Homestreet Bank Washington Objects to the Fees of Kevin D. Padrick and Miller Nash LLP in Bankruptcy Court Filing. Kevin Padrick did the Same thing in the Cascadia Bankruptcy Case as in the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Case

 The U.S. Bankruptcy Courts have Free Reign and No Accountability. 
Bankruptcy Court "Professionals", Attorneys, and Debt Advisors, soak up millions of the Debtors money that could go to the people they owe. This is supposed to be governed by the U.S. Bankruptcy courts and by the U.S. Trustees Office. However, oftentimes the Bankruptcy Trustee or other Insiders are connected time and time again and eve with the bankruptcy judge and / or the Trustee. And the Debtors nor the Creditors have rights, and the highest fiduciary duty is seemingly ignored.

This is all a very Public Issue, and those involved in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts in which your tax dollars pay for, are Public Figures, you have a right to know how these Millions and Millions of dollars are spent, year after year. And how the Trustee created more debt then the debtor when bankruptcy for and sues anyone they can to create more money for the Attorneys involved.

Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group is one such professional.

Kevin Padrick has been in a position to take advantage of a Debtor over and over, it seems to be his thing. And the Debtors, Creditors have no way to stand up to him. If they do he sues them into submission.

Blogger Crystal Cox, me, heard about Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group through the Summit Bankruptcy Whistle Blower Blog information online at the time. 

I was sued by Kevin Padrick, using his attorney David Aman of Tonkon Torp.  David Aman was involved in the Summit Bankruptcy

David Aman, Tonkon Torp Law Firm was directly involved in interaction that affected the Summit Creditors, yet in this massive conflict of interest David Aman represented the Bankruptcy Trustee to sue a blogger that was exposing what Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick were doing to violate the rights of the Creditors and Investors in the Summit Bankruptcy.

Obsidian V. Cox was a Fraud on the Courts for many reasons. David Aman representing Kevin Padrick is one of those Reasons, as he was protecting his own alleged crimes and covering up for Tonkon Torp's involvement in the Summit Bankruptcy.

 a Portland Oregon court for Exposing the actions of Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group in the Summit Bankruptcy, though I was telling the story as I knew it from many other sources and I brought that information to the attention of Judge Marco Hernandez for an Entire Year. And this Federal Judge did not take the information I provided and report the actions of Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group, as clearly there was enough evidence to warrant a Special Investigation of the Dept. Of Justice, FEB, and Attorney General. I even showed this Judge the Homestreet Case to show Pattern and History and I was ignored.

This Blog Post is about Homestreet Bank filing a Motion to Disqualify Kevin Padrick and to Object to the Millions in Fees. Also note, Kevin Padrick was somehow court appointed to advise the Debtor, then ends up owning part of the Debtors Companies.

Here is a Bit from that Court Filing

Objection of Homestreet Bank To Allowance of Professional Fee Application

"Miller Nash LLP ($768,432.50), as the Debtor's Chief Bankruptcy Counsel, and Obsidian Finance Group, LLC ($645,705), the Debtor's Court-Appointed financial advisors, have applied for allowance of a total of $1,414,137.50 in pre conversion professional fees and $52,657.38 in costs."
...

"Together, Miller Nash and Obsidian thus seek allowance of a total of $681,576.00 in professional fees arising directly from their efforts to produce a Chapter 11 plan for the Debtor. At the end of the day, however, these Plan-related efforts failed completely.  By the time the Court granted Homestreet's Motion for Relief from a Say on August 6, 201 and refused to re-impose the automatic stay on September 22, 2012, there was no Chapter 11 Plan at all pending before the Court, much less a Plan that could possibly merit a confirmation Hearing"

"Under these circumstances, Homestreet believes that it is simply unreasonable for the Court to allow priority payments in full of these enormous Plan-related fees. Allowance of these fees, in these amounts, will likely deprive unsecured creditors in this case of a dividend (or will substantially reduce the amount of an such dividend), while at the same time rewarding Debtor's counsel and Obsidian for producing nothing of value to the estate.  A debtor's professional should not be permitted to gamble freely with unsecured creditors' money. If a debtor's professionals want to roll the dice on a demonstrably "long-shot" reorganization scheme and be compensated for their efforts from the estate, they should also bear the risk of failure."

...

