For the Grand Jury of San Diego California



Kristin Tavia Mihelic

Louise DeCarl Adler


Thomas Oliver

3070 Bristol Street, Suite 660

Costa Mesa, CA 92626




April 21, 2021




The level of criminality and corruption today within so much of our legal system—from the top down and across the board—is simply off the scale.  Every part of the system is infected.  In fact, an intricate web of criminality and corruption from one coast to the other will become apparent after examining the evidence related to my bankruptcy proceeding.  All evidence I have provided herein is rock-solid. If asked, I will testify personally under oath before this jury as to the truth and validity of everything submitted.

Louise DeCarl Adler, the judge in my bankruptcy proceeding, and Kristin Tavia Mihelic (hereinafter “Mihelic”), the attorney for the federal government, are trying their best to steer matters in the direction they want them to go.  This is partly because of who I am—author of the top-rated book in its class, Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor (, which is a guide intended to protect people specifically from the likes of the ones who are aiming to take me down: Judge Adler and Mihelic.

The legal system has negatively impacted and continues negatively impacting not only me but countless other innocent people nationwide.  As a duty to the Framers, somebody has to put a stop to its decay.  To fulfill that very obligation, I coauthored my book, but I also wrote it because I have been victimized by the system innumerable times and have had enough.  I will keep doing my part by speaking nationally about the top problem plaguing the country so that I can protect as many people as possible.


Mihelic filed a baseless complaint (case number 20-90093, and together with my chapter 7 petition, case number 20-01053-LA7, hereinafter “the instant case”) against me in my bankruptcy proceeding in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California as a favor to Joseph L. Michaud, a former attorney in Massachusetts who has recently been appointed judge, although he belongs in prison.  An open letter summarizing the enormity of malfeasance for which he and his ilk are responsible in the original case that forced my bankruptcy can be found here:

Lies Told

Mihelic has spewed the following lies that I have counted thus far, which is not intended to be an exhaustive list:

1.   In schedule F of my chapter 7 filing, I did not list “one creditor for $32,000.”  I listed the amount at $32,913.30, which may or may not have been artificially inflated since the time the fraudulent judgment that gave rise to it was illegally issued.  See attached proof on pages 15 and 16.

2.     I did not state that I “[earn] money by collecting rents of behalf of [my] mother”.  I did state that I manage property as a professional property manager.  See attached proof on page 16.  There is a big difference between the two.  She is implying that I basically do nothing, but the truth of the matter is that I perform many time-consuming duties such as:

a.       finding suitable tenants (entails: rental listing, interview, credit check, etc.)

b.      writing and signing leases

c.       contacting repair personnel when necessary

d.      paying condo fees, taxes, repair bills, insurance, and other costs

e.       coordinating move-out of current tenants and move-in of new tenants when needed

f.       conducting walk-throughs at lease end for both outgoing and incoming tenants

g.       arranging viewings for prospective tenants

h.      handling disputes with the property management company

i.        ensuring inspections are done whenever required

j.        addressing all related legal matters

3.    Prior to the meeting on May 11, 2020, I did not provide “only two documents” as she stated.  I actually provided five by email on May 1, 2020.  See attached proof on pages 16 and 17.

4.    In her complaint, Mihelic said I transferred property in Rhode Island “for no consideration.”  This untruth can easily be verified.  See attached proof on pages 18 and 19.

5.     Mihelic refused both in a subpoena and during discovery to provide phone records that I requested simply containing “number and duration of each call”—not any particular content of the calls or anything regarding “information and records that are protected by the attorney work product and attorney-client privileges” as she falsely stated.  See attached subpoena and opposition on pages 20 and 21.  The reason I specifically asked for general information in the subpoena is that I knew private information could legitimately be blocked.  She and the court had no legal authority to block me from receiving a mere listing of phone numbers and duration of calls.  The fact that such records exist is not protected, which she knows full well.  From U.S. v. Jackson, Criminal Action No. 07-0035 (RWR) (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2007): “The existence of a communication between a client and her attorney is not privileged, even if the content of that communication would otherwise be protected.  Matter of Walsh, 623 F.2d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 1980).  See also United States v. Pipkins, 528 F.2d 559, 562 (5th Cir. 1976) (‘The attorney client privilege prohibits the disclosure of the substance of communications made in confidence by a client to his attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.’) (emphasis added); United States v. Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110, 113 (4th Cir. 1964) (‘It is the substance of the communications which is protected, however, not the fact that there have been communications.’).”  By blocking me, which I fully expected to happen, the proverbial smoking gun was exposed.  There is now no question that calls were made by and/or to Michaud and that he contaminated the case by his own false statements and his specter of friendship with Mihelic and/or Adler.

6.    In an email on November 24, 2020, Mihelic said, “The depositions are required to be conducted during regular business hours,” but no such rule or law exists.  In fact, rules of procedure say the exact opposite—that depositions can take place “at any time.”  See rule 7029 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which is Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attached proof on page 22 .

