Mitt Romney Being Sued For Racketeering In Federal Court

[Ellipsis]

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 04:53 PM - Edit history (5)

Edited to change OP title @2:45 Jan. 5th Story edited earlier by the request of Steve

By Ann Werner

One of the most ignored stories in the mainstream media will surely be coming to a television screen near you once the court proceedings commence. That lawsuit is none other than racketeering charges leveled against one Willard “Mitt” Romney and his co-defendants in Haas v. Romney.

Filed on October 18 in Los Angeles, CA, in an ironic twist of fate it was decided on November 6, the one-year anniversary of Romney’s loss to Barack Obama, that the lawsuit could go forward.

eToys executive Steven “Laser” Haas and his company, Collateral Logistics, Inc., was the court appointed fiduciary charged with overseeing the liquidation of eToys. Haas filed the suit after discovering multiple frauds while in the process of liquidating the company. In his affidavit to the Securities and Exchange Commission dated August 3, 2012, Haas charges, among other things, that he was offered $850,00 by Bain Capital to keep quiet about irregularities he uncovered.


edited to add Steve Laser's DU Journal link slicing it open

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~laserhaas

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/12/mitt-romney-sued-racketeering-federal-court/


Original AATTP link here


http://aattp.org/breaking-mitt-romney-is-being-sued-in-federal-court-for-criminal-racketeering/

[no1uno]

1. Oh no tell me it isn't....

Because if Mittens ends up in prison then Mama Mittens will have to fall back on that "safety net" Mittens spoke of many times in his campaigning. Then that means all we tax payers will have to support the huge Romney family. Oh the horror of it all!!!

[msanthrope]

2. yep...and steve haas posts here. nt

[Ellipsis]

3. I was wondering if it was the same person. Wild

[pinboy3niner]

4. See his DU journal for more about his case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~laserhaas

[Ellipsis]

5. He certainly lays it out there... Romney is making a rare appearance on Faux News this Sunday

Interesting.

[jberryhill]

9. And the FRCP 4(m) clock runs out Feb. 5

He filed the complaint back in October, asked the court to serve it, the court turned him down, and there is no return of service on the docket. IIRC, he hasn't requested a summons.

He has this weird idea from Rule 4 that the defendants are obligated to waive service.

The gravamen of the complaint, filed in the CACD mind you, is about his having been deemed a vexatious litigant in the DE bankruptcy court, and to attorney misbehavior which (a) had nothing to do with him and his claim, and (b) was already sanctioned by that court.

[Lochloosa]

12. English Please

[jberryhill]

13. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(m)

It's written entirely in English.

[msanthrope]

15. It seems that the Orly Taitz School of Forum Shopping and Dental Hygiene has a new graduate.

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

I love the theory...hey...I got kicked out of court on the East Coast so why not make it a traveling roadshow???

[Jefferson23]

6. 2014 is starting off promising. n/t

[John1956PA]

7. I purchased shares in eToys about six months after its 1999 IPO.

That was back when I had a few extra dollars with which to try my hand at investing. My total loss on that investment (although not a great amount of money) was one of the the reasons I gave up on attempting to pick stocks.

The reason why I made my purchase was that I had read an article in a financial publication which advised that the stock price might be posed for a rally as the company's name recognition was beginning to emerge from its "quiet period." Of course, the predictions contained in such articles should be taken with a grain of salt. After seeing a brief rise in my investment, I saw the share price steadily decline and the company head into bankruptcy. After that, the financial publication which published the aforesaid article heralding the company published a postmortem article blaming the company's failure on its inexperienced executive officers.

I would like to see the reasons for the company's failure be revealed in the pending litigation.

[madokie]

16. Hey John

Off topic but is that a '56 Lincoln you have there.
They were pretty cars.
I had a '54 ford glass top right after high school. One of my older brothers gave it to me as a graduation present. Wish I had it today as they only made a little over 8 thousand of them.

