• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDATAMPA DIVISION
MARK A. ADAMS,Appellant,v.CASE NO: 8:08-cv-1570-T-26CORPORATE SPORTS MARKETINGGROUP, et al.,Appellees./ 
O R D E R
This cause comes before the Court on Appellant Mark Adams’ (“Adams”) appealof a Default Final Judgment (Dkt. 1-2) entered against him as the debtor in a bankruptcyadversary proceeding by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (“the bankruptcy court”) in Case No. 8:06-ap-185-PMG. (Dkt. 1-2.) Adams alsoappeals an Order entered in the main Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, Case No. 8:05-bk-29501-PMG, revoking his discharge based on the Default Final Judgment. (Dkt. 9-22.)The Appellee Creditors (collectively “Appellees”) are Corporate Sports Marketing Group,Inc. (“CSM”), Dwayne Martins (“Martins”), Christopher C. King (“King”), MartinRichardson (“Richardson”), the law firm of Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A.(“BRDW”), and Timothy W. Weber (“Weber”). Adams filed an initial brief (Dkt. 18)and Appellees filed an answer brief (Dkt. 23). Adams failed to file a timely reply brief 
 
2after being granted three extensions of time to do so. (Dkts. 26, 28, 30.) Nonetheless,this appeal can be resolved without need for a reply brief from Adams. The full recordand supplemental record of the bankruptcy court proceedings have also been filed withthe Court. (Dkts. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 21, 22.) The Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal of the final orders of the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).Having carefully considered all of the submissions, the Court finds that the judgment and order of the bankruptcy court are due to be affirmed. The answer brief of Appellees is thorough, well-reasoned, and amply supported by the record and, thus,portions thereof will be adopted and incorporated herein.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Adams filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in the bankruptcy court on October 14,2005. A notice of commencement was sent to creditors scheduling a Section 341 hearingfor December 13, 2005, and setting the deadline for objections to discharge anddischargeability for February 6, 2006. (Dkt. 9-8.) Adams did not timely file hisschedules or statement of financial affairs and did not pay the applicable filing fee, whichresulted in a notice of deficiency being issued by the bankruptcy court. (Dkt. 21-1.) Inresponse, Adams moved to extend the time to accomplish these acts, which thebankruptcy court granted without a hearing. (Dkts. 21-2, 21-3, 21-4.) Adams’ Section341 Meeting of Creditors was continued by the trustee to January 17, 2006. (Dkt. 2-2, at2.) Counsel for Appellees attended the Section 341 Meeting of Creditors on December13, 2005, and February 6, 2006. (Dkt. 9-9.) On the latter date, the trustee requested that
 
1
At this point, it should be noted that the history of Appellees’ dispute withAdams is quite lengthy and is characterized by seven years of court proceedings, resultingin sanctions judgments against Adams, criminal contempt proceedings against Adams forrefusing to cooperate with discovery in aid of execution to collect those sanctions judgments, Adams’ permanent disbarment from the practice of law by The FloridaSupreme Court, Adams’ bankruptcy, and ultimately, the revocation of Adams’ dischargeby the bankruptcy court. (See generally, Dkt. 11-13.) As found by The Florida Barreferee presiding over Adams’ disbarment, “[t]he unrebutted evidence proves beyond anyreasonable doubt that the Respondent [Adams] engaged in deliberate conduct resulting infinancial damages of over $150,000 to Attorney Timothy Weber and his law firm as wellas additional financial damages to Mr. Weber’s former clients in the underlyinglitigation.” (See Dkt. 11-13 at 21; see also id. at 24 (finding that“the misconduct hascaused significant financial and emotional damage to other members of The Florida Barand the Respondent’s clients and adversaries.”).This conduct included, among other things, knowing violation of court ordersand rules to gain an improper benefit or cause serious interference with a legalproceeding; engaging in protracted intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,deceit or misrepresentation to opposing counsel and the court, including intentionallymaking numerous false statements of fact to the court with the intent to deceive thecourt; knowingly violating court orders; knowingly communicating with representedpersons; knowingly asserting frivolous arguments; and purposefully obstructingaccess to evidence. (See generally, Dkt. 11-13.) In addition, counsel for Appellees, and3Adams produce additional documents concerning his assets, including documentsconcerning pre-petition transfers of assets by Adams and involving his wife andprofessional association. (Dkt. 9-9 at 2-3.)On February 2, 2006, Appellees made an appearance and filed their Motion toExtend Time to Object to Discharge or Dischargeability, seeking a 60-day extension inlight of the delayed filing of the schedules and statement of financial affairs, thecontinuation of the Section 341 meeting, the request for additional documentation fromAdams, and the inability of Appellees to fully formulate a complete objection within thetime provided. (Dkt. 9-9.)
1
On February 6, 2006, Appellees also timely filed an
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
KINNEYN4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION Darryl Kinney ) Jada Kinney ) CASE 1:09CV806 v. ) U.S. Dept. of Justice ) JUDGE: HILTON & ) I.R.S ) & STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Darryl Kinney("Kinney") and Jada Kinney against the Defendants by himself, hereby files his Complaint against the Defendants U.S. Dept. of Justice("DOJ") the I.R.S. Which includes the U.S. Military and the F.B.I. all hailing from Wisconsin and Illinois and Virginia and also includes the State of Illinois Plaintiffs allege as follows: NATURE OF THIS ACTION 1. This is an action that arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.because both Kinney's are African Americans,.Discrimination. 2. Obstruction by Destruction of Evidence or Harrassment laws ( 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), 1512(d) Wis. Statute 947.013) 3.Internet fraud ( Fake websites hacking, Fed.Statute Ann. 254 U.S. 17,41 S.Ct. 11 65 U.S.) 4. Obstruction of Justice Mail and Wire Fraud(U,S,C. 1346) 5. Criminal Contempt of Court(Federal Statute) 6. Mental Anguish (254 U.S. 17, 41 Sup. Ct. 11,65 U.S.) 7. Employment harassment(Fake customers and Coercing) 8. Corruption of Government Agencies(EEOC, Unemployment) 9.Conspiracy to Obstruct and Defraud(18 U.S.C 371) 10. Abuse of Power (Title 18 sections 241-242 U.S.C, Title 42, section 1983) 11. Telephone tapping (Wis. Statute 885.365, 18 U.S.C. 1346) 12. Mental and Physical abuse( 750 ILCS 60/103) 13.Obstruction by Intimidation ,Threats, Persuasion or Deception(18 U.S.C.1512(b) THE PARTIES 14. Plaintiffs Darryl Kinney and Jada Kinney are both African American citizens who reside in Wisconsin and Illinois cities of Kenosha and Waukegan and Virginia. 15. Defendants D.O.J. is an agency established under the Laws of the United States and Wisconsin and Illinois, Virginia and Washington, D,C,. 16. Defendants I.R.S. is an agency established under the laws governed by the United States and Virginia and Illinois and all over the U.S. 17.At all relevant times D.O.J. acted thru its agents utilizing the U.S. Military active and retireed duty, including Katrina Kigoda and the Kenosha and Waukegan Police Dept. and Virginia Police Dept. 18. At all relevant times the DOJ, I.R.S. And State of Illinois used its agents and those of the U.S. Military active and retired duty and the Kenosha and Waukegan Police Dept.. and the same in Virginia. 19. Both the D.O.J. and the I.R.S. use Military and have headquarters in Wisconsin and Illinois,Virginia and Washington, D.C. And the State of Illinois. With over 100 employees an at all relevant times subject to all Federal and State laws fore mentioned. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C..§§ 1331, 1343. 21. This court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Kinney's state and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) 22. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 1391(b) FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 23. Kinney's also allege violations under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and Federal laws governing all States of America. 24. This action also violates the EEO laws in Wisconsin. 25. Also unlawful surveillance home and at work and car and illegal harassment on the job and private life. 26. Plaintiff had fake customers on the job calling with phony complaints as work was sabotaged by these Desfendants.