7.   Mihelic stated, “I have not yet received your answers to our Interrogatories” in her email on December 11, 2020; however, I emailed my response on December 8, 2020.  See attached proof on page 23.

8.    Also on December 11, 2020, Mihelic said that “the parties are required to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes.”  This is also not true.  She has said this many times.  Rules of court only require such meetings at the initial pre-trial hearing and other specific times, not during discovery.  See attached proof on page 23 and U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California Local Bankruptcy Rules 3015-7 and 7026-2.

9.  On December 18, 2020, Mihelic denied I had sent proof of interrogatory responses earlier: “along with proof of when you say you previously sent them,” which was right in the email to which she replied.  See attached proof on page 24.

10.  During discovery, I asked Mihelic to provide certain records of communication to and from attorneys and others in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  One in particular was Attorney Douglas H. Smith.  In addition to objecting, she clearly stated “no such documents exist” in her response to request number 11, which contradicts the evidence she inadvertently provided and that was buried in more than 500 pages of photocopied email transmissions.  It also contradicts evidence provided by Attorney Nelson Brinckerhoff, an attorney in another related matter who stated, “I talked with the Rhode Island lawyer enforcing the Massachusetts judgment and he informed me that Mr. Oliver had allegedly threatened the US trustee in bankruptcy in California and that he faces potential fraud and other criminal charges pursuant to his bankruptcy filing.”  See attached proof on pages 25 through 30.

His statement is further evidence that Attorney Douglas H. Smith communicated with Mihelic since Smith is the attorney in Rhode Island who is trying to collect on a fraudulent foreign judgment issued by the Massachusetts courts.  There is absolutely no way that Brinckerhoff would have gotten this misinformation without Smith communicating with Mihelic.  Since she denied the very existence of her communication with Smith, she would no doubt also deny that she communicated with Michaud and withhold that fact as she did in request number 10.  See attached proof on page 25.

Rest assured that unredacted phone records, if they could be obtained, would show otherwise.  She is withholding evidence that she communicated with Michaud because she did so early in the matter, probably within the first couple weeks of my bankruptcy filing, when he contacted her and asked her to block my bankruptcy as a favor to him.  I know a call was made and state this not only based on the evidence presented in number 5 above, but also because all “creditors” in the case except for the only one I listed as part of my petition have gone kicking and screaming to prevent the discharge, filing pleading after pleading with the court.  The only problem with their claims is that they have me mixed up with another Thomas Oliver.  I do not know these entities and owe no debts to them or to anyone else, in fact.

The only entity that has not made an appearance in the chapter 7 case is the party who obtained the fraudulent judgment in Massachusetts—the only “creditor” I listed in my original petition—and who is attempting to attach property I no longer own in Rhode Island.  Michaud, who believes he is untouchable because of the power he now wields as a judge, likely told attorney Smith, “Don’t waste your time and money filing anything with the court.  I will make a call and get this all taken care of.”  After at least four calls to my previous attorneys whereby he violated Massachusetts criminal law chapter 268 § 13B(1)(c)(v) as explained in the open letter found at the third link provided in this complaint, it’s obvious that this is his modus operandi.

11.  In Mihelic’s Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and for Sanctions dated November 2, 2020, she falsely states that “Defendant filed a one-paragraph Answer” to her complaint.  It was actually two (three if Jefferson’s quote is included).  See attached proof on pages 31 and 32.

12.  In the same motion, she also states, “As of the date of filing this Motion, the Plaintiff had not received any of the required Initial Disclosures from the Defendant.”  This is also not true.  I sent her emails containing 50 attachments as part of initial disclosures on November 2, 2020.  See attached proof on pages 33 and 34.

13.  She also clearly crosses the line when she says in that motion, “Defendant has provided only a general denial at best.”  See attached proof on page 35  Such a statement is absolutely ludicrous.  I provided mountains of evidence of corruption, fraud, and other criminal acts, including, but not limited to, the evidence offered to Mihelic in an email on May 13, 2020; the open letter to the court and Mihelic on November 16, 2020; and the initial disclosures sent on November 2, 2020.  See attached proof on pages 36, 37, and 34.

I have essentially been shouting from the rooftops since the beginning of the instant case that the judgment issued in Massachusetts is fraudulent.....because it is!  It is just that Mihelic is ignoring the evidence, particularly in her written pleadings so later appeals courts and/or oversight boards can be duped into believing her lies and also enticed into ignoring the evidence.  By doing so, she has gone completely against the grain of Rule 11(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states “the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.”

14.  In the same motion, Mihelic says, “Defendant has...also failed to timely or substantially communicate with the Plaintiff regarding same.”  Perhaps her biggest lie of the motion, well in excess of 100 email communications can hardly be considered failing to communicate.  See attached proof on pages 38 and 39.  What she meant to say is that I am failing to communicate over the phone so that she can hide her lies because there will be no physical record of them and limit the damage I can do to her in court pleadings and especially in complaints outside of court.

