Sunday, January 22, 2012
Here are some points highlighted from the bankruptcy filing against bernie:
52. Debtor was also asked a series of questions regarding his interest in a
number of the undisclosed accounts with Edward Jones, including accounts in his name
(the First Personal Account and Second Personal Account) and in the names of various
family members and entities (including the King Street Account), all of which he refused to answer due to his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege.
53. Debtor was also asked to admit that it is a fact that he transferred funds from
his First Personal Account and Second Personal Account with the intent to hinder, delay, or
defraud his creditors, which he refused to answer due to the invocation of his Fifth
Amendment privilege.
58. Because Debtor invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to
questions at his examination/deposition concerning his intent to hinder, delay, or defraud
creditors of the estate by and through the First Personal Account Transfer and Second
Personal Account Transfer, the Court may draw an adverse inference and take Debtor’s
refusal to answer such questions as an admission that the First Personal Account Transfer
and Second Personal Account Transfer were made by the Debtor with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors of the estate.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Bernie and Christine Seidling (Husband and Wife?)
Here are a couple of points taken from bernie's bankruptcy case:
44. Although Debtor states in Amended Schedule B that that Christine A. Seidling (“Christine”) is his “former” spouse and in Amended Schedule I that he is divorced, the Edward Jones Individual Retirement Account, Adoption Agreement and Beneficiary Designation signed by the Debtor under penalty of perjury on April 27, 2010 (the “Beneficiary Designation”, lists Christine as his spouse, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “K”.
51. Debtor was also asked to admit with respect to Christine, his putative ex-wife and co-defendant in the Adversary Action, that:
a. the divorce between he and his wife was a sham designed to defraud creditors; and b. that he resides with his putative ex-wife at a residence located at 152 N. Indies Drive, Marathon, Florida.
noun, plural -ries. Law .
the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry.
rverb (used with object)
1.
to cheat (a person, business, etc.) out of money or other assets.
2.
to obtain by fraud or deceit.verb (used without object)
3.
to put forward plausible schemes or use unscrupulous trickery to defraud others; cheat.noun
4.
an act of swindling or a fraudulent transaction or scheme.
5.
anything deceptive; a fraud: This advertisement is a real swindle.
Origin:
1775–85; back formation from swindler < German Schwindler irresponsible person, promoter of wildcat schemes, cheat,derivative of schwindeln to be dizzy (hence dizzy-minded,irresponsible), defraud, equivalent to schwind- (akin to OldEnglish swindan to languish) + -( e ) l- -le + -er -er1
Related formsswin·dle·a·ble, adjective
swin·dler, noun
swin·dling·ly, adverb
out·swin·dle, verb (used with object), -dled, -dling.
Synonyms
1. cozen, dupe, trick, gull.
Charged with 50 counts of Federal Mail Fraud
Eau Claire (WQOW) - An Eau Claire man accused of abusing the court system, is now charged with 50 counts of federal mail fraud.
Prosecutors say Bernard Seidling would file false small claims lawsuits against people. As part of the scheme, they say he told the judge he could not serve the complaint on the people he was suing, but never told the judge it was because he had given the court fake addresses. When the people being sued failed to show up for court, the judge would rule in Seidling's favor, which meant the defendants would have to pay up. Prosecutors say he did this to fifteen people, using the U.S. Postal Service as part of the scheme. Seidling could face up to twenty years in prison on each of the 50 counts of mail fraud.****************
Eau Claire (Press Release from the U.S. Department of Justice) - Bernard C. Seidling, 60, Eau Claire, Wis., is charged with 50 counts of mail fraud. The indictment alleges that from 2003 through 2009, Seidling engaged in a fraud scheme in which he used the Wisconsin court system to obtain small claims judgments against individuals and corporations based on false representations in lawsuits he filed. The indictment alleges that in the execution of this scheme, he caused mail matter to be delivered by the U.S. Postal Service which contained fraudulent small claims case documents.The indictment alleges that Seidling filed suits in Wisconsin small claims courts against individuals and corporations which contained false representations and usually claimed the maximum allowed amount of $5,000. It further alleges that he attempted to hide the filings of these lawsuits from the defendants (the victims of his scheme) named in them, and to obtain default judgments by falsifying the victims' addresses and falsifying in court documents facts regarding attempts to serve the victims.The indictment further alleges that the fraudulently obtained default judgments were filed by Seidling in the county where the victims actually lived or owned property, and he used them to attempt to file wage garnishments against the victims and judgment executions against victims' property.If convicted, Seidling faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each count charged. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Sheriffs' Departments of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Dane, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Jackson, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer and Washburn Counties; and Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation. The prosecution of this case will be handled by United States Attorney John W. Vaudreuil.