"Motion to Disqualify Obsidian.  On January 28, 2010 the Court issued its Order Authorizing Employment of Obsidian Finance Group, LLC as Financial Advisor for the Debtor (Dkt #188). Under the terms of its Court-approved engagement, Obsidian agreed to reduce its hourly rates charged to the bankruptcy estate by 50%; however, if Obsidian "participated meaningfully" in the "preparation and confirmation" of a Chapter 11 Plan that contained a "meaningful distribution" to unsecured creditors, Obsidian would be entitled to obtain a "success fee" equal to three times the total amount of its 50% hourly rate reduction."

"Accordingly, in its current Application Obsidian quantifies the total un-discounted value of its services at $1,350,785 but seeks $645,705 in payment from the estate. Had Obsidian met the test of Plan preparation and dividend distribution, by contrast, Obsidian would presumably have sought payment of the $645,705, plus an additional "success fee" of $1,937,115. THe existence of a such a large success fee obviously provided a tremendous economic incentive / motive for Obsidian to produce a Chapter 11 Plan at all costs."

"As, set forth above, on May 31, 2010 the Debtor filed its proposed Disclosure Statement and Plan of Reorganization.  The Letter of Intent attached to the Plan revealed that one of the "new investors" in the Plan was none other then Obsidian itself, which had committed to investing $1.1 million of the $55 million in initial Plan funding. But Obsidian's involvement in the Plan was not merely as a $1.1 million investor.  Section 3 of the LOI provided that the Cascadia project would be managed by a newly created "Servicing Entity" owned 60 percent by Yarrow Bay and 40 percent by Obsidian." Moreover, under the proposed servicing agreement, the "Servicing Entity" would be paid a monthly servicing fee of $75,000 for its services and for being responsible for indirect overhead."

"Bankruptcy Code 327(a) provides that a court-appointed professional to a debtor must be "disinterested" and cannot hold an "interest adverse to the estate." Concerned that Obsidian's dual role (as professonal advisor and asset purchaser) violated the "disinterestedness" requirement of the Code, on June 15, 2010 Homestreet filed a Motion to Disqualify Obsidian  (Dkt. #400). In its Motion, HomeStreet called particular attention to In re Wet Delta Il Co., Inc., 432..."  "in which the Fifth Circuit disqualified professionals (attorneys) who had acted as special counsel to the debtor but who had also sought to acquire the debtor's assets from the bankruptcy estate. "

Source of Information Above and Full Document, Check it Out. Kevin Padrick does this over and over and he has so many focused on Blogger Crystal Cox when he really is creating victims and violating Bankruptcy Code. Though Judge Marco Hernandez and so many others seem to believe that I am the only one who ever claimed that Kevin Padrick violated Bankruptcy Code.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/118944762/HomeStreet-Bank-OBJECTS-to-Obsidian-Finance-Fees-Claims-Conflicts-of-Interest-and-More#

How does Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group get these "Court Appointed" Gigs?

How does Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group make so much money at a time when he claimed that Blogger Crystal Cox lost him Millions upon Millions?

How does Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group in his Tonkon Torp and Miller Nash Connections, and Of course his history of working with Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp and Pamala Griffith of the Department of Justice, get so much free reign and total lack of accountability and transparency.

Cascadia Project LLC, Yarrowbay.  Look Deep
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tstf6BAeXFHFmMaFodmURp6uUDWm6U1SqeqBu2HgSvw/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1

The same issues that the Homestreet Bank is raising regarding Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group, were raised in the Summit Bankruptcy. Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group and Tonkon Torp Law Firm were charging way too much and there was an Objection to the Fees and the Actions of Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group.

Also there was an issue of non-disclosure of past working relations with Steven Hedberg the Creditors Attorney who use to work under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash.  And there seemed to be non-disclosure issues over the past working relationships of Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp and the Department of Justice Trustee Pamela Griffith, they used to work together at Ransom, Blackman, and Simson.

Leon Simson of Tonkon Torp and the Department of Justice Trustee Pamela Griffith also worked with Kevin Padrick on this Bankruptcy Case.  She was not a DOJ Trustee then, I Believe.
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-cozy-bunch-we-have-leon-simson.html

Note that in the Obsidian V. Cox Trial, Pro Se Defendant, Blogger Crystal Cox asked Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group about the Homestreet complaint and he said it was different and a technical issue. Thing is another Company, Homestreet Bank complained just as Mark Knowles, Stephanie DeYoung, and Jim Hull did in the Summit Bankruptcy. Yet the New York Times David Carr, Jeff Manning of the Oregonian, Kashmir Hill of Forbes and many others claim that Kevin Padrick has no other complaints and no one has an "Issue" with Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group except for one Blogger, they claim, Crystal Cox. This simply is not based in fact or documented TRUTH.