[John1956PA]

18. Thanks for your post.

Yes, Masdokie, that is a 1956 Continental Mark II. I found the the image on the web. As you probably know, the 1956 and 1957 Continental Mark II automobiles were built by a separate company established by Ford Motor Company. The manufacturing process for the interior components of those cars required more hand-crafting than that for most other automobiles produced at the time, such as the 1956 and 1957 Lincoln Premiere and Lincoln Capri Models.

The early 1950s Fords have always appealed to me. I would like to see a 1954 Ford Skyliner.

[madokie]

20. The skyliner I had was coral

It didn't have the continental kit on the rear though, other than that it was just like the one in the photo.
I have to say it was a beautiful car. I had a lot of good times in it.

[freshwest]

8. Good website. Lots of interesting stories. Thanks for posting. n/t

[jberryhill]

10. Does Laser Taitz plan to serve the complaint on the defendants?

The complaint was filed in October.

Other than the court denying his request to serve it, there has been no substantive action.

What do you believe will be the next procedural development in this case, if it is not served within 120 days from filing, as of February 5?

[Ellipsis]

11. Since "Laser Taitz" posts on DU perhaps you should ask him.

Attorneys never leave anything till the last minute... is he even an attorney?

[jberryhill]

28. Is he an attorney?

As far as asking him goes, I believe he has me on ignore. He has in the past indicated a belief that effecting service requires him to make personal contact with the defendants, whom he believes would attempt to kill him.

If you read the journal to which you linked your OP, it contains the following claims: that he failed English and did not graduate from high school; that he is voluntarily homeless and unemployed out of concern for what his enemies would do to anyone who housed or employed him; and that he resides variously in a car parked near a Starbucks or in a storage locker. As proof of the violent intentions of those who are out to get him, he has in the past referred to an incident in which a claimed associate of his was somehow forced to use deadly force against an agent of the conspiracy. He has confirmed that the incident in question corresponds to this news report:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/states/arizona/2010-07-13-255343957_x.htm

Another thing you will observe by reading the journal to which you link is that during the election, he repeatedly posted similar reports about filings he was making in the Delaware federal bankruptcy case which would imminently bring Mitt Rommney and his associates to their knees. The filings were similar gibberish as the complaint in this proceeding, and the court ultimately barred him from filing the same raft of repetitive and decreasingly coherent, while at the same time increasingly voluminous rantings.

Mr. Haas seeks and obtains attention and praise from readers of left leaning blogs who are receptive audiences to hear "bad legal thing being done to Mitt Romney", and who figure it is about some complicated legal thing in which the details sound like gibberish. The gibberish aspect is primarily written off by casual readers as what sounds like normal complex legal gibberish. The problem occurs when actual lawyers or those otherwise used to legal gibberish take a look under the hood at the actual filings themselves and point out that, no, this is not "legal stuff that sounds like gibberish", it truly is gibberish.

You might start with the simple question of "what is this guy's involvement with the etoys bankruptcy, and what specifically is the reason he's been filing stuff in courts and getting it thrown out for a decade or so?"

Yes, we all know that Mitt made his fortune by buying companies, loading them up with debt, sucking out the capital and throwing them into bankruptcy, and we'd all love to see him receive a royal ass biting for that. However, when you consider the fact that filing a federal lawsuit of any kind requires (a) writing something on a piece of paper and (b) handing it to a clerk along with $350 dollars, then you cannot assume that every time you read a headline of "Someone sued for something I don't understand" that your lack of understanding the details is not merely a matter of not understanding legal stuff.

But, by all means, if he's not ignoring you, then you might ask whether he intends to effect service of the complaint on the defendants. In the past, he has put forth a peculiar interpretation of FRCP 4 under which he believes the defendants are required to waive service. That is simply not true. What the rule says is that you can request a waiver of service from a defendant. If the defendant agrees, then the defendant is given additional time to answer the complaint. If the defendant does not agree, then you may be able to recover the cost of service of process from the defendant. But under no circumstances is a defendant required to waive service, and the plaintiff remains responsible for effecting service within 120 days of filing the suit which, in this instance, was back in October. He has quite a number of defendants and, no, it's not something one puts off until the last minute. Furthermore. Mr. Haas has literally nothing else to do, if we take the claims from his diaried postings at face value.

