partner
Tonkon Torp LLP
1600 Pioneer Tower
888 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland , Oregon 97204
direct dial: (503) 802-2053
cell: (503) 810-0850direct
cell: (503) 810-0850direct
fax: (503) 972-3753
email: david.aman@tonkon.com
s
****
Obviously Shaking in her Boots, Stephanie Makes a Stand and Does NOT Remove the Videos but instead Makes Noise on behalf of the Consumer and to Get the Truth Told of Who and What is Really Standing in the Way of the Real Estate Consumer Getting Justice.. So Here Comes this WORDY Email
R
Ms. Studebaker-DeYoung:
We have reviewed the June 2, 2009 memorandum from Marc Andersen, which you sent to me by email on July 15, 2009. The memorandum only further confirms that (a) the recording of the February 12 meeting was criminal and (b) your subsequent posting of the recording and transcript was and is criminal as well.
Mr. Andersen made clear in his memorandum that he based his legal conclusion on the background "facts" you provided him. He also made clear that his legal conclusions could not be relied upon if the facts were incorrect. The background facts you provided him were not only grossly incorrect, but were clearly concocted in order to allow you to get the ultimate legal conclusion from him that you wanted. As a result, it is not at all surprising that Mr. Andersen's ultimate legal conclusion was incorrect. We will correct your version of the "facts" below:
Your "Fact" No. 1- False and irrelevant
Your statement that Obsidian made a presentation to the creditors at a recorded, public meeting prior to February 12, 2007 is simply false. If you are referring to the presentation that Mr. Padrick made to the creditors committee, that was not at a public meeting. And it was not recorded. If you are referring to the Section 341(a) meeting with creditors as provided under the bankruptcy code (which was recorded), no one from Obsidian even attended that meeting or made a presentation.
But even if Obsidian had made such a public presentation (which it did not), that does not mean that the February 12 meeting was a public meeting. To the contrary, it was held in a private office, with a limited number of attendees. It was not open to the public. In fact, Mr. Padrick made clear from the outset that he did not want anyone to take notes and he even at one point asked for Mr. Vance to leave the room.
And finally, Obsidian never made a presentation on February 12—because it was never provided the opportunity.
Your "Fact" No. 2- False and misleading
You have referred to " Summit " taking certain actions on or around February 11. We are unaware of " Summit " taking such actions—since Summit at that point could only have been acting through Terry Vance. It is our understanding that you—not "Summit"—asked the U.S. Trustee's Office for a meeting with Obsidian so that Obsidian could make a presentation to you and the Summit shareholders. We also understand that on February 11, you asked Judge Dunn if Obsidian could come make the same presentation to you and the shareholders that was made to the creditors' committee. (Of course, the fact that you twice asked to have the presentation made to you only further confirms that you could not have obtained a recording of it, contrary to your statement in "Fact" No. 1. If it had been recorded, you could have simply obtained the recording.) Judge Dunn did not issue any order requiring Obsidian to make a presentation to you or anyone else.
On February 12, Mr. Padrick and other Obsidian staff had a private meeting with the four shareholders, you, your stepmother and Terry Vance. Again, this was not a public meeting. Obsidian had no objection to you and your mother being present since you were direct or indirect beneficiaries of the Inland loans and, as a result, owners of assets that would necessarily become tied up with the estate.
Your "Fact" No. 3- False and misleading
The video camera was not unconcealed—which is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Padrick objected to having notes taken verbatim. If the video camera was in plain sight and recording, it would have made no sense for Mr. Padrick to object to note-taking—since there would be a verbatim recording of the entire meeting. Nor would it have made sense for him to request that Terry Vance leave the room, since Mr. Vance could have simply watched the video later. If the video camera was in plain sight and recording, Mr. Padrick would have obviously objected to it and left the meeting if it was not turned off. Any person who watches the video realizes that immediately. Terry Vance has confirmed that he, like Mr. Padrick and the other Obsidian staff, did not see any operating video camera or other recording device in the room when the meeting took place.
Your "Fact" No. 4- Vague and irrelevant
We do not know who was involved in the making the recording. And we do not know what you mean in saying that the person(s) making the recording were "members of the public." ORS 165.540 does not authorize the otherwise criminal activity simply because someone is a member of the public. It applies to any person who engages in the criminal activity.
Your "Fact" No. 5- Irrelevant
Whether the notes were or were not privileged has nothing to do with whether it is criminal under Oregon law to surreptitiously record an in-person conversation (which it is).