Bankruptcy Code Violations, Conflicts of Interest, Non-Disclosure, Objection to Fees and More that were the same in the Summit Bankruptcy and Judge Marco Hernandez failed to report this situation to the proper authorities and Kevin Padrick and Obsidian Finance Group are out there creating more victims with the same Pattern and History. Where is the FBI, where is the DOJ, where is the IRS, and the Attorney General?  NO one is watching the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. There is no protection for Creditors or Debtors. 

Kevin Padrick was not really a disinterested party in the Summit Bankruptcy either, as he was hired by the Debtor to for a Plan of Reorganization and instead he used their privileged information and got a job as the Trustee against his own clients, while under contract with them, Summit, the Debtor. And Judge Randall Dunn and US Trustee Pamela Griffith, as well as Perkins Coie Law Firm helped him to do this, knowing full well that it would hurt the Creditors and Investors.

Debtors file for Bankruptcy to get help and what they get is screwed over by the Bankruptcy Court System, which is certainly of Public Interest.

For more on what Investigative Blogger Has to Say about Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group and the Homestreet Case Click Below
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/04/more-on-homestreet-banks-objection-to.html

Here is the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Objection to the Fees of Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group, and Tonkon Torp Attorneys, this was filed by Creditors and Investors within the Summit Bankruptcy
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/98076240/David-Aman-Tonkon-Torp-for-Obsidian-Finance-Group-Trustee-Kevin-Padrick

Here as videos o Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group at a meeting with his clients, the Debtor Summit 1031, he was at this time advising the debtor as their financial council. This was before Kevin D. Padrick of Obsidian Finance Group was appointed as Trustee, essentially on the opposite side of the best interest of his client and while under contract with his clients, Summit, the Debtor.

http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick

For More on the Obsidian V. Cox Transcripts where I ask about these issues, Click Below
http://www.crystalcox.com/2012/04/lets-take-look-at-obsidian-v-cox-trial.html

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox,

Online Bankruptcy Investigations
Researcher, Reporter,Industry Whistle Blower.
SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com





Keywords
Cascadia Project LLC, Obsidian Finance Group, Miller Nash Law Firm, Kevin D. Padrick, Homestreet Bank, Pattern and History, Geoffrey Groshon, Washington Bankruptcy Courts, Graham and Dunn, Paul Battaglia, Judge Karen Overstreet,Bankruptcy Code 327

Kevin Padrick's Testimony in Obsidian V. Cox. I believe Kevin Padrick committed Perjury as he lied about many things as far as I see it. From the Facts I Know to Be True.

Pro Se Defendant Crystal Cox Questioning Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group

Cross Exam starts on page 90 of the Trial Transcripts ( Click Here to View )

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. COX:

Q. Mr. Padrick, when did you first see this blog posting on December 25th? When did you first read it?

A. I don't know. Shortly -- I assume shortly after that. I don't -- I try not to look at your sites, so I was alerted by, I think, one of my employees and looked at it.

Q. And this post caused you financial harm between December 25th and January 14th?

A. I'm sure it did. But more importantly, it's caused me significant harm thereafter and will cause me significant harm for the entirety of my career. "

So this Blog post did not really harm him during that time, yet he filed a Lawsuit for what it might do "thereafter"? I did not make the information up, that is obvious, there is internal emails and documents to support the information, so how did I ruin his career by exposing him for ruining the life, career, and businesses of hundreds?

Q. Why did you not introduce it into this case until July 22nd of 2011?
A. (Pause).

MR. AMAN: You can answer if you can.

THE WITNESS: We did. We told you that the statements about tax fraud that you made were false and you needed to take them down. "

Obsidian simply said to take down all blog posts about them, and most all of these I was granted a Summary Judgement on. It is not enough to just say what I stated was false, why not provide proof? Why not give me an exact blog post? Also they "Told" me to take down the tax fraud posts but did not tell me what posts they were referring to and this was before I posted the Post I was on Trial for.

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

Q. Why did you not give defendant, me, a blog post to take down? Why did you not ask me take down any particular blog post?