[Ellipsis]

31. I can't imagine why he would have you on ignore...

Without waltzing too far into your redundant diatribe full of long sentences, complex constructions, like legalese... which is an archaic and hyper-formal vocabulary, with a focus on content to the exclusion of the reader's needs; I'll repost your questions to him directly. He can address it as he see's fit.

[jberryhill]

33. Okay

But you find his diary to be a model of clarity, I guess.

Incidentally, can you name the murder victims you mention in the OP?

[Ellipsis]

34. I changed the OP at the behest of a PM from Steve to honor the original source.

So you may want to reread it. I understood the murders to be speculative, I actually thought that a bit outlandish frankly...and no I don't.

I saw the article posted on face book and on the original OP Subject line, before editing, I said is this for real? I wasn't even certain at the time of posting that it was Laser Haas.

After a fellow Duer said I should read his diary, I skimmed it. As to clarity I can't say. I did say he slices it open... I could perhaps been more judicious in my choice of verbage... I did like the imagery. I added it for content as an added means of discussion. If it seems I'm taking his side that was not my intent. I thought the original article was out there when I posted it. It's not a site I read.

[jberryhill]

36. No worries

The underlying story is a sad one, but not for the reasons that newcomers to it suspect.

[Aerows]

37. No offense

but if you think he's that big of a nutjob, maybe you are one, too. We are, after all, known by the company we keep.

[jberryhill]

38. The company we keep?

And what might that be?

Look, I recited facts stated in his diary, but I'm curious to know what company you believe I keep. I post to DU, as do you. Are we "company"?

And, I should add, the company literally owned by the plaintiff here was in business to make money from the bankruptcy.

[pinboy3niner]

42. Rut-roh. You've been seen in threads with me.

[truedelphi]

14. Wouldn't the statue of limitations have run out?

I mean, if the action applies to stuff happening back in 2001 or earlier.

I mean,I hope it hasn't as it would be delightful to see these enterprising criminals who use their fountin pens to rob people blind actually get tried in a court of law.

[laserhaas]

19. NO there's NO Statute of Limitations for Civil RICO - though some Circuits implied 4 years

However;

The statute itself allows 10 year windows. The US Supreme Court has stipulated in the case of In re Hazel Atlas Glass that SOL doesn't apply to fraud on the court BY Officers of the Court.

Finally, Romney is "retroactively" resigned as of August 2001; back to Feb 1999. His law firm MNAT had a partner who just so happens to be a partner from 1999 to August 2001. Then, on August 2, 2001, Colm Connolly was promoted to US Attorney in Delaware; where he refused to investigate and/or prosecute his former partner/clients for 7 years.

Can Capone arrange for Nitti to be the federal prosecutor over his case;
and then claim statute of limitations when Nitti failed to prosecute?

[truedelphi]

21. You say:

Can Capone arrange for Nitti to be the federal prosecutor over his case;
and then claim statute of limitations when Nitti failed to prosecute?

I say, "Well, Capone existed in a time when the Courts were not owned lock stock and barrel by The Big Financial Institutions."

Just watch the inner mechanisms on Wall Street maneuver this situation around. If it ever does go to court, be assured the judge hearing the case is a puppet of Goldman Sachs or some such entity.

I had an open and shut case against Wells Fargo 3 years ago, but no lawyer would take the case. Many agreed I had a case, but when it is known whom it is our judges work for, and how many Wells Fargo lawyers would stare down the small law firms I could afford to hire, no attorneys were willing to take it on.

If what had happened to me in Apr 2011 had happened in 1991, I would be living in a villa in the South of France right now.

[laserhaas]

25. What you say is partially true. It is correct that corruption rules the day.

However - so far - this justice has not been removed and the case is proceeding.

If they do remove His Honor and bring corruption to bear upon the case;
I will react accordingly.

Can't never could until it tried.

Because of this case and other issues apropos - Romney didn't make it!