15.  In her motion to extend, Mihelic says, “The [d]efendant failed to cooperate with the [A]UST in scheduling his deposition.” She continues, “the [d]efendant failed to provide a reasonable time when his deposition could be conducted,” and “Despite numerous requests from the [A]UST that he identify dates where he could start the deposition during normal business hours, the [d]efendant refused to do so.”  These statements are completely untrue and can be seen from examining the facts.  I provided dates and times, some during "normal business hours."

16.  Mihelic says, “Now in his [m]otion filed nine months after the commencement of the lawsuit,” in her opposition to my motion to appoint counsel.  I filed the motion less than six and one-half months after she filed her lawsuit, not nine.  So, either Mihelic is not proficient at second grade math, or this is a fresh new lie.

17.  In the same motion, Mihelic boldly states that I “[have] not, and cannot, point to any legal authority providing for the appointment of counsel for a debtor in any bankruptcy proceeding.”  Without difficulty, I found: “[W]e granted the [d]ebtors’ ex parte Application to Appoint Herbert A. Fogel, Esquire, formerly a United States [d]istrict [j]udge (hereinafter referred to as ‘Fogel’), in this case as special counsel to the [d]efendants for the sole purpose of representing the three [d]ebtors...”  In re G H Steel Service, Inc.

18.  Mihelic declares in her opposition for sanctions against her, “The [d]efendant served his [d]iscovery [r]equests by email only, despite the [d]efendant’s earlier refusal to enter into an agreement for service by email.”  I was no longer obligated to serve Plaintiff by U.S. mail because Mihelic gave permission in an email on August 28, 2020, to serve her electronically: “If you have documents you wish to deliver, you can email them.”  I gave no such permission to Mihelic nor will I nor am I so required.  Moreover, with the office location closed as she states in the email, serving her by U.S. mail would be fruitless anyway besides being an undue financial burden.

19.  She claims in the same opposition for sanctions against her, “The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories.”  She goes on to say in the very next sentence, “the [A]UST timely responded [to] on December 9, 2020.”  Unless some months contain thirty-two days in the calendar she is using—one unknown to all of mankind—or she is using a mail service that incorporates a time warp, she did not respond “timely.”  To make such consecutive statements would be laughable if made during an episode of the sitcom Night Court and not in my bankruptcy.  She was late despite my reminder email on December 2, 2020.

20.  Lastly, in number 2 of Mihelic’s ex parte motion to extend time to file, she once again proudly touts another untruth in an extremely long line of lies.  She states, “The [d]efendant filed his [o]bjection to the [m]otion on March 4, 2021 (Docket No. 118).  The [d]efendant’s filing was one day late.”  I filed my objection on March 3, 2021, and within the deadline, not on March 4, 2021, as she falsely claims.  I contacted the court clerk after I noticed a $10 discrepancy.  The clerk said in an email, “Always good to file accurate documents.  Please file an amended copy and explain what is amended.”  On March 4, 2021, I filed an amended copy as per the clerk’s direction.  Mihelic later contradicted herself when she declared in a separate pleading that I filed my objection “on March 3, 2021 (Docket No. 117).”  In that “declaration,” she says, “A copy of the [r]equests for [a]dmission and [c]ertificate of [s]ervice is attached hereto as ‘Exhibit A.’ ”  As of June 1, 2021, no “Exhibit A” is associated with any document filed into the case on May 25, 2021.  Furthermore, many of the dates she reports are incorrect.  For example, she dated her requests January 28, 2021, not the 29th and says on May 25, 2021, that I missed a conference on June 3, 2021, and therefore must be using her time warp again.  Since the pleading was signed “under penalty of perjury” and it is replete with incorrect dates and untruthful statements and it contains a clear contradiction, she committed perjury.

Once could be considered a mistake.  More than twice (and certainly twenty) is clearly a concerted effort to stymie and mislead.  There are many other instances, but I omitted them in the interest of brevity.  It should be apparent by now that Mihelic’s habitual lying is uncontrollable.

Deliberately Choosing to Be a Party to Fraud

Mihelic has repeatedly denied—or, at the very least, completely failed to investigate—the existence of rampant fraud and corruption related to the fraudulent Massachusetts court judgment underlying my chapter 7 filing, which is in itself a form of fraud for which she is solely responsible.  I not only told her in several 341 meetings that the judgment entered against me in Rhode Island is fraudulent but also offered in an email on May 13, 2020, to provide plenty of irrefutable evidence.  See attached proof on page 36.  She has yet to accept that offer.  Instead of fighting the fraud, she is fighting against me in order to perpetuate the fraud.