A. I wanted you to take down any post that accuses us of tax fraud, any post. It doesn't make any difference if it was this post or the post on EthicsComplaint.com or the post on ObsidianFinanceGroupSucks.com or any of your many websites. We want you to take them all down."

See this is not relevant, as I was granted a Summary Judgement. And he is talking about other blogs, and giving no specific instance of accusing him of anything.  He simply wanted all my posts taken down, yet he had no legal right to such. 

Q. Why did you not provide proof to me that that was false so that I could look at it and remove the post?

A. We told you it was false."

Telling me it is False is NOT Enough. I had read internal documents, emails, watched meeting videos, read contracts, read transcripts, read depositions and more. I had plenty of documents to prove to me that there was fraud, collusion and corruption. So why not give any documents at all that proved other wise?

Q. Why did you not provide documented proof of any kind or call me and try to talk to me about it being nonfactual?

A. My attorney sent you e-mails and told you to take it down."

This is not proof of any kind, the Attorney involved in the Corruption I was Exposing, David Aman of Tonkon Torp, told me to take it down? Of course he did, knowing full well he got emails from Attorney Robert Opera long ago that suggested issues of tax problems. And there was other evidence out there. Telling me to take it down was not proof.

Q. What date was that e-mail?

A. It was shortly after the post. I don't know exactly when."

What? Really? Nope, ya got that one wrong, I was not given a Cease and Desist AFTER that Blog Post, I was sent a Cease and Desist BEFORE that December 25th 2010 Blog Post. 

Q. It was December 22nd.

A. Okay. Shortly before that particular post, we told you to take down the tax fraud posts."

Ok so basically this proves that the wording of the lawsuit, which was exactly the same wording of the Cease and Desist, this was regarding posts prior to December 25th, 2010, which was the date of the Blog Post I was on Trial for, and those posts I seem to have got a Summary Judgement on. The post I was on trial for which asked the question of Tax Fraud was after this date.

Q. Do you have documentation of exact revenue loss due to this exact blog post in any way?

A. We know that from our -- we have had only one advisory assignment, new advisory assignment in 2011. This is -- this is a period of distress in the economy. It's a period of structuring -- this is the time when we would normally be involved in the greatest amount of advisory business. We have had one. I can give you specific examples of when we have had a client call us and say that they tried to refer a new client to us and that client is asking them about your blog post; and then we had to provide information to our existing client, to try to go to the potential new client, and then we didn't get that business.

"Advisory" clients? What? David Brown testified that it was about a Bank VP and a loss of a 10 Million Dollar Loan, and now its alleged advisory clients that you lost millions over. And we are to believe that from December 25th 2010 to January 14th 2011, in 20 days over the biggest Holiday of the year, you lost this many advisory clients for 2011? Really? Or are you talking about AFTER the lawsuit was filed you lost these alleged clients?

Kevin Padrick Continues with his answer

I can give you examples of how businesses that we have tried to start because our advisory business -- you killed our advisory business -- where we tried to start new businesses and fund new businesses. And the people involved in those businesses would normally want us to be involved in the business and have said to us they're so afraid that if -- because of what you said that, one, either you'll go after them or, two, that the damage as a result of that blog post will cause their business to be adversely impacted by our reputation."

Well why did he not provide the examples, provide the proof. I asked all 3 witnesses from Obsidian Finance if they had any documents of Proof and they said no. 

THE COURT: Can you do me a favor and just move back a little bit from or move the microphone back a
little bit from you.

THE WITNESS: Sorry."

See the Court Clerk commented to me later on this one, Kevin Padrick was angry and all over the microphone. He had to be asked to move back.

BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Do you have documented proof that this blog post caused you any financial damage whatsoever?

A. I told you what it is. It's common sense. Anybody who is in business, anybody in business knows that the first thing you do --"

Ok so it's just common sense that the exact blog post cost him millions?

Q. Okay.

A. I think I get to answer your question.

THE COURT: Well, actually, you're not answering her question. Go ahead.

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

Q. Did you prove that defendant knowingly -- that I knowingly posted false information about your company?
MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. AMAN: Thank you."

Which is odd because Aman claims over and over that I "knowingly" posted false information, yet I am not allowed to ask this of any witness. 

BY MS. COX: (continuing)
Q. Have you read any other blogs that talk derogatory about your company regarding the Summit 1031 bankruptcy?