And justice may only come

If we don't quit!

[Ellipsis]

32. Would you mind addressing this or... not

...matters little to me.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024273833#post31

jberryhill (32,637 posts)
28. Is he an attorney?

Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)
As far as asking him goes, I believe he has me on ignore. He has in the past indicated a belief that effecting service requires him to make personal contact with the defendants, whom he believes would attempt to kill him.

If you read the journal to which you linked your OP, it contains the following claims: that he failed English and did not graduate from high school; that he is voluntarily homeless and unemployed out of concern for what his enemies would do to anyone who housed or employed him; and that he resides variously in a car parked near a Starbucks or in a storage locker. As proof of the violent intentions of those who are out to get him, he has in the past referred to an incident in which a claimed associate of his was somehow forced to use deadly force against an agent of the conspiracy. He has confirmed that the incident in question corresponds to this news report:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/states/arizona/2010-07-13-255343957_x.htm

Another thing you will observe by reading the journal to which you link is that during the election, he repeatedly posted similar reports about filings he was making in the Delaware federal bankruptcy case which would imminently bring Mitt Rommney and his associates to their knees. The filings were similar gibberish as the complaint in this proceeding, and the court ultimately barred him from filing the same raft of repetitive and decreasingly coherent, while at the same time increasingly voluminous rantings.

Mr. Haas seeks and obtains attention and praise from readers of left leaning blogs who are receptive audiences to hear "bad legal thing being done to Mitt Romney", and who figure it is about some complicated legal thing in which the details sound like gibberish. The gibberish aspect is primarily written off by casual readers as what sounds like normal complex legal gibberish. The problem occurs when actual lawyers or those otherwise used to legal gibberish take a look under the hood at the actual filings themselves and point out that, no, this is not "legal stuff that sounds like gibberish", it truly is gibberish.

You might start with the simple question of "what is this guy's involvement with the etoys bankruptcy, and what specifically is the reason he's been filing stuff in courts and getting it thrown out for a decade or so?"

Yes, we all know that Mitt made his fortune by buying companies, loading them up with debt, sucking out the capital and throwing them into bankruptcy, and we'd all love to see him receive a royal ass biting for that. However, when you consider the fact that filing a federal lawsuit of any kind requires (a) writing something on a piece of paper and (b) handing it to a clerk along with $350 dollars, then you cannot assume that every time you read a headline of "Someone sued for something I don't understand" that your lack of understanding the details is not merely a matter of not understanding legal stuff.

But, by all means, if he's not ignoring you, then you might ask whether he intends to effect service of the complaint on the defendants. In the past, he has put forth a peculiar interpretation of FRCP 4 under which he believes the defendants are required to waive service. That is simply not true. What the rule says is that you can request a waiver of service from a defendant. If the defendant agrees, then the defendant is given additional time to answer the complaint. If the defendant does not agree, then you may be able to recover the cost of service of process from the defendant. But under no circumstances is a defendant required to waive service, and the plaintiff remains responsible for effecting service within 120 days of filing the suit which, in this instance, was back in October. He has quite a number of defendants and, no, it's not something one puts off until the last minute. Furthermore. Mr. Haas has literally nothing else to do, if we take the claims from his diaried postings at face value.

[laserhaas]

40. To the stalwarts of Romney's who are hell bent to find fault with yours truly, I have Rule No. 1

If they aren't willing to capitulate that Traub, Gold and MNAT all confessed lying in Fed Court;
then I'm wasting my time trying to engage in banter with them.

As a matter of Law (In re Middelton Arms "unambiguous" mandate of disqualification);
Traub, Barry Gold and MNAT were to be disqualified the moment they confessed lying 33 times in court.

After all - Martha Stewart went to jail for one lie to an FBI agent.

Romney's crooks lied to a Chief justice and stole billions.

If we can't start at the simple fact the bad guys confessed and weren't punished;
then what good does it do to argue with Romney's defenders about anything else?

[jberryhill]

43. "the bad guys confessed and weren't punished"

That's simply not true.