Your "Fact" No. 6- Conclusory
It is not surprising that Mr. Andersen reached the legal conclusion that he did when you asked him to assume that conclusion—namely, that those responsible for making the illegal recording believed in good faith that it was authorized by statute. In any event, no one could have in good faith believed that the recording was made legally. And you certainly could not have relied on Mr. Andersen's June 2 memorandum in good faith when you posted the recording, given that you provided him with incorrect background facts.
The facts are that this was a private meeting in which one or more individuals surreptitiously recorded a conversation. That is a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540. Your posting of the recording is a further Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540. We demand that you immediately take down the illegal recording and transcript from any and all websites.
David S. Aman
R
Ms. Studebaker-DeYoung:
We have reviewed the June 2, 2009 memorandum from Marc Andersen, which you sent to me by email on July 15, 2009. The memorandum only further confirms that (a) the recording of the February 12 meeting was criminal and (b) your subsequent posting of the recording and transcript was and is criminal as well.
Mr. Andersen made clear in his memorandum that he based his legal conclusion on the background "facts" you provided him. He also made clear that his legal conclusions could not be relied upon if the facts were incorrect. The background facts you provided him were not only grossly incorrect, but were clearly concocted in order to allow you to get the ultimate legal conclusion from him that you wanted. As a result, it is not at all surprising that Mr. Andersen's ultimate legal conclusion was incorrect. We will correct your version of the "facts" below:
Your "Fact" No. 1- False and irrelevant
Your statement that Obsidian made a presentation to the creditors at a recorded, public meeting prior to February 12, 2007 is simply false. If you are referring to the presentation that Mr. Padrick made to the creditors committee, that was not at a public meeting. And it was not recorded. If you are referring to the Section 341(a) meeting with creditors as provided under the bankruptcy code (which was recorded), no one from Obsidian even attended that meeting or made a presentation.
But even if Obsidian had made such a public presentation (which it did not), that does not mean that the February 12 meeting was a public meeting. To the contrary, it was held in a private office, with a limited number of attendees. It was not open to the public. In fact, Mr. Padrick made clear from the outset that he did not want anyone to take notes and he even at one point asked for Mr. Vance to leave the room.
And finally, Obsidian never made a presentation on February 12—because it was never provided the opportunity.
Your "Fact" No. 2- False and misleading
You have referred to " Summit " taking certain actions on or around February 11. We are unaware of " Summit " taking such actions—since Summit at that point could only have been acting through Terry Vance. It is our understanding that you—not "Summit"—asked the U.S. Trustee's Office for a meeting with Obsidian so that Obsidian could make a presentation to you and the Summit shareholders. We also understand that on February 11, you asked Judge Dunn if Obsidian could come make the same presentation to you and the shareholders that was made to the creditors' committee. (Of course, the fact that you twice asked to have the presentation made to you only further confirms that you could not have obtained a recording of it, contrary to your statement in "Fact" No. 1. If it had been recorded, you could have simply obtained the recording.) Judge Dunn did not issue any order requiring Obsidian to make a presentation to you or anyone else.
On February 12, Mr. Padrick and other Obsidian staff had a private meeting with the four shareholders, you, your stepmother and Terry Vance. Again, this was not a public meeting. Obsidian had no objection to you and your mother being present since you were direct or indirect beneficiaries of the Inland loans and, as a result, owners of assets that would necessarily become tied up with the estate.
Your "Fact" No. 3- False and misleading
The video camera was not unconcealed—which is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Padrick objected to having notes taken verbatim. If the video camera was in plain sight and recording, it would have made no sense for Mr. Padrick to object to note-taking—since there would be a verbatim recording of the entire meeting. Nor would it have made sense for him to request that Terry Vance leave the room, since Mr. Vance could have simply watched the video later. If the video camera was in plain sight and recording, Mr. Padrick would have obviously objected to it and left the meeting if it was not turned off. Any person who watches the video realizes that immediately. Terry Vance has confirmed that he, like Mr. Padrick and the other Obsidian staff, did not see any operating video camera or other recording device in the room when the meeting took place.
Your "Fact" No. 4- Vague and irrelevant
We do not know who was involved in the making the recording. And we do not know what you mean in saying that the person(s) making the recording were "members of the public." ORS 165.540 does not authorize the otherwise criminal activity simply because someone is a member of the public. It applies to any person who engages in the criminal activity.
Your "Fact" No. 5- Irrelevant
Whether the notes were or were not privileged has nothing to do with whether it is criminal under Oregon law to surreptitiously record an in-person conversation (which it is).