I called the Department of Injustice and the Federal Bureau of Iniquity for nearly thirty days straight sometime near the end of 2017 after previously filing (multiple times with these agencies) criminal complaints against the responsible individuals.  What was the result?  Nobody lifted a toxic finger to help.  I also offered to provide a copy of that complaint to Mihelic, but, not surprisingly, she showed no interest in receiving it.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that a judgment obtained fraudulently by a “creditor” shall be void.  The U.S. Supreme Court rightfully opined in Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726 (1946), “It is true that a bankruptcy court is also a court of equity…and may exercise equity powers in bankruptcy proceedings to set aside fraudulent claims, including a fraudulent judgment” (emphasis added).

Violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 6068

With regard to section (a) of this law, Mihelic has disregarded the Constitution by violating my right of due process under the Fifth Amendment.  Additionally, Mihelic has exceeded the “look back” period—and sometimes by large amounts—in most of her discovery requests and in other facets of the case.  See particularly the “within one year” language of 11 U.S. Code § 727(a)(2)(A), the law under which Mihelic filed her complaint, and attached proof on page 40.  With regard to section (c) that she “maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just,” she is pursuing her meritless case against me only to double down in order to protect her associates and conceal the true fraud and corruption in the matter.  With regard to section (d), employing, “for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her, those means only as are consistent with truth,” she has failed miserably.  If Mihelic is not a pathological liar, she certainly is nothing near truthful either.  Her violation of section (g), that she not “encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest,” is perhaps the biggest of this particular law since her motives are corrupt or definitely not based on seeking justice.


Perjury is governed generally by 18 U.S. Code § 1621.  Because responses during discovery are to be given “under oath” as dictated by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because she inadvertently revealed evidence proving that she had a particular communication with Attorney Smith but in her response to my request for production of documents denied having had the communication as discussed in number 10 in the Lies Told subsection above, she is guilty of this crime.  See attached proof on pages 25 through 30.  Since she also perjured herself as explained in number 20 in the same subsection, she has committed this crime at least twice in this one case.  She is most probably also guilty of other crimes as is Adler.

Misprision of Felony

18 U.S. Code § 4 states, “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”  Mihelic was made fully aware of felonious acts committed by others when I told her about them in several of the 341 meetings and in the email I sent on May 13, 2020.  See attached proof on page 36.  Since she has concealed such felonies, she has broken this criminal law.

Concealing and Covering up Records in Bankruptcy

18 U.S. Code § 1519 says in part, “Whoever knowingly...conceals, covers up...any document...with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter…or any case filed under title 11…”  Mihelic has concealed or, at the very least, tried to conceal fraud and corruption by ignoring my related statements in the 341 meetings and also in the email I sent to her on May 13, 2020, indicating that I have more than enough documents that reveal the true fraud and corruption in the underlying matter in Massachusetts.  See attached proof on page 36.

Fraud/Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

18 U.S. Code § 1001 specifically says in provisions one and three,

any person who:

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years.”


Provision one was violated through the cover up of fraud in Massachusetts and the call Mihelic received from Michaud.  Provision three was violated because she is knowingly using a fraudulent judgment as the basis for her case and because of the false answer(s) she gave in her response to my request for production of documents as previously stated.  18 U.S. Code § 1341 addresses “any scheme or artifice to defraud”—in which Mihelic has participated.   18 U.S. Code § 1349 concerns conspiracy to commit fraud.  If she is involved with Adler, Michaud, or any others in perpetuating this whole charade, then she has violated this criminal law.


There are some major red flags concerning Judge Adler’s actions.  When viewed out of context and individually, they may not seem significant.  However, when viewed together in the grand scheme of things, it is highly unlikely that she is performing her judicial duties objectively and without some sort of connection to the criminal activity of Mihelic and certain individuals in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  Undoubtedly, she has violated rules of court, statutory law, stare decisis, and the U.S. Constitution.

Disregard of 28 U.S. Code § 1930 (f)(1)

When my bankruptcy was initially filed, Judge Adler seemed to be deliberately steering the case in the direction she wanted it to go.  She tried to block me from filing my chapter 7 petition in the first place by not allowing me to proceed in forma pauperis and making me pay the filing fee.  However, since the date on which I filed my Chapter 7 petition, I have requested a fee waiver four other times, and all four have been unconditionally granted—two of which were for the related “financial management courses” that are required as part of the bankruptcy process.  In all instances, I provided the same financial information, so her decision is extremely suspicious.

In fact, 28 U.S. Code § 1930 (f)(1) clearly states that “the bankruptcy court may waive the filing fee in a case under chapter 7 of title 11 for an individual if the court determines that such individual has income less than 150 percent of the income official poverty line.”  My income is well below that level.  Why would I be blocked from filing without paying the filing fee when the fee was waived in all four other instances?  Was she trying to discourage me?  Could she have also received a phone call from Michaud?