MR. AMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AMAN: Thank you.

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

Q. Have you been in other lawsuits?

THE COURT: Wait a minute. That means you get to answer the question.

MS. COX: Oh, sorry.

THE WITNESS: Yes. A blog from the daughter, who was the recipient of stolen monies from Summit 1031, and who is the daughter of one of the parties indicted by the federal grand jury. So that's the only other one."

This is not true, this is misleading and defamatory, she was not the recipient of stolen money. And the part about reading her site too? Wait... I thought I was the only one in the Entire World who spoke negatively of Saint Kevin Padrick? Now there is another? WOW.

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

Q. That's the only one that you've ever read?

A. That's the only other one that I've ever read. That's what you asked me.

Q. Have you heard of any other blogs talking derogatory or news articles about your company whatsoever?
A. No. "

This is not true as there is issue with Longview Fibre, with Lake County, with Solar Tax Credits, with HomeStreet Bank and more and people were, yes, talking about it and he knew it. 

Q. Have you been accused of anything similar to what I write about in any other legal cases, such as the
Cascadia case?
A. Tax fraud? No.

Q. I did not accuse you of tax fraud. I asked you a question. I'm talking about deferred gains, conflict of
interest, issues regarding a bankruptcy proceeding. Have you ever been accused by any other federal court?

A. No. We have been -- we have had -- in the Cascadia case, there was a -- the Court said that a portion of our fees would not be allowed due to a conflict of interest occurring on a certain date. Fees were allowed prior to that, but not after then.

It had nothing to do -- it was a technical issue. The creditors actually wrote a paper in support -- the
actual creditors of the case actually wrote a paper in support of our position."

It was not a "technical" issue, it was the fact that Kevin Padrick took advantage of clients in distress to make a good deal for Obsidian, and they now own part of Yarrowbay over it all. It is about undisclosed conflicts of interest, read this opinion, look into the story. I am not the reason for Kevin's bad reputation, he is. ( Click Here for the Homestreet Bank / Cascadia Case) .

Q. Do you have documented proof of the percentage you quoted earlier, the money you got back for the victims? Do you have documented proof for the Court of getting that money back for the victims or is it just stated?

A. No, we have documented proof."

Why was I not allowed this in discovery?

Q. Did you have a contract with the Summit principals before you were appointed as the trustee?

A. No."

Hmmm.. Well this is a flat out lie. Not only was the contract signed before Summit Filed for Bankruptcy, but also months before he was appointed as trustee. 


The Obsidian Contract with Summit was Signed December 18th 2008, Summit Filed for bankruptcy on the 19th of December 2008, and Kevin Padrick was appointed as Trustee on February 17th 2009. 

Q. No signed contract whatsoever?


A. No signed contract with the Summit principals whatsoever; and I would not have had a signed contract with the principals, period.

Q. That's not true.

THE COURT: That's a statement, not a question."

Well it is not true, Kevin was trying to get tricky on what the "Summit Principals" were, yet we see by David Brown and Patricia Whittington's testimony, that indeed this is the same 4 men. Kevin Padrick flat out LIED under Oath. 

MS. COX: Sorry.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm leaning too far forward again.

BY MS. COX: (continuing)

Q. Who appointed you? How did you get the job as the trustee for the Summit bankruptcy?

A. We went through the interview process with the U.S. Trustee's Office, and we were appointed."

This is not the whole story. He pitched himself to the Creditors while working for the Debtor, and billed the Debtor for this time. Also you in the Judge Dunn Audio of February 11th 2009, you see that Judge Dunn seemed to be the one pushing for Obsidian to take over the Trustee Job.  How in the world did the U.S. Trustee come to appoint Kevin Padrick, knowing full well he had been under contract with the debtor? And don't forget Tonkon Torp Leon Simson use to work with DOJ Trustee Pamela Griffith. 

Q. Who invited you to the creditors' meeting to interview for this position?
A. To the creditors' meeting? I don't think there was a creditors' meeting."

He pitched himself to the Creditors. Judge Dunn even talked about this presentation in the Court Audio of the Hearing of February 11th 2009.

Q. So you went to a creditors' meeting and gave a talk in order to get this job, and you did not have a contract with Summit, and then you were just appointed?

