Misbehaving Trustee?

We all know about the "misbehaving Union Officer" (Robert W. Earley), misbehaving attorneys (too numerous to mention), misbehaving Judge (Peter C. Economus), and now we have the misbehaving Bankruptcy Trustee! Ah. . ., not that she hasn't been misbehaving since the inception of the Case when she hired an attorney (who had just represented CSXT in the State Court to collect the specious UTU/CSXT half million dollar wiretap judgment against Smoot) to be the attorney for Ken's estate?  OK, boys and girls, . . . can you spell "Conflict of Interest"?

    On information and belief, both her and that attorney previously worked for one of the largest law firms in Richmond who handled CSXT's cases in theVirginia area? Of course, Ken's objections to the known conflicts of interest were summarily denied when first made. So we now have a proposed "Settlement Agreement" that is more sinister that UTU's illegal, self-serving "Settlement Agreement and Release" * used by SAC-C, Monty, fight'in bob, and his attorneys to avoid any Article 25 charges and reward Earley for selling out Smoot and the final and binding Board of Appeals decision! I had that on this webpage at one time and Iwill place it here again soon so all  "U" UTU members, except Smoot and I, will know how U are "restrained"! (hahahaha) *Note - that didn't actually link to the language of the SAR but I left it anyway as it links to some significant "evidence". I will scan it later so those interested in seeing what a great deal our leaders got for Earley's frivolous lawsuits.

    A reasonable person might wonder how can it possibly be worse than the "SAR"? And the answer is the SAR never attempted to pretend it applied to Smoot and I; indeed, it specifically exluded us from the "protection" it allegedly supplied to the UTU Executive Board, Officers, Agents, etc., etc, etc! Thank God those Executive Board members who read the Executive Session Transcript in St. Louis didn't have to pay fight'in bob one million apiece! Gosh - I certainly hope they all thanked Monty for saving them? In this instant "Settlement Agreement", the Trustee takes the position that she has the right to exonorate Merritt Green from his gross malpractice for not only herself, but for Smoot AS WELL! See Item D and 14 of this arrogant, heinous, and illegal

    Settlement Agreement

   Illegal for at least two reasons: first, the case was filed well after the deadline to be considered a part of the estate, and second, she already abandoned it when she tried to dismiss the case in open court knowing that it would be dead because of Ohio time limit rules. The Judge denied that so now she wishes to do for 30 G's that which she could not accomplish for nothing, i.e., protect illigitimate Creditors UTU andCSXT from a trial de nova that could overturn the specious wiretap judgment altogether. She wants to settle a case that Smoot's attorney valued at $235,000 for pennies on the dollar for the sole purpose of preventing Smoot from ever using the Executive Session tape and transcript in his own defense pursuant to the Smalkin Order! And she is doing it with the most pitiful, flimsy MOTION I have ever seen; a judge shouldn't give this piece of crap motion any consideration whatsoever other than being nothing but conclusory assertions mainly based upon "unpublished"case law(they certainly have no facts in common with the facts of this case).  God, how do judges allow this crap???

    In any event, Smoot and I figured the Trustee could never settle the Green Malpractice Case without Smoot's knowledge and persmission - now that we know that is exactly what she is trying to do, I have filed to become a Creditor of Smoot. Not because I want all money I loaned him to survive and pursue his malpractice and 6th Circuit Appeal (when they froze his bank account), but rather to at least have a say in whether this Trustee can put the last nail in Ken's coffin with another illegal, self-serving "Settlement Agreement [and Release]"!   My objection should arrive today or tommorrow and as of now, I intend to place it here shortly.  It certainly addresses why this proposed "settlement" must be rejected by the Court.  It also went to the US Trustee with a cover letter asking for investigation of the current trustee and possibly, removal,  if the facts are correct.

    The whole purpose of this proposed settlement is to insure Smoot never gets an opportunity for a proper adjudicatory ruling from a trier of fact. The "Big Lie" by attorneys for CSXT, Earley, and UTU has always been that the interception was illegal and that the tape and transcript were sealed.  Indeed, they persisted in this averment after the permanent injunction was vacated, after Earley dismissed his frivolous lawsuits, after CSXT made it a matter of Public Record in the Summary Bench Trial, and even today! Here is CSXT's attorney at the remand trial of the $100,000 punitive damages,  allegedly for Smoot giving out the Ex.Session Transcript in Atlanta (1997 after the injunction was vacated) and harming CSXT, Earley, and UTU's reputations:

"Mr. Lewis: Just a few additonal remarks, you Honor.