Not Abiding by Stare Decisis with Respect to Information Not Protect by Attorney-Client Privilege

Judge Adler also allowed Mihelic’s motion to quash my subpoena to produce phone records strictly comprised of number, date/time, and duration of each call—not any particular content of the calls or anything else—which is not something that could be even remotely misconstrued as “information and records that are protected by the attorney work product and attorney-client privileges.”  See attached proof on pages 20 and 21.  This is nonsense.  During discovery I requested the same phone records, which Mihelic again refused to provide.  See attached proof on pages 25 and 26.

The reason I specifically asked for general information in the subpoena is that I knew private information could legitimately be blocked.  Judge Adler had no legal authority to prevent me from receiving a mere listing of phone numbers and duration of calls.  The act of her—and Mihelic—blocking me, which I fully expected to happen, is a strong indicator that communication between Adler and Michaud and/or Michaud and Mihelic occurred. 

As explained in number 5 above, the fact that such records exist is not protected, which Judge Adler and Mihelic know full well.  In conjunction with the information presented in number 10 above, there is now no question that calls were made by and/or to Michaud and that he contaminated the instant case by his own false statements.  It is a virtual guarantee.

Not Abiding by Stare Decisis with Respect to Illegally Denying a Jury Trial

Mihelic filed a motion to deny my right to a jury trial.  Judge Alder allowed the motion even though ample supporting statutory and case law I cited says she should have denied it—probably because she does not read anything I submit to the court.  During the December 17, 2020, telephonic conference, she did not respond to me after I firmly asked, “Are you reading anything I send you?”  Instead, I was met with dead silence, which all but confirms my claim.

I was especially careful in my answer to Mihelic’s complaint not to file a counterclaim because Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989) said that a defendant who files a counterclaim in a bankruptcy proceeding is deemed to have consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and waived any right to a jury trial.  That court also said a litigant has a right to a jury trial when the cause of action is legal in nature and when it concerns private rights.  In my answer, I simply asked for “punitive damages from AUST and the U.S. government, plus attorney fees, costs, and interest,” which are legal in nature.

McCord v. Papantoniou, 316 B.R. 113 (E.D.N.Y. 2004), which I cited in a motion I filed in the bankruptcy court and concerned fraudulent conveyance as does the instant case, made clear that “the defendant’s right to a jury trial is preserved where both legal and equitable claims are asserted” (emphasis added).  Relevant law is also found in the U.S. Supreme Court case Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974), which I also cited in the same motion: “More important, the relief sought here—actual and punitive damages—is the traditional form of relief offered in the courts of law.”  Footnote 11 of that matter also lends it help by stating, “If the action is properly viewed as one for damages only, our conclusion that this is a legal claim obviously requires a jury trial on demand.  And if this legal claim is joined with an equitable claim, the right to jury trial on the legal claim, including all issues common to both claims, remains intact” (emphasis added).  Despite any requirements that “core” proceedings or any equitable claims in the instant case be conducted in the bankruptcy court, legal claims, such as my request for punitive damages, entitle me to a jury trial.

There is a plethora of additional support.  “In any event, it is the defendant who has made demand for a jury trial in this case, and the counterclaims make no request for equitable relief, only monetary damages.  Thus, severance of the trial of the complaint from consideration of trial of the counterclaims would serve only to reinforce our conclusion that the defendant’s right to a jury trial is not compromised by the pleadings” (emphasis added).  In re Data Compass Corp., 92 B.R. 575, 577 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1988).

In re Ben Cooper, Inc., 896 F.2d 1394 (2d Cir. 1990) is yet another example.  “Cooper seeks damages from them for alleged negligence and malpractice.  It is difficult to imagine a claim that is more inherently legal” (emphasis added).  That court said that even though the proceeding was “core,” appellees were entitled to a jury trial.  “We nevertheless hold that the bankruptcy courts may conduct jury trials in core proceedings.”  When discussing the topic of bankruptcy courts conducting jury trials for core proceedings, that court said, “The cases in support of this view are too numerous to cite” (emphasis added).

Not Abiding by Stare Decisis Regarding Appointment of Counsel

28 U.S. Code § 1915(e)(1) says, “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”  The decision is generally discretionary except in two types of proceedings, one of which involves indigent people being potentially deprived of their right against self-incrimination as protected by the Fifth Amendment or being potentially deprived of that same right as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment through due process.  Appointed counsel is required for indigent litigants whenever rights against self-incrimination are imperiled, regardless of the situation.

The U.S. Supreme Court opined in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1975), “This Court has always broadly construed [Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination] protection to assure that an individual is not compelled to produce evidence which later may be used against him as an accused in a criminal action.”  Continuing in its opinion, it said that “counsel must be appointed for any indigent witness, whether or not he is a party, in any proceeding in which his testimony can be compelled…Unless counsel is appointed, these indigents will be deprived, just as surely as Maness’ client would have been had he not been advised by Maness, of the opportunity to decide whether to assert their constitutional privilege.”  Bear in mind that the high court’s decision was not split; it was unanimous.