In relation to the misconduct by Traub and Morris Nichols, they were specifically sanctioned:

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/072360np.pdf

In October 2005, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and order regarding violations by estate professionals of the Bankruptcy Code’s disinterestedness requirements and disclosure obligations. Among other things, the Bankruptcy Court (1) granted in part Alber’s motion to disqualify and for disgorgement of fees from the Debtor’s counsel, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell (“MNAT”); (2) approved the settlement agreement between the United States Trustee and counsel of the official committee of unsecured creditors, Traub Bonacquist & Fox (“TBF”), under which TBF agreed to disgorge $750,000 in fees; and (3) denied Alber’s motion for sanctions to the extent that it sought relief against TBF and against Barry Gold, administrator of the Debtor’s liquidating plan, beyond the relief provided under the settlement.

[laserhaas]

44. Eaannnt - wrong again Romney fiend/friend. It is amazing how you study the case SO much

and remain so obtuse and incongruous of all the other facts at hand.

You are (half-heartedly) admitting they did wrong and claiming they were punished; but the Order stipulated that Traub was to submit proof into the docket record - when he actually paid the $750,000.00 (which has never transpired).

Secondly, the court was SO fiendishly lenient on MNAT for its lying under oath;
that it didn't even Order a specific amount of what the law firm was to pay back.

And the US Trustee NEVER - EVER - made any motion to Sanction MNAT.

Finally, Traub himself laughed about the $750,000.00 when he spoke to the WSJ reporter;
and said it was weekend chump change.

Or did you forget that Traub was the "controller" of the Tom Petters $40 Billion Ponzi scheme.

You suck at arguments and brown nose the bad guys to the point that it is sickening;
and when justice finally does come (and it IS) - there won't be a big enough rock for you to crawl under.

[jberryhill]

45. That court approved the settlement...

...and it remains under the jurisdiction of that court - not an entirely different court in California.

[MaeScott]

17. K and R. nt

[catbyte]

22. I still can't see one bit of diffence between what Romney/Bain et.al. do & what

the mob did to that poor guy's bar in "Goodfellas". Well, except for the arson at the end, of course, but Romney committeed economic arson.

[laserhaas]

23. Taibbi said the same thing in "Greed and Debt" actually mentioned

and here's a YouTube by Tony Soprano

[catbyte]

24. I haven't read that yet, but the parallels are so glaring you can't miss them.

I'll read "Greed & Debt", thanks for mentioning it.

[laserhaas]

26. I'm one of Taibbi's sources for the "Greed and Debt" story

What Taibbi missed - is the fact that Kay Bee CEO Glazer was also at Stage Stores.

Barry Gold worked for Romney/Glazer and Gold hired Traub.

MNAT merged Romney's entity - The Learning Company with Mattel
(the investors lost $3 Billion; but Romney launched his way to Toys R Us ownership).

MNAT then lied to become eToys attorney

Traub lied to become Creditors attorney in eToys.

Then MNAT and Traub inserted Barry Gold as eToys CEO;
tossing yours truly out in the process.

Then MNAT, Traub and Gold reduced the prices to Romney/Bain/Glazer/Kay Bee.

This is the fraud that they are hiding - and continue to lie, cheat, cover up/conceal!

[catbyte]

29. Wow. That kind of fraudulent crap goes far beyond merely "rigging the game."

That's downright throwing the game. I'm sorry you were a victim of those awful people.

[jberryhill]

30. More accurately, he was an accomplice of those awful people

His company was briefly hired to move some furniture during the bankruptcy, and he has been claiming for the last 12 years or so that he was underpaid for it.

[stopbush]

27. Ya lost me when the guy claimed that murders have been committed by Mitt et al.

That shit stinks like the "mysterious deaths of people connected to the JFK assassination" bullshit.

[Aerows]

35. I'd be overjoyed

to see that criminal locked under the jail.

[Ellipsis]

39. One last kick.

[laserhaas]

41. Thanks 'Ellipsis' for bringing attention to these troubling matters. All we seek is our day in court

and a chance to have a jury decide.