    As an attorney who has been involved in this case since its very beginning in front of Judge Matia, I just wanted to offer a couple overall observations.

    Counsel for Mr. Smoot indicated that the defendants had ground him down. We see it, of course, from a different perspective. And that is that Mr. Smoot set a series of events, took a series of actions, that led him to this juncture. I won't revisit the wirtap and the extensive distribution of the wiretap material which had a negative effect on a number of individuals and was calculated, apparently, to damage the reputations.

    But as has been noted before, the Bankruptcy Court, in addition to that all, found that Mr. Smoot had inappropiately and fraudulently removed funds from the State of Ohio to the State of Virginia. It was ill-advised, and I don't know whose counsel he had at that point in time, but in additon to the wiretap, that removal cause a series of actions to be filed in state court.  At that point in time he went into bankruptcy. The findings of theBankruptcy Court and the Fourth Circuit are before you.

    So I think it's inappropiate to say he has been gound down by the defendants. He is exactly where he is because of a number of inappropiate and ill-advised decisions that he himself made or made with the counsel of others throughout the years. And those decisions were unfortunate, but they alleviate the problems that he has caused for representatives of CSX and UTU, and those problems are continuing.

    We're here today. There is going to be additional filings. Mr. Smoot has filed a petition for certiorari in front of the United States Supreme Court. He has attached the transcript of the executive session to that document.

    So the saga continues. Apparently he is unrepentant and he has taken steps to widely distribute this wiretapped document, a document that three judges and the Sixth Circuit now have determined violated, intentionally violated the wiretap laws, and it continues.

    So the suffering and the problem that my clients began to experience before the filing of this case are continuing, and apparently will continue for the foreseeable future. So we think that Mr. Smoot's present condition may be unfortunate, he himself took steps that put him exactly where he is.

    Other than that, we think that the grounds that have been raised in the one filing that has been made are simply erroneous and that in fact there is no basis for reduction in the punitive damages, whether from a legal or from a moral standpoint.

    Thank you"  (Transcript of Hearing onDamages Before The Honorable Peter C. Economus United States District Judge held August 30, 2001).

    John, John, John ... now as the Church Lady would say . . ."Ain't that Special"?  Allow me to make a few observations, myself:

Yes, you were in it from the beginning . . . in fact, you were probably on the conference call when Matia said the Transcript was evidence and would be removed from the original complaint. Perhaps you remember filing to seal the transcript in docket item #9? Perhaps you remember Judge Matia denying your request in the docket item of 5/19/94? Perhaps you know that no judge in any case ever sealed the transcript, but of course, that didn't stop the attorneys for CSX, Earley, and UTU from constantly pretending the transcript was sealed.  Indeed, I don't know why you complain of Smoot providing it to the Supreme Court?  Hell, look at the sticker, YOU entered it into the Summary Bench Trial on Damages; You then made it a matter of Public Record; and You suffer from the same skewed logic as Clint (he thinks he doesn't need a judge to approve a TRO, he can do it De Factor with Earley's attorney) in that you say it is filed under seal - only a judge makes that determination - not you!

Should I go on, John?  The "Saga of lies and misrepresentation" is the only thing that continues - now we've gone from what 3 federal judges actually said (likelihood, etc. in context) to  "a document that three judges and the Sixth Circuit now have determined violated, intentionally violated the wiretap laws, and it continues." With all due respect, courselor, that is an outright lie and you damn well know it!  Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!

I don't need to continue as my Objection will adequately address these matters and undoubtedly you will receive a fax copy within 30 minutes of "your trustee's" receipt (clearly indicating I think CSX/UTU own her lock, stock, and barrel as they did Judge Petie).  You guys didn't have to be there as creditors to agree to the specious settlement, hell, you guys probably wrote it for her!   John, it does occur to me that you would never like a trial de nova on Green's Malpractice action against your client CSXT, but perhaps you should not want one as an individual?  I mean, I'd call you as a friendly witness in Green's Malpractice.   Mr.  Lewis, did you state at trial the following:

    "Part of our problem is that Mr. Smoot's counsel has never filed a brief, raised anything on any of these issues; and here at the time of trial, he's springing this. And if he had briefed it, as this Court's trial order indicated he should, we would have fully briefed it and could establish that he's absolutely wrong; and we wouldn't be spending all this time going around it."(page 55 of Summary Bench Trial on Damages Transcript).