Your "Fact" No. 6- Conclusory
It is not surprising that Mr. Andersen reached the legal conclusion that he did when you asked him to assume that conclusion—namely, that those responsible for making the illegal recording believed in good faith that it was authorized by statute. In any event, no one could have in good faith believed that the recording was made legally. And you certainly could not have relied on Mr. Andersen's June 2 memorandum in good faith when you posted the recording, given that you provided him with incorrect background facts.
The facts are that this was a private meeting in which one or more individuals surreptitiously recorded a conversation. That is a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540. Your posting of the recording is a further Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540. We demand that you immediately take down the illegal recording and transcript from any and all websites.
David S. Aman
******
Are Internet Laws Actually Based Out of Oregon? Or is it Virginia? Does this Whistleblower Blog has special privelege ? Does Summit 1031 have a Moral and Legal Obligation to FULLY disclose what is going on? Is the TRUTH really a Class A Misdemeanor... are You Kidding?
R
If Summit 1031 is telling the Truth and so many are trying to Change the Story to benefit them ... then they HAD to record this or it WOULD have OBVIOUSLY been lied about later as to what was Really Said.Are Internet Laws Actually Based Out of Oregon? Or is it Virginia? Does this Whistleblower Blog has special privelege ? Does Summit 1031 have a Moral and Legal Obligation to FULLY disclose what is going on? Is the TRUTH really a Class A Misdemeanor... are You Kidding?
R
R
Class A Misdemeanor In Oregon? What? Oregon is Certainly NOT the only State Affected by this Mess of Lies.
r
Soon We Will Post "Mike Morgan and Goldman Sachs information", information on linking to blogs and stories, and other defamation, intellectual and Huff and Puff attorneys trying to STOP the TRUTH and Losing.
r
Now I know that David Aman is a VERY big Deal in His world, as is Kevin Padrick, HOWEVER, in my World the Real Estate Consumer is a VERY big deal. And nothing should EVER stand in the way of the Real Estate Consumer Getting Justice and All available information.
r
And as Wealthy as these Attorneys, Lumber Barons, Mulit-Millionaires are .. they are NO WAY near as wealthy as Goldman Sachs, and Goldman Sachs lost trying to do this same bullying, suppression of information and silencing and Industry Whistleblower.
r
Where is the Department of Justice in this? Do they not Care? Where is the IRS and those who govern 1031 Exchanges ? Are they absolutely no Checks and Balances or Elements in place to Protect the Real Estate Consumer with a 1031 Exchange? If Not the IRS better had just get rid of them...
r
I kind of Want to Say, Grow A Brain David Aman, what you have done is just riled up the Consumer Advocated, thousands have the video dowloaded already, and if you succeed in "Criminal Charges" against Stephanie DeYoung, and keep pushing to FIGHT the TRUTH getting out.. Thousands of people all over the world will just reload the videos on hundreds of video share sites and thousands of blogs and you will get even more bad press.
r
Had you NOT sent these Threats, You would still be in Control of your search engine presence.
r
My name is Crystal L. Cox and fighting for the Real Estate Consumer EVERY DAY is what I do, if THIS meeting is some SECRET information that Consumer are not to know then I demand to know why. I demand the Department of Justice and the governing bodies of real estate though fairly powerless still they should be asking Why is David Aman and Kevin Padrick Making so Much Noise to Stop these Videos of what REALLY was Said. Consumer DESERVE Full Disclosure, these Real Estate Victims Deserve all Available information.
r
Who would Have the NERVE to Object to Notes being Taken Verbatim.. Well someone with something to hide that is. David Aman has lot of Gibberish and Hullabaloo to lather on to STOP this video from Being Seen by those Who are affected by it most. WHY?
r
Who Will DEMAND that David Arman Cease and Desist his ASSAULT on the Real Estate Victims who DESERVE the TRUTH. The Whole Truth and Nothing But.. VERBATIM.
r R
Why would Mr. Padrick have "Objected" to being recorded and left the meeting. He is PAID big bucks, these people are the clients, Talk about a Rude Power Trip. How does MR. Padrick have the right to object to them taking verbatim notes or recording the meeting? What is this man up to that he will NOT let you in any way REPEAT, Record or even take notes when he Speaks, such a powerfull man.. You would think he would be proud of what he says, stand in his truth in public and in closed meetings and not be so ASHAMED at what he said that he Wants to STOP this video from being Seen.
r
It Really Happened, it is not like Words that Accuse, it is A FACTUAL, PROVEN video of what was Really Said. .. what is the Problem...
rr
It Really Happened, it is not like Words that Accuse, it is A FACTUAL, PROVEN video of what was Really Said. .. what is the Problem...
As you Can Imagine - there will be Much, Much more on this Later..
r
