For the Federal Grand Jury for the Southern District of California

In re Matters in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California



Kristin Tavia Mihelic

Louise DeCarl Adler


[contact information redacted]



January 28, 2021




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—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, Mihelic, and others.

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 either as a favor to Joseph Leonard Michaud—a former attorney in Massachusetts who has recently been appointed judge, although he belongs in prison—or because he bribed her.  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, 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.”  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 on 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. 

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 Harold 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 Fay 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 proof that Attorney 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 or because he bribed her.  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 document after document 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 take care of this.”  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 all her documents, 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 irrefutable physical record of them and limit the damage I can do to her in court papers 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 two people—a private trustee and a government trial attorney for the U.S. trustee—were 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.

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 one of the complaints 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.


Perjury is governed by 18 U.S. Code § 1623 and generally by 18 U.S. Code § 1621, both of which are relevant to this matter.  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 also guilty of other crimes, some of which are proved in the following subsections, 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.

Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy

18 U.S. Code § 1519 says in part, “Whoever knowingly.....conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, 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 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.  She has also falsified many records.  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, because of the false answer(s) she gave in her response to my request for production of documents as previously stated, and because every single known document she has filed with the court has contained materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements.  Section 1018 of this same title was also violated for the foregoing latter reason.  It says, “Whoever, being a public officer or other person authorized by any law of the United States to make or give a certificate or other writing, knowingly makes and delivers as true such a certificate or writing, containing any statement which he knows to be false, in a case where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere expressly provided by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”  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 and most likely 18 U.S. Code § 241 as have the others involved.

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 report to a U.S. attorney 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.


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.  All I ask when I go into any court in this country is that members of the system follow their own rules and laws.  I have been before no fewer than seventy judges in my life and can count the times on one hand that they have.


Undoubtedly, Judge Adler has violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judge, rules of court, civil and criminal statutory law, stare decisis, and the U.S. Constitution.  The violations are proved in the following subsections.

Violation 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 eight other times, and all eight 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.  The obvious reason why I was blocked from filing without paying the filing fee when the fee was waived in all eight other instances is that she (and Mihelic) received a phone call from former attorney, and now judge, Joseph Leonard Michaud asking the court to deny my petition.

Not Abiding by Stare Decisis with Respect to Information Not Protected 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 Adler 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 confirms that she doesn’t.

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 its 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 ruling 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.”

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.  I informed her many times verbally and in court filings of Mihelic’s two known counts of perjury, upon which she failed to act.  Since she has also concealed the felonies committed by others—who now include Mihelic—she has violated criminal law 18 U.S. Code § 4 too and has been an accessory after the fact.

Destruction, Alteration, or Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations and 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.

Bankruptcy Investigations

Judge Adler, as has Mihelic, has violated 18 U.S. Code § 3057, the law associated with this subsection, because she refused to report to a U.S. attorney the same underlying matters that Mihelic failed to report and then compounded the violation by refusing to report Mihelic for her misconduct and crimes.


The crimes that have been committed here in California are no different from the ones committed in Massachusetts: perjury, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, obstruction of justice, falsifying evidence and records.  Nothing has changed; the song remains the same.  Decades ago, one would have to go through ten judges to get one bad one.  Today, one has to go through ten judges to get one good one.  I am roughly on my eighteenth judge since this case really began back in 2002, so I am long overdue for that one good one.

Not surprisingly, Mihelic keeps saying, “Look at the court record.”  Of course that’s what she is going to say.  She effectively wrote/engineered the (corrupt) court record as explained in the Conflicts of Interest subsection below.  I’m saying, “No!  Look at the evidence instead, which nobody has done yet anywhere in the nation.”  It has become plainly apparent that there are two sets of rules: rules for people that the system likes and rules for people that the system doesn’t like.

Ignores Everything I Submit

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.

During the hearing on June 24, 2021, and after the lies in the court record and by Mihelic had been accepted as true—or just simply accepted—and after Mihelic stated that I filed a motion to dismiss, Judge Adler said, “I see you’ve been busy writing another motion.”  The translation is: “I’m not going to read this one either, but it is just another nuisance that we have to put up with.”

Judge Adler said in one of the first few telephonic hearings that I had “an elite level of knowledge of the law” and asked if I was an attorney, but she 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.

Conflicts of Interest

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.  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.