A. No. We were interviewed by the U.S. Trustee's Office. It's not a creditors' meeting.

Q. So you had no signed contract with Summit at any time?

A. Yes, we had a signed contract with Summit. You asked whether we had a signed contract with the parties who stole the money, and the answer is we never had a signed contract with them. We had a signed contract with Summit for the purpose of liquidating the assets for the benefit of the victims."

I did not ask him if he had a contract with the parties who stole the money, I asked him if he had a contract with Summit and he said, flat out NO. Now he is saying Yes. I asked this (Q. Did you have a contract with the Summit principals before you were appointed as the trustee?) as you see in the transcript, and I asked this (Q. No signed contract whatsoever?) Both times he flat out said, NO. 

Q. Was it unusual to be appointed as a trustee by a federal judge, or is that standard practice?

A. It's standard practice to appoint trustees, and it's not unusual at all to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee."

Really well there was internal emails that said it was an extraordinary and costly thing to do and it was NOT in the best interest of the Creditors. 

Q. Did you ever deny any legitimate offers before your commission was in place?

A. Didn't deny any legitimate offers."

This too is not true as Internal Documents Show.

MS. COX: No further questions. "

Meeting Kevin Padrick had with the Summit Principals, February 2009.

This is a Play List, it Will Play 21 Videos One After the Other. So Turn your Volume up and Enjoy.  Kevin Padrick is in the Far Right. 

This is the Objection to the Fees of Tonkon Torp and Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick regarding the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy.

David Aman, Tonkon Torp for Obsidian Finance Group Trustee Kevin Padrick -

This is the Contract that Kevin Padrick had with Summit 1031 Before they Filed their Debtor in Possession Bankruptcy. Kevin Padrick then Turned on his own clients, used their private information against them and became the Summit Trustee.

Download the Document to Read it Better

Obsidian Finance Group Contract with Summit Principals

In Both the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy and the Cascadia Project LLC Bankruptcy, Kevin Padrick was accused of Violating Bankruptcy Code in being an Insider. And in Both there was a Valid Objection to the Outrageous, Unjustified Fees of Kevin D. Padrick in his role in BOTH Bankruptcy Cases.

In the Cascadia Project LLC Bankruptcy, there were undisclosed Conflicts of Interest between Kevin D. Padrick and Miller Nash Law Firm, as Kevin had worked at Miller Nash. (Sidenote: so did Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie who was the Creditor Attorney for the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy and this too was, seemingly undisclosed to Creditors.)

This is in the court of Judge Karen A. Overstreet, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, on the Public's Dime and of Public Concern. This is in the State of Washington, whereby Obsidian Finance Group is also incorporated, and is also part of selling utilities through wattage contracts with PaciFicorp, Energy Northwest and Others, I believe and this too is of Great Public Interest. Keep in mind your Tax Dollars gave them Million upon Millions to start Solar Farms to then charge you for the electricity on these solar farms.

Here is the Objection to the Fees of Miller Nash and of Kevin D. Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group that Homestreet Bank filed in 2011. Keep in mind that Obsidian V. Cox was well under way, and here was Kevin Padrick doing the very same thing he did in the Summit Bankruptcy.

HomeStreet Bank OBJECTS to Obsidian Finance Fees, Claims Conflicts of Interest and More

Video from July of 2009, of Stephanie DeYoung discussing what was Going on in the Summit Bankruptcy, this was in hopes of education Creditors and getting the Authorities to look at the situation.

The Videos Below have Been Online Since July of 2009

 Part 1 - Summit 1031 BK Reporting by Stephanie Studebaker-DeYoung



 Part 2 - Summit 1031 BK Reporting by Stephanie Studebaker-DeYoung




$469,000 for 3 Months, WoW, Kevin Padrick sure was raking in the dough, and it is now several years later and last I noted at the end of January 2012, the Bankruptcy was Still open and Kevin Padrick was still raking in Money.

Perkins Coie 5 Months, $265,000

Tonkon Torp 3 Months $268,000.


Obsidian Finance Group $184,000. (They Were Supposed to HELP Summit and Instead Obsidian Finance Group Betrayed their own clients. They were suppose to create value. Obsidian Finance Group did not DO what they Said they would.  Instead Kevin Padrick was working to get the Creditors Job)



 Part 3 - Summit 1031 BK Reporting by Stephanie Studebaker-DeYoung

  

Stephanie DeYoung, Bankruptcy Whistleblower, Summit Bankruptcy Insider.