The following is the first installment of this series, which recounts what many people who have not (yet) experienced our wonderful legal system will find totally unbelievable.  It is a portion of a criminal complaint that I've tried to put in front of the special grand jury.  The person I'm writing about in this particular segment, Kristin Tavia Mihelic, is an attorney for the Department of Injustice.  I’ve said this many, many times: after what I’ve been through with the world’s largest crime syndicate, absolutely nothing it does surprises me anymore.  Rest assured that what is posted below and what will be posted in this blog in the coming months is not the script for a Hollywood fantasy movie.  It is a 100-percent-true accounting of what has happened in just one of my experiences in the contraption we call our “justice” system.  I cannot urge you strongly enough to protect yourself now by getting a copy of our book, reading it cover to cover, and then sharing it with everyone you cherish.  As far as I know, it is the only such book in existence.  Read onward, but fasten your seatbelts first.  It's going to be quite a bumpy ride.....


According to 18 U.S. Code § 3332 (a), “It shall be the duty of each such grand jury impaneled within any judicial district to inquire into offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district.  Such alleged offenses may be brought to the attention of the grand jury by the court or by any attorney appearing on behalf of the United States for the presentation of evidence.  Any such attorney receiving information concerning such an alleged offense from any other person shall, if requested by such other person, inform the grand jury of such alleged offense, the identity of such other person, and such attorney’s action or recommendation” (emphasis added).


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 will provide to this jury is rock-solid.


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—coauthor of the top-rated book in its class, Stack the Legal Odds in Your Favor (https://www.amazon.com/Stack-Legal-Odds-Your-Favor/dp/0996592903), 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.



The legal system is brimming with criminal activity.  Individuals involved in the case that gave rise to my bankruptcy are part of it.  Judge Adler is part of it.  Mihelic is part of it.  And it is likely that several others are part of it.

My Bankruptcy Is 100 Percent the Legal System’s Fault

The whole reason I filed bankruptcy is that a fraudulent judgment was issued against me and I needed the court to use its equity powers to right a breathtaking injustice by setting aside the fraudulent judgment—not to put the fire out with gasoline.....once again.  In essence, the chapter 7 petition was filed precisely because of wrongdoing and criminal acts by members of the system; it is 100 percent the legal system’s fault!


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: http://www.stloiyf.com/evidence/letter.htm.

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:
    • finding suitable tenants (entails: rental listing, interview, credit check, etc.)
    • writing and signing leases
    • contacting repair personnel when necessary
    • paying condo fees, taxes, repair bills, insurance, and other costs
    • coordinating move-out of current tenants and move-in of new tenants when needed
    • conducting walk-throughs at lease end for both outgoing and incoming tenants
    • arranging viewings for prospective tenants
    • handling disputes with the property management company
    • ensuring inspections are done whenever required
    • 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 page 25, page 26, page 27, page 28, page 29, and page 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 someone who has the same name.  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.  Particularly of note with regard to Mihelic lying that she did not communicate with Michaud are the 341 meetings.  When they were being held, I noticed that no other petitioners were being questioned by U.S. government trial attorneys.  The only petitioner for whom two people were present—a private trustee and a government trial attorney for the U.S. trustee—and questioning was me.  Afterward, I emailed the private trustee, Mr. Gerald Davis, and asked, “How often does a trial attorney from the government attend the 341 meetings?”

He confirmed my suspicion by effectively saying it almost never happens when he replied, “Not very often.”  In fact, I emailed other private trustees in different regions and asked the same question, and they didn’t even respond—apparently thinking the question I asked was so alien that it didn’t deserve a reply.  Mr. Davis’s demeanor was diametrically opposed to Mihelic’s, which became evident at the conclusion of the 341 meetings.  Mr. Davis was clearly ready to discharge the matter.  I can virtually guarantee he would have done so.  So, why would someone like him, who is far senior regarding the bankruptcy experience of Mihelic, have a completely different view of what the outcome should be?  The answer is that he didn’t get the call; someone at the Department of Injustice did.  He wasn’t apprised of the game plan ahead of time, i.e., he didn’t “get the memo.”

If still not convinced that Mihelic had been contacted by Michaud, conspired with him to block the discharge, and then lied about it, consider the following.  After well over a year of filing complaints with the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of “Professional” Responsibility, which in December 2020 I began doing occasionally but now do daily, I finally received an electronic letter in February 2022 from the OIG.  It stated, “This Office’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct by a private trustee is very limited.....We have forwarded your correspondence.....Of course, if you have information that involves.....allegations or issues regarding DOJ employees.....please feel free to submit that information to us.”

The OIG’s assumption that my complaint was filed against a private trustee and not the U.S. trustee’s counsel is telling.  It is so incredibly rare for such an attorney to attend 341 meetings that the OIG automatically assumed my complaint was against the private trustee even though I have always included Mihelic’s name and government email address on the online form.  With respect to the stacks of evidence provided already, it is abundantly clear that Michaud contacted Mihelic, committed more crimes, and interfered with justice.....and Mihelic and other government personnel followed suit.