Regarding every phone conference associated with my bankruptcy in which I’ve ever participated, without exception, the judge asks someone else to write the court order whenever one needs to be created.  In my case, it’s always Mihelic whom she asks.  She is letting the Department of Injustice be judge, jury, and executioner by having its personnel write the court’s orders.  The evidence strongly indicates that Mihelic secretly wrote—even when not directed to do so by Adler—many, if not all, the orders and rulings as is obvious by the plethora of lies they contain, which is Mihelic’s trademark signature.  Adler simply proceeded to rubber-stamp everything Mihelic submitted.  It is bad enough having an opposing party write a court order since doing so is clearly a conflict of interest, but having a government attorney who I proved has lied well in excess of thirty times and perjured herself at least twice in just this single bankruptcy matter do it is about as massive a conflict of interest imaginable anywhere on Earth.  In everything Mihelic has written—both her own pleadings and court orders and rulings—she has consistently omitted things that are true and adding things that are false.  Basically, a criminal is creating the court record and another one is blessing it, and then the first criminal points to the court record that she created to support even more lies.  If this is not jaw-dropping to whoever reads this, then I don’t know what is.

Words Omitted in Court Orders and Other Documents

Several documents and court orders had words omitted from them.  An example of one such document is the order entered on March 29, 2021.  The wording in this order is written with the phrase “and of any other communication from or to him” omitted in an attempt to conceal the crime of perjury described in number 10 above.  The order says “[t]here is no evidence.”  There’s plenty of evidence; it’s just that some evidence is being hidden and/or ignored by the system.  Another example relates to the court orders of April 2, 2021, and June 21, 2021.  Notice that the latter order conveniently leaves out the quoted wording “The deposition to be held virtual.”  Furthermore, neither one requires either party to be physically present at the court reporter’s office for the deposition.  By leaving out the important wording, the order tries to make it appear that only Mihelic was supposed to attend virtually.  This differs significiantly from an order issued months earlier requiring physical appearance; however, that particular order was in conflict with another judicial order (Chief Judge Order number 18-A) that was in effect for the entire judicial district and overruled the local order by prohibiting in-person court events.  Omissions in these two instances are merely examples; there are many others.

Keep in mind that the words in the court orders and rulings aren’t Judge Adler’s own words.  They are really the words of Mihelic.  But blame cannot be shifted away from Adler simply because Mihelic left out key words and added falsities—she lied—in her documents and the court orders and rulings that she essentially wrote.  It is the judge’s responsibility to either write her own orders and rulings or actually look at the evidence to verify whatever has been written by members of the Department of Injustice.  Turning a blind eye to all of this is no excuse, especially when I’ve repeatedly told the judge about the misconduct and criminal acts of Mihelic.  In order to make things fit her narrative, Mihelic blatantly and wantonly falsified elements in the record and in other documents when it suited her to do so.....and Adler went along for the ride.

Blatant Bias

Judge Adler is heavily, Heavily, HEAVILY biased.  She 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.

•  Yet another was made during the hearing on April 1, 2021.  Judge Adler asked Mihelic: “What will you need to be ready for trial?”  She did not ask me the same question.  Apparently, it is only important that Mihelic has whatever she deems necessary to be ready for trial and win the case—not that justice is served.  This is disturbing.

Judge Adler also granted every known oral motion from Mihelic but denied every single verbal motion and opposition from me—and there are many.  All entries in the court record that state Mihelic’s motions were “unopposed” are incorrect.  The court took its time to allow me to file electronically.  I did not oppose Mihelic in writing because I could not afford the added expense of printing and filing by U.S. mail, but I tried to state my positions verbally.  Judge Adler prevented it.  But she sure allowed Mihelic to present oral motions on several occasions.  Here are two examples.  Finally, Mihelic has asked for at least six or seven extensions thus far, which is beyond outrageous—and even more outrageous for the court to grant them all.

Lies Told

Judge Adler 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 to me in another telephonic conference when she said, “This isn’t a criminal matter.  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. 

Regarding the above federal law, Judge Adler also lied in her tentative ruling of March 29, 2021, when she said, “Sec. 1951(e)(1) [sic] is not relevant here as it relates only to prisoners.”  In this same ruling, she also lied about me not communicating with Mihelic.  Yet again in this same ruling, Judge Adler lied about the date I filed my Motion to Compel Disclosure and for Sanctions.

The lies continue unabated in the same tentative ruling—one peppered with at least ten lies.  Mind you, this is just one of many rulings and orders.  Judge Adler 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.”  She also repeated the lie but in a different way when she said that Defendant “stated he was only available from 7:00PM through 10:00 PM.”  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.  Additional lies in this one ruling can be found here, here, here, here, and here.  Judge Adler, Mihelic, and whoever else is responsible for the preceding ruling have clearly violated federal criminal laws 18 U.S. Code § 1001, 18 U.S. Code § 1018, 18 U.S. Code § 1519—and other criminal statutes—with one felony carrying a maximum 20-year prison sentence.  Judge Adler has lied many other times, but these are not included in order to keep this complaint as brief as possible.

