I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.
Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO RECEIVE ANY CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
As usual after 2 years the court is siding withthe government regulator lawyer and is not willing to rule on the argument of the MSJ that I filed, stating that plaintiff counsel is right I have failed to qualify and everything I argued in MSJ is better to be determined in a Trial.
I have prepared a Motion to Reconsider. citing that this erroneous because:
e.g. In my MSJ I argued that the counsel has failed to comply with Rule 26, Rule 34 to produce an exact computation of his claim, and Rule 19 a Trial or Judgment cant be had because all the defendant entities were salvaged and dissolved by a Gov appointed Trustee, as such without them a Judgment or trial cannot be had.
Further I cited Congressional Act. 11 USC ss 78(j), the BK Discharge Injunction etc. and cases deciding on these Laws. Also cited Supreme Courts rulings that ruled previliges doesn't apply to a Gov when is seeking money especially a Gov Reg Agency
Yet completely ignores the conclusions of Law cited and cites there was NO qualifying arguments;
Can you please cite a Rule or any case that explains the purpose of a Motion for Summary Judgment and indeed the argued Laws and Rules are qualifying basis for a Pre-Trial MSJ disputes and courts ruling is necessary where party without following Rules e.g. Rule 34, or 19 etc. and other Acts of laws cannot be bound for trial
I know 99% he will deny the MTR again but at least then I can go to the 9th circuit, it is weird that rather than examining the evidence and remain impartial, seems that the court is automatically on their side. Even refusing to cite or examine the evidence that MFG was stealing cash from our Company.
By the way I pre-advance rated you lastnight
So basically there was no reference to material facts a MTR is just as it was an error?
Material FACTS works both ways, correct?
e.g. The Bankruptcy Court discharge injunction that remains forever is one of them, right?
So IF Movant have established Material FACTS then the Court should entertain the arguments of a MSJ, correct?
e.g.Is GROSS misrepresentation a material FACT? as an example in his initially filed papers declared that the defendant Company that I worked for had 80 customers made claim, YET THE BK Court TRUSTEE produced a declaration that he had ONLY received ONE claim? isn't this a material FACT of gross misrepresentations and it is entitle to a MSJ ruling?
Overall I need your help to direct me to the rule that I can make enough argument that disregarding these above mentioned FACTS and denying to rule on the evidence is an error!
can you please help line to line of the questions so I can understand how to proceed to research
The rule is Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Unfortunately, I do not have ability to review enough of the facts and evidence in your case to do line by line help with your research.The misrepresentation of facts is something for trial. You need to look in your case search for summary judgment and bankruptcy, because if the court is continuing with this matter it is because they want a presentation of facts to the court and a trial on it with witnesses it seems.
If you say facts are one way and the other side says something else, even if they are misrepresenting them right now, then the case is not suitable for summary judgment.
Thanks that is the whole point
The BK Trustee says he dissolved the companies and he NO longer is in position of documents as by Law he only has to maintain records for 5 years!! they hire a Shred it Truck and destroy everything over 5 years of age.
He already filed his final report and confirmed there were NO 80 customers and FOUND NO MISAPPROPERIATIONS particularly by me! I wasn't even paid
And the BK court discharged me
They are pissed at me because I blew the whistle on MF Global
So what would you do if you were in my shoes how can I even produced witnesses how do I argue a FAIR Trial cannot be had?
(e.g. former employees from 6 years ago no longer even living in CA) or examine all the documents that NO longer exist?
At least a general hint to get him entertain our Material FACTS?
In General Material FACTS goes both ways correct?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).