reply09 / 04 / 2009
KINNEYN4

ILLEGAL COURT PROCEEDINGS BY DOJ, NOT EVEN LETTING ME SEE THE JUDGE. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION Darryl Kinney ) Jada Kinney ) CASE # v. ) U.S. Dept. of Justice ) JUDGE: . & ) I.R.S ) & STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Darryl Kinney("Kinney") and Jada Kinney against the Defendants by himself, hereby files his Complaint against the Defendants U.S. Dept. of Justice("DOJ") the I.R.S. Which includes the U.S. Military and the F.B.I. all hailing from Wisconsin and Illinois and Virginia and also includes the State of Illinois Plaintiffs allege as follows: NATURE OF THIS ACTION 1. This is an action that arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.because both Kinney's are African Americans,.Discrimination. 2. Obstruction by Destruction of Evidence or Harrassment laws ( 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), 1512(d) Wis. Statute 947.013) 3.Internet fraud ( Fake websites hacking, Fed.Statute Ann. 254 U.S. 17,41 S.Ct. 11 65 U.S.) 4. Obstruction of Justice Mail and Wire Fraud(U,S,C. 1346) 5. Criminal Contempt of Court(Federal Statute) 6. Mental Anguish (254 U.S. 17, 41 Sup. Ct. 11,65 U.S.) 7. Employment harassment(Fake customers and Coercing) 8. Corruption of Government Agencies(EEOC, Unemployment) 9.Conspiracy to Obstruct and Defraud(18 U.S.C 371) 10. Abuse of Power (Title 18 sections 241-242 U.S.C, Title 42, section 1983) 11. Telephone tapping (Wis. Statute 885.365, 18 U.S.C. 1346) 12. Mental and Physical abuse( 750 ILCS 60/103) 13.Obstruction by Intimidation ,Threats, Persuasion or Deception(18 U.S.C.1512(b) THE PARTIES 14. Plaintiffs Darryl Kinney and Jada Kinney are both African American citizens who reside in Wisconsin and Illinois cities of Kenosha and Waukegan and Virginia. 15. Defendants D.O.J. is an agency established under the Laws of the United States and Wisconsin and Illinois, Virginia and Washington, D,C,. 16. Defendants I.R.S. is an agency established under the laws governed by the United States and Virginia and Illinois and all over the U.S. 17.At all relevant times D.O.J. acted thru its agents utilizing the U.S. Military active and retireed duty, including Katrina Kigoda and the Kenosha and Waukegan Police Dept. and Virginia Police Dept. 18. At all relevant times the DOJ, I.R.S. And State of Illinois used its agents and those of the U.S. Military active and retired duty and the Kenosha and Waukegan Police Dept.. and the same in Virginia. 19. Both the D.O.J. and the I.R.S. use Military and have headquarters in Wisconsin and Illinois,Virginia and Washington, D.C. And the State of Illinois. With over 100 employees an at all relevant times subject to all Federal and State laws fore mentioned. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C..§§ 1331, 1343. 21. This court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Kinney's state and common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) 22. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 1391(b) FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 23. Kinney's also allege violations under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and Federal laws governing all States of America. 24. This action also violates the EEO laws in Wisconsin. 25. Also unlawful surveillance home and at work and car and illegal harassment on the job and private life. 26. Plaintiff had fake customers on the job calling with phony complaints as work was sabotaged by these Desfendants.

reply09 / 04 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...