Unlikely Mathematical Odds

Perhaps the most striking evidence against Judge Adler is that she has ruled at least twenty-two consecutive times against me whenever Mihelic has opposed me.  Odds of this purely happening by chance and without bias or external influence are 1 in 4,194,304, or less than 0.00002 percent.  Incidentally, all told since the beginning of the civil case in Massachusetts, the world’s largest crime syndicate has ruled against me sixty-one consecutive times whenever I have been opposed or have filed an initial pleading with the court.  Odds now become 1 in 2,305,843,009,213,693,952.  The chance of hitting Powerball is 7,891,281,488 times greater since the odds of winning that particular lottery are only 1 in 292,201,338.

Conclusions of Law Based Solely on False Claims by Mihelic

Judge Adler repeatedly relied on false information from Mihelic to make rulings and issue orders.  In effect, she has made conclusions of law based on Mihelic’s lies.  One such example concerns a ruling entered on April 29, 2021.  This is just one example.

Predetermining the Outcome of the Case without Evidence

Similar to WWE, Judge Adler has played the role of Vince McMahon in predetermining the outcome of my case.  She did this by ignoring facts and evidence and relied solely on lies from Mihelic to prevent my discharge and quite likely received a phone call from Michaud.  I knew nearly a year ago exactly where this case was going based upon the extreme level of fraud and corruption manifesting itself once again.

Mihelic’s Misconduct and Criminal Acts Not Only Condoned.....but Me Chastised for Bringing Them to Light

The evidence I’ve presented in the case thus far, including this complaint, the court record, and elsewhere, reveals Judge Adler’s cavalier attitude towards misconduct and criminal acts—offenses that are perfectly fine if the offender is on the “right team.”  She simply doesn’t want to hear about any wrongdoing by government personnel, although she is quick to charge me falsely every chance she gets.  This alone is more than sufficient to sanction the judge, if not mandate suspension and/or immediate removal from the bench.  Perhaps best illustrating Adler’s detestable attitude towards me is my favorite quote by Doctor Ron Paul: “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”


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 canon 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 canon 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 or because he bribed her.  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 in this complaint specifically against her.  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, including but not limited to instances in which:” 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 and furthermore has wrongly denied my motion for recusal.


I am fighting to stay financially afloat and hanging by the thinnest of threads.  I earn less than 1/12 of what Mihelic and Judge Adler make.  They are doing their very best to force me to live on the street, which I 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 regarding my bankruptcy and its predecessor, a civil case in the Taunton District Court in Massachusetts, in order to protect their new friends in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.  Just because they refuse to acknowledge fraud, corruption, and crime does not mean fraud, corruption, and crime do not exist.  In fact, they are active participants in all such wrongdoing.  The evidence is overwhelming and crystal clear as can be seen in this post about corruption in Massachusetts courts; 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; in many of the Massachusetts court records; and in the evidence and pleadings I have submitted to the bankruptcy court, some of which have been provided as part of this complaint.

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 percent of everything that I am putting forth—not 75 percent, not 90 percent, not 99 percent—but 100 percent.  No other party associated with any of these cases will be able to prove 100 percent 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 twenty-two rulings because they are friends.  They illegally worked in concert to steer their adversarial proceeding in my bankruptcy in the direction they wanted 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.  Punishment for those entrusted with upholding the law should be more severe than that of the average person, not less severe (or non-existent) 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 or Judge Adler had any real interest in justice and was not part of the entire fraudulent scheme, both 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.  See attached proof on pages 36 and 37.

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 eight 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.

Judge Adler has violated the U.S. criminal code and is responsible for a mountain of misconduct.  The problem I’ve 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.  Today’s American legal system can’t possibly consist entirely of criminals—there’s no way.  There has to be at least some small fragment of individuals with morals remaining.  I am hopeful of this but not certain.  I am hopeful because I have better things to do than fight the world’s largest crime syndicate all day long.  I’ve spent well over 8,000 hours of my life doing it.

The courts have failed me.  The system has failed me.  The government has failed me.  None of these entities have shown any interest in justice or the desire to do the right thing.  I am asking you good people of the jury 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, and act according to it.  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 one year so that they can get a glimpse of what it is like to struggle as I have over the last several years.  Judge Adler—truly a criminal in a black gown—should be significantly sanctioned monetarily along with Mihelic.  Adler should be removed from the bench and Mihelic should be fired from her position, if not both thrown in prison where they belong.


Dated: January 28, 2021

Thomas Oliver

page 14



[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 15


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 16


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 17


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 18


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 19


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 20


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 21



[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 22


[return]evidence of wrongdoing


evidence of wrongdoing

page 23


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 24


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 25


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 26


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 27


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 28


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 29


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 30


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 31


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 32


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 33


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 34


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 35


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 36


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 37


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 38


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 39


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 40


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 41


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 42


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 43


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 44


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 45


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 46


[return]evidence of wrongdoing

page 47

Don't forget to share via the social buttons.