During the phone conference of January 14, 2021, Judge Adler upheld her tentative order issued on January 12, 2021, to compel discovery, including deposing me.  See attached proof on page 41.  After I informed Judge Adler of 28 U.S. Code § 1915(e)(1) by quoting it directly and of the unanimous Maness ruling, she failed to acknowledge that the law allows for appointed counsel outside of criminal proceedings and actually mandates it in the instant case.  She said that I would only be represented by appointed counsel if “the U.S. trustee finds that [I] made false statements” in the instant case and I am charged criminally.  Notice that she mentioned nothing regarding the statements being alleged until proved in court and thus completely disregards due process.  The word of Mihelic would itself be sufficient to substantiate the veracity of such statements.  This is nothing less than horrifying.

That aside, the intent of Maness is preventative, not reparative, so her “reasoning” is wrong.  That court stated, “Although the proceeding in which he is called is not criminal, it is established that a witness may not be required to answer a question if there is some rational basis for believing that it will incriminate him, at least without at that time being assured that neither it nor its fruits may be used against him.”  In the same conference on January 14, 2021, Judge Adler asked, “Have you tried legal aid?”  I replied, “Yes, but nobody will touch it.  There’s too much corruption.”  Instead of replying, “Oh my, well, we will investigate that, and, yes, I will abide by the law and Constitution and appoint you counsel,” she said, “Well, I can’t help you.”

Unlikely Mathematical Odds

Perhaps the most striking evidence against Judge Adler is that she has ruled ten consecutive times against me and has yet to rule in my favor whenever Mihelic has opposed me.  Odds of this purely happening by chance and without bias or external influence are 1 in 1,024, or less than one-tenth of a percent.  It may not seem like a big deal, but, like a puzzle, all pieces connected together reveal much more than a single piece by itself.

Blatant Bias

Judge Adler has made overtly biased statements in telephonic meetings/hearings and explicitly in the court record.

·     One such statement was made in the tentative ruling of October 13, 2020, part of which is as follows: “Although it is premised, in part, on Defendant’s [alleged] transfers of real property to avoid and frustrate creditors, it is not an action requesting recovery of a fraudulent transfer.”  Whenever anyone associated with a legal action does not use terms such as “alleged” when accusations are made but not yet proved in court, it not only flies in the face of conformance with due process, but it is constitutionally offensive—particularly when made by a judge.  See attached proof on page 42.

·    Another was made during the hearing on December 17, 2020.  When the discussion concerned affidavits and Mihelic was complaining that I had not provided contact information for the respective parties, Judge Adler said, “I find that hard to believe,” after I stated I did not have the requested contact information.  She said this without knowing any details about the affidavits whatsoever: that they were sent clear across the country, that they were composed by people I do not really know, and that they were provided by a third party.

Judge Adler tried to steamroll the hearing on my motion to alter judgment during the December 17, 2020, conference.  She only was ready and willing to address (and allow) Mihelic’s motion to compel and was perfectly happy to skip right over my motion and would have done so if I had not immediately interrupted the calling of the next matter.  During this hearing and as stated earlier, she did not respond to me when I firmly asked, “Are you reading anything I send you?”  Instead, I was met with dead silence.  Her failure to answer was undeniably a definitive answer.

Judge Adler said in one of the first few telephonic hearings that I had “an elite level of knowledge of the law” but has proceeded to ignore everything I have said or submitted nonetheless.  The statement is not true anyway.  What I have is an elite level of knowledge of the legal system.  There is a big difference.  I know how the world’s largest crime syndicate truly operates and am the leading expert on the topic.  I literally wrote the book on the subject and speak nationally about it.

Lies Told

Judge Adler lied to me in one of the telephonic conferences when she said, “This isn’t a criminal trial.  You don’t get a lawyer appointed to you,” or something very similar.  However, 28 U.S. Code § 1915(e)(1) says otherwise: “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”  Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court case Maness v. Meyers made clear that the appointing of counsel for low-income people in certain civil cases is not optional—but mandatory—and “that counsel must be appointed for any indigent witness, whether or not he is a party, in any proceeding in which his testimony can be compelled.”  Judge Adler had already compelled my testimony.

Judge Adler also lied to me in the March 18, 2021, telephonic conference when she said she was “first hearing of wrongdoing” by Mihelic.  This is completely false.  I informed her of wrongdoing during the hearing of January 14, 2021; in my petition for writ of mandamus filed on January 20, 2021; in my OBJECTION TO “PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY DEADLINES AS TO THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE” dated March 3, 2021; in my REPLY TO “UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE AND FOR SANCTIONS, AND REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES” dated March 4, 2021; and in many other court pleadings and related documents.

