Kristin Tavia Mihelic (hereinafter “Mihelic”) has filed a baseless complaint (case no.: 20-90093) 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 (hereinafter “Michaud”), a former attorney in Massachusetts who has recently been appointed judge, although he belongs in prison with Mihelic and others.  An open letter along with indisputable evidence regarding the rules and laws he and his ilk have violated can be found here:  I’ve been victimized by the system too many times to count and have had enough.  As a duty to the Framers, somebody has to put a stop to the legal system’s slide down the rabbit hole. 


According to the State Bar of California, the following rules are in effect and have been violated by Mihelic:

Rule 3.4(b) A lawyer shall not suppress any evidence that the lawyer or the lawyer’s client has a legal obligation.

By withholding communication records as explained in numbers 5 and 10 under Rule 4.1(a) violations described below, Mihelic has deliberately withheld important evidence in the case.

Rule 3.7(a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate in a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness.

I have already named Mihelic as a witness in my pleadings for the obvious reason of being able to reveal her lies and to impeach her.  She should not be pursuing the case and representing the government.

Rule 3.10(a) A lawyer shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.

On December 18, 2020, I sent an email informing Mihelic that “if you continue on your present course, I will have no choice but to file a complaint [against] you.”  In her reply that same day, she said, “I encourage you to file any complaint that you feel you are entitled to file.  However, threats against me personally or against my property might constitute a crime,” when I had never threatened her or her property in any way, but instead said that I was going to guarantee that I would file complaints. I have now done so with the State Bar of California, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Office of Professional Responsibility. I also said that I would do something related to her property—like leave negative reviews online, indicate on those same websites that she is dishonest and can’t be trusted, and other such things.

Rule 4.1(a) In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person.

Mihelic has spewed the following lies that I’ve counted thus far, which are not intended to comprise an exhaustive list:

1.    In schedule F of my chapter 7 filing, I did not list “one creditor for $32,000” as she falsely states.  I listed the amount at $32,913.30, which may or may not have been artificially inflated since the time the judgment that gave rise to it was illegally issued.

2.   I did not state that I “[earn] money by collecting rents of behalf of [my] mother” as she falsely states.  I did state during a 341 meeting that I manage property as a professional property manager.  There’s 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.

4.      In her complaint, Mihelic said I transferred property in Rhode Island “for no consideration.”  This untruth can easily be verified.

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 for 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. 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. By blocking me, which I fully expected to happen, the proverbial smoking gun was exposed. The fact that such records exist is not protected, which she knows full well. From United States of America v. Susan L. Jackson: “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.’).” 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.

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 FRBP 7029.

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

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 hearings and other specific instances, not during discovery.  See U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California Local Bankruptcy Rules 3015-7 and 7026-2.  Furthermore, here in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Chief Judge Order number 18-A went into effect on March 23, 2020.  Paragraph 4B, which suspended in-person proceedings, states, “In civil cases, the personal appearance of counsel, parties, witnesses, or other non-court personnel at proceedings, hearings, or conferences is excused.”  The order has been renewed several times, once as recently as February 2, 2021.

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.

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 copied 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.”

His statement is further proof 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.

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 chapter 7 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 who 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 first 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).

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.

13.  She also clearly crosses the line when she says in that motion, “Defendant has provided only a general denial at best.”  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.

I have essentially been shouting from the rooftops since I first filed my petition 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.  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.

Rule 8.4(c) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation.

From the foregoing, it is obvious that this rule has been violated.  It is also clear from the fact that Mihelic has repeatedly denied—or, at the very least, failed to investigate—the existence of fraud and corruption related to the fraudulent Massachusetts court judgment underlying my chapter 7 filing, which is in itself a form of fraud or deceit for which she is fully responsible.

Rule 8.4(d) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

From the foregoing, it is obvious that this rule has been violated.  Mihelic has broken additional laws.  Some are defined in California state law, and others are defined in the United States Code.  These remaining violations follow.

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 11 U.S. Code § 727.  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, at the very least, 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.  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.

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.  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 mountains of documents that reveal the true fraud and corruption in the underlying matter in Massachusetts.  She has clearly broken this law.

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.  18 U.S. Code § 1341 addresses “any scheme or artifice to defraud,” which Mihelic has done.  18 U.S. Code § 1349 concerns conspiracy to commit fraud.  If she is involved with Michaud or any others in perpetuating this whole charade, then she has violated this criminal law.

As stated under rule Rule 8.4(c) above, 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 fully responsible.  I not only told her during 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.  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.  In one example, the U.S. Supreme Court rightfully opined in Heiser v. Woodruff, “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).  Mihelic’s refusal to acknowledge the underlying fraudulent judgment makes apparent that she knows she is pursuing an unsubstantiated complaint.  She is most probably also guilty of crimes other than those listed here.

Concealment of Assets; False Oaths and Claims; Bribery

18 U.S. Code § 152 specifically says in provisions two and three,

A person who—

(2) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11;

(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11;

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


These provisions were violated when Mihelic perjured herself, when she performed the acts proved in number 20 in the Lies Told subsection above, and at other times.

Bankruptcy Investigations

18 U.S. Code § 3057 specifically says in subsection (a),

“Any judge, receiver, or trustee having reasonable grounds for believing that any violation under chapter 9 of this title or other laws of the United States relating to insolvent debtors, receiverships or reorganization plans has been committed, or that an investigation should be had in connection therewith, shall report to the appropriate United States attorney all the facts and circumstances of the case, the names of the witnesses and the offense or offenses believed to have been committed. Where one of such officers has made such report, the others need not do so.”


This subsection was violated when Mihelic refused to investigate the underlying crimes that gave rise to the bankruptcy as explained throughout this complaint and specifically in numbers 10 and 13 in the Lies Told subsection above.


I am fighting to stay financially afloat.  I earn less than 1/12 of what Mihelic and others involved in the matter make.  She is doing her very best to force me to live on the street, which I really don’t want to do.  She is not concerned with justice and is trying her hardest to ignore all the evidence of true fraud and corruption in the case in order to protect her new friends back East.  Just because she refuses to acknowledge the fraud and corruption doesn’t mean they don’t exist—actually, she is an active participant in both.  The evidence is overwhelming and crystal clear as can be seen in the first link provided in this complaint, at, and in many of the Massachusetts court records.  Alternatively, she’s fully interested in helping her aforementioned friends with whom she certainly has communicated.  I know this happened because of evidence related to lies number 5 and 10 listed under Rule 4.1(a) violations described above.

Keep in mind I’m pursing this matter pro se—not by choice but because no lawyer will take it.  There’s just too much corruption.  The DOI has an entire team working against me in this case, and they still manage to reply tardily to my emails and file late.  I sent a set of interrogatories and a request for production of documents to Mihelic on November 7, 2020.  As of today, December 23, 2020, responses have not been received and are now sixteen days overdue.  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 the court has been because of errors/misbehavior on their part.

Finally, I’m tired of Mihelic’s lies, violations of the rules and law, and other transgressions.  The judge is taking no action against her and, in fact, has not ruled against her once in about ten contested motions because they are friends.  They are illegally working in concert to steer this case in the direction they want it to go.  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, if not imprisoned.  Punishment for those entrusted with upholding the law should be more severe than that of the average person, not less severe.  It would be great if Mihelic lost her job (and the judge too), but based on my experience nationwide, that’s not going to happen.  Too many oversight boards are effectively “the fox being in charge of the henhouse.”  At a minimum, she should be suspended for at least three to six months so that she can get a glimpse of what it’s like to struggle as I have over the last several years.