    Of course your answer would be "yes" - theorectically as I don't know if attorneys ever tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? You obviously didn't during the Remand Hearing! Hell, you'd probably become a  "hostile" witness when you had to answer questions about what really went on behind closed doors on February 18?  Did Green put Smoot on Speaker phone so all could listen in room 313?  Why is there no docket entry indicating a conference was held? Did Green stipulate to a Summary Bench Trial on Damages to replace the scheduled Jury Trial, etc., etc., etc.?

    And, of course, I don't doubt that you could have established Green was wrong IF he had briefed it with the little knowledge he knew about TitleIII. Indeed, I don't doubt Economus would have let you prevail If I had briefed it, since he wasn't fair and impartial.  My first Affidavit describes the error that crushed Smoot, i.e., not Objecting on the record to a lack of jury trial; and he should have also objected that the Judge "previously ruled on that issue". What I seriously do doubt, John, is that you can sucessfully brief it in the face of the facts and Law provided in . . .

"The Objection with Exhibits" 

    However, it does not escape this Pro se Creditor that the legal genius of both UTU and CSXT shall show up in the Trustee's response to my Objection - the only question is will it actually address the well established law I've used or will it be another expensive "cut and paste" of 3 federal judges, yada, yada, yada ...? Hang in there and always have a nice day!

Note: this article is still under construction as I add links to Exhibits A - I and figure out which documents are already here somewhere (yes, another admission that my webpage is not well organized and difficult to manuever in). But I do know the "SAR" isn't here and all UTU members need to read it and Monty's cover letter so they can be "proud" of the great deal they cut! (hehe)

This item is now complete with the Exhibits to my Objection to the Proposed Settlement attached herein below. IF one reads the complete Objection, footnotes, and exhibits, you will have very good understanding of this case and how UTU and CSXT were able to defraud Ken Smoot (and hundred's of other employees out of their 30 shares of stock) and protect the corrupt Railroad arbitration system. 

It should be noted that all discovery was done in the Consolidated Cases when the Judge replaced that Jury Trial with a Permanent Injunction Hearing? His ruling of  " ... evidence that is improper, in not, illegal ..." does not meet the standard of "actual merit" but couldn't be appealed because they quickly vacated the injunction with UTU's illegal, self-serving Settlement Agreement and Release and Earley's voluntary dismissal of all his frivoulous lawsuits.

Suffice to say it takes more than "intent" to prove an oral communication has been illegally intercepted and all fact, reason, and law supports that there was no illegal interception and no violation of use and disclosure on the part of any defendant. They made bad law behind closed doors in both the Fourth and Sixth Circuits and they now need to prevent Smoot's Malpractice action to maintain the fraudulent judgments.

That John Lewis or any other attorney in this matter wishes to maintain a specious $100,000 punitive damages award by ignoring testimony and relevant facts of record is just "business as usual". However,  suggesting it shouldn't be done from a legal or "moral" standpoint is the height of hypocrisy! I've said it many times as bluntly as possible and here it is one more time: CSXT, Earley, and UTU's position in this matter has never changed and is quite   simple: "HOW DARE YOU (Ken Smoot) HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CATCH US LYING AND STEALING!!!!

Creditor Ruck=s List of Exhibits in his Objection to Proposed Settlement.

1. Exhibit A - Ruck Affidavit - 3 pages.

2. Exhibit B - Settlement Agreement and Release - 12 pages.

3. Exhibit C - Ruck Motion to Intervene - 8 pages.

4. Exhibit D - Ruck Affidavit - 3 pages.

5. Exhibit E - Letter of Dismissal from Smoot - 2 pages.

6. Exhibit F - Malpractice Complaint - 4 pages.

7. Exhibit G - Excerpt from Summary Bench Trial - 8 pages.

8. Exhibit H - Executive Session Transcript - 33 pages.

9. Exhibit I - Motion for Recusal - 10 pages