Judge Adler lied again in her tentative ruling on March 30, 2021.  She said that “evidence he attaches in support (an email chain) has been altered to make it appear that he offered deposition times beginning at 10:00 AM.”  Once again, this is entirely untrue.  I have the email sitting in my sent mail folder that proves it.  I did in fact offer times at 10am.  See attached proof on page 24.  What I did was copied and pasted evidence from two emails onto one page with regard to the “UST’s status report [ECF 74]” to which Judge Adler is referring—and which Mihelic previously submitted.  The Department of Injustice falsely accused me (yet again).  So, what we have here now is one of the criminals lying and the other swearing by it.  Judge Adler has lied many other times, but these are not included in order to keep this complaint as brief as possible.

Misprision of Felony

As stated previously, just as Mihelic was made fully aware of felonious acts committed by others, so was Judge Adler.  I submitted an open letter to the court on November 16, 2020, informing her of such acts.  See attached proof on page 37.  Since she has also concealed the felonies committed by others, she has violated criminal law 18 U.S. Code § 4 states too.

Concealing and Covering up Records in Bankruptcy

Judge Adler, as has Mihelic, has concealed or, at the very least, tried to conceal fraud and corruption by ignoring the open letter I submitted to the court on November 16, 2020, and all the records that reveal the true fraud and corruption in the underlying matter in Massachusetts.  See attached proof on page 37.  Thus, she has also broken criminal law 18 U.S. Code § 1519.

Memberships in Common

Mihelic and Judge Adler are both members of the following organizations.  See attached proof on pages 43 through 47.  It is virtually impossible that they have never met at any respective social functions and do not have some sort of interpersonal relationship.  This can certainly be viewed as a conflict of interest.  The list is not intended to be exhaustive:

·         Lawyers Club of San Diego

·         San Diego Bankruptcy Forum

·         National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges

·         International Women’s Insolvency and Restructuring Confederation

Not surprisingly, neither Judge Adler nor Mihelic are members of the American Constitution Society or Christian Legal Society.  Once again, it may not seem like a big deal, but, like a puzzle, all pieces connected together reveal much more than a single piece by itself.

Violations of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (hereinafter “the code”) are now described in the following subsections.

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

Section “A” of this part of the code clearly states, “Respect for Law.  A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” (emphasis added).  Because of Judge Adler’s overt bias in the instant case and because she has disregarded both federal statutory and case law and trampled the U.S. Constitution multiple times, she has obviously violated this canon.

Additionally, section “B” of this part of the code states, “Outside Influence.  A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.  A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge” (emphasis added).  Rest assured that unredacted phone records from March 1, 2020, to July 1, 2020, if they could be obtained, would reveal an outside influence.  Judge Adler is concealing the fact that she communicated with Michaud, probably within the first couple weeks of my bankruptcy filing, when he contacted her and asked her to block my bankruptcy as a favor to him.  I know a call was made and state this not only based on the evidence presented in the Violation of 28 U.S. Code § 1930 (f)(1) subsection above but also based on the evidence presented in statement number 10 on page 3.

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

This canon of the code mandates that “The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased” (emphasis added).  From the preceding in this complaint, it is quite clear this canon has been violated.  Subsection (A)(1) of this canon goes further: “A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law” (emphasis added).  Once again, from the preceding in this complaint, there is no question that this canon has been violated.

From subsection (A)(4): “A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.  Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers.  If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested” (emphasis added), it is evident this canon has been violated.

If the minutes of the phone conferences between Judge Adler and me are reviewed, it will become apparent that she has consistently shut me down and prevented me from making my claims and submitting evidence, which is contrary to this portion of the canon.  Regarding ex parte communication, it is a near certainty that this has happened between her and Michaud.

The wording of subsection (B)(6), “A judge should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s conduct contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct” (emphasis added), dictates that judges should act whenever information is given about a lawyer who violated rules of professional conduct.  During the phone conference of January 14, 2021, I informed her that Mihelic has repeatedly lied and perjured herself at least once.  Proof of her wrongdoings can be found not only previously in this complaint but also at  Judge Adler gave no indication that she would take any action and instead completely ignored what I said.

Under subsection (1) of section (C), Disqualification, the canon reads as follows: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned…”  And continues under subsection (a) of this subsection: “the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”  It is crystal clear that Judge Adler hates me because, of course, I hate injustice, yet she has made no effort to disqualify herself from the instant case.  Quite the opposite, she remains obstinate to relinquishing control and on March 23, 2021, denied my motion to recuse despite conclusive evidence of her flagrant bias.


I am fighting to stay financially afloat.  I earn less than 1/12 of what Mihelic and others involved in the instant case make.  She and Judge Adler are doing their very best to force me to live on the street, which I really do not want to do.  They are not concerned with justice and are trying their hardest to ignore all evidence of true fraud and corruption in the matter in order to protect their new friends in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.  Just because they refuse to acknowledge the fraud and corruption does not mean fraud and corruption do not exist—actually, Mihelic and judge Adler are active participants in both.  The evidence is overwhelming and crystal clear as can be seen at; in the open letter found at the third link provided in this complaint; on pages 32, 46, 51, 52, and 224-229 of Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor; and in many of the Massachusetts court records.

Everything I have done regarding the instant case has been pro se—not by choice but because no lawyer will take it.  There is just too much corruption, and system members like to pretend that corruption in their industry does not exist.  This is true particularly for lawyers since they view accepting such matters and acknowledging the corruption as biting the hand that feeds them.  The government has a team of several people working against me, but they still manage to reply tardily to my emails and file late.  I emailed a set of interrogatories and a request for production of documents to Mihelic on November 7, 2020.  A partial response arrived on January 3, 2021, nearly a month late.  On the other hand, I am a team of one, yet I manage to file everything timely or early.  Anything that I have not filed “timely” in the eyes of Mihelic or Judge Adler has been because of errors/misbehavior on their part.

The difference between me and any other party associated with the five or so cases related to the civil matter that initiated this whole saga, the civil case in the Taunton District Court in Massachusetts, is that I can prove 100% of everything that I am putting forth—not 75%, not 90%, not 99%—but 100%.  No other party associated with any of these cases will be able to prove 100% of their claims—not even close.

I am tired of Mihelic’s and Judge Adler’s lies, violations of the rules and law, and other transgressions.  Judge Adler has taken no action against Mihelic and, in fact, has not ruled against her once in ten rulings because they are friends.  They are illegally working in concert to steer my case in the direction they want it to go.  When things seem to be coincidences in the legal system, they are usually not.  To the contrary, they are usually well orchestrated.  As I get older, my tolerance for injustice and corruption wanes more and more, whether directed at me or anyone else.  If the decision was mine, Mihelic would be permanently disbarred, Judge Adler would be removed from the bench, and both would be significantly sanctioned monetarily, if not imprisoned.  Punishment for those entrusted with upholding the law should be more severe than that of the average person, not less severe as it is when administered directly by the system itself.

My bankruptcy case should have never gotten out of the starting blocks.  That is because the fraudulent judgment should have never been issued in Massachusetts in the first place.  However, it has.  Nonetheless, Mihelic should not have filed the adversary proceeding against me.  If she had any real interest in justice and was not part of the entire fraudulent scheme, she would have looked into the evidence I offered to provide as I stated in my email on May 13, 2020, and that I did provide in the third link in this complaint via the open letter to the court, which I also emailed her.  See attached proof on pages 36 and 37.

While this complaint is not being specifically brought for criminal allegations, Mihelic and Judge Adler have no doubt violated the U.S. criminal code.  The problem I have faced throughout my bankruptcy and even in prior related cases is that none of the entities responsible for the fraud, corruption, and crime are willing to investigate themselves or their sister organizations.

According to the U.S. Attorney with whom I spoke on January 11, 2021, crimes can only be prosecuted after evidence has been presented to a federal agency and that agency then submits a case to the attorney’s office.  However, the known crimes that have been committed after the filing of my bankruptcy petition—and some beforehand—fall within the purview of the Department of Injustice, which is the very organization responsible for some of the crimes, or the Federal Bureau of Iniquity, which is the very organization that refused to investigate the criminal complaint I filed back in July of 2017.

The evidence that fraud and corruption have spread from the originating case in Massachusetts into the instant case is indisputable.  I was aptly given fee waivers all four other times after filing my bankruptcy petition.  I was unjustly prevented access to records containing phone numbers and duration of calls both in a subpoena and in my request for production of documents.  At least seven pleadings related to preventing discharge have been filed by “creditors” I do not even know, but the only criminal/“creditor” I listed in my petition—and who fought me relentlessly and illegally in Massachusetts—has not made a single peep and has filed nothing whatsoever with the court.  If still not convinced, the icing on the cake is the fact that the government is fighting tooth and nail, although now in vain, to prevent me from coming before a jury in order to keep the fraud and corruption hidden.  They know that I will expose everything and that they will have no chance of winning if I do and as I have now evidently done with this complaint..

The courts have failed me.  The system has failed me.  The government has failed me.  None of them have shown any interest in justice or the desire to do the right thing.  I am asking you good people to do the right thing now and not sweep this travesty of justice under the rug like the system has done for well over a decade.  Please simply look at the evidence, which is as plain as day.  If you do, it will become apparent that the only way justice can be served is to punish Judge Adler and Mihelic—if not by bringing criminal charges against them then perhaps by recommending that they be removed from office or that they at least be suspended for a minimum of three to six months so that they can get a glimpse of what it is like to struggle as I have over the last several years.


Dated: April 21, 2021                                                          ________________________________

                                                                                                 Thomas Oliver


page 14




page 15



page 16



page 17



page 18



page 19



page 20



page 21




page 22




page 23



page 24



page 25



page 26



page 27



page 28



page 29



page 30



page 31



page 32



page 33



page 34



page 35



page 36



page 37



page 38



page 39



page 40



page 41



page 42



page 43



page 44



page 45



page 46



page 47