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 10-14-2009
Case Style: Bernard Seidling, d/b/a Raintree Enterprises v. Dori L. Stepan
Case Number: 2007CV358
Judge:
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals on appeal from the Circuit Court for Douglas County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Dori Stepan appeals a judgment granting her request to rescind a land contract with Bernard Seidling and returning the money Stepan paid on the contract minus a setoff for her possession and use of the property. She argues: (1) she was entitled to a jury trial; (2) she is entitled to attorney fees under Wis. Stat. § 100.18[1] (false advertising); and (3) the court erred when it offset her damages by the value of her use of the property.[2] We conclude the trial court properly denied Stepan a jury trial and attorney fees, but we reverse the setoff and remand the matter for the trial court to award Stepan the return of all of the money she paid on the contract. ¶2 Seidling and Stepan entered into a contract conveying a house, garage and several acres of land to Stepan. The contract required Stepan to pay $9,000 down and $990 monthly until the obligation was fulfilled. After making several payments and improvements to the property, Stepan stopped making payments. She never moved into the house. ¶3 Seidling brought a small claims eviction action that was amended to a foreclosure action after trial on the eviction commenced. Stepan counterclaimed for rescission and false advertising under Wis. Stat. § 100.18. At an initial status conference, the court considered whether Seidling’s claim should proceed as an eviction or foreclosure action. The court determined it would proceed with the eviction claim and set a trial date. At the eviction trial, the court terminated the proceedings because it determined Seidling’s proper claim was foreclosure, not eviction. Shortly after the aborted trial, Stepan requested a jury trial, which the court denied. ¶4 Following a bench trial, the court found overwhelming evidence that Seidling materially breached the real estate contract for misrepresentations including not having clear title to the property. The court granted rescission and held the contract void and indicated it would place the parties in the same position had no contract been entered. It awarded Stepan $20,735 for her payments and improvements. The court offset that amount by $19,305, the amount it found Stepan benefitted from having exclusive use of the property. The $19,305 amount is based on $990 per month multiplied by the nineteen and one-half months the contract was in effect. ¶5 Stepan was not entitled to a jury trial for two reasons. First, a demand for a jury trial must be made at or before the scheduling conference or pretrial conference, whichever is held first. Wis. Stat. § 805.01(2). Stepan contends the initial status conference did not constitute a scheduling conference because the court did not issue a formal scheduling order. We conclude the initial conference was a pretrial conference under Wis. Stat. § 802.10(5) because the court considered formulation of the issues and scheduled trial. By failing to request a jury trial at the status conference, Stepan waived her right to trial by jury. ¶6 Second, the claims and counterclaims presented in this case do not include entitlement to a jury trial. Foreclosure and rescission claims are equitable actions tried to the court. Norwest Bank Wis. Eau Claire, N.A. v. Plourde, 185 Wis. 2d 377, 386, 518 N.W.2d 265 (Ct. App. 1994). Stepan was not entitled to a jury trial on her false advertising claim. When a statute is silent with regard to the right to a jury trial, no jury trial is required unless the right is preserved by the Wis. Const. art. I, § 5. Harvot v. Solo Cup Co., 2009 WI 85 ¶47, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 768 N.W.2d 176. Wisconsin Stat. § 100.18 does not provide for a jury trial, and the right to a jury trial for false advertising is not protected by the Wisconsin Constitution. See State v. Ameritech Corp., 185 Wis. 2d 686, 698, 517 N.W.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1994). ¶7 Stepan is also not entitled to attorney fees under Wis. Stat. § 100.18. The entitlement to attorney fees does not apply in an action against a real estate broker or salesperson while the person is engaged in real estate practice. See Wis. Stat. § 100.18(11)(b)2. Because Seidling was a licensed real estate agent engaged in real estate practice at the time of this transaction, Stepan is not entitled to attorney fees. ¶8 We reverse the setoff of Stepan’s damages for two reasons. First, Stepan correctly notes that Seidling presented no evidence of the rental value of the property or other evidence to justify the setoff. By failing to respond to the argument, Seidling concedes the issue. See Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1997). Second, the setoff does not restore the parties to the position they would have occupied had no contract been entered. In effect, the court awarded Seidling the periodic payments due on the rescinded contract. The payments due under the voided contract are not necessarily identical to the value of possession. Therefore, on remand, the court shall amend the judgment to remove the setoff. * * * See: http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=42147
Outcome: Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part and cause remanded with directions. No costs on appeal.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION AND LICENSING ISSUES ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INJUNCTION INVOLVING BERNARD SEIDLING
August 8, 2006 | Copyright
The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing issued the following orders:
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE INJUNCTION INVOLVING BERNARD SEIDLING
RESPONDENT
FINAL DECISION AND ORDERCase No. LS 0509191 UNL
Division of Enforcement Case Nos. 04 UNL 098 and 05 UNL 080
The parties to this action for the purposes of Wis. Stat. Sect. 227.53 are:
Bernard Seidling132 N. Indies DriveMarathon, FL 33050
Division of EnforcementDepartment of Regulation and Licensing1400 East Washington AvenueP.O. Box 8935Madison, WI 53708-8935
Department of Regulation & Licensing1400 East Washington AvenueP.O. Box 8935Madison, WI …
PRESS RELEASE: Federal Grand Jury Returns Indictments on Eau Claire Man, Bernard C. Seidling for Mail Fraud and with Illegal Re-Entry into U.S.
U.S. Attorney’s Office November 09, 2011
Western District of Wisconsin (608) 264–5158
Federal Grand Jury Returns Indictments
MADISON, WI—A federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting in Madison, returned the following indictments today. You are advised that a charge is merely an accusation and that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
Eau Claire Man Charged with Mail Fraud
Bernard C. Seidling, 60, Eau Claire, Wis., is charged with 50 counts of mail fraud. The indictment alleges that from 2003 through 2009, Seidling engaged in a fraud scheme in which he used the Wisconsin court system to obtain small claims judgments against individuals and corporations based on false representations in lawsuits he filed. The indictment alleges that in the execution of this scheme, he caused mail matter to be delivered by the U.S. Postal Service which contained fraudulent small claims case documents.
The indictment alleges that Seidling filed suits in Wisconsin small claims courts against individuals and corporations which contained false representations and usually claimed the maximum allowed amount of $5,000. It further alleges that he attempted to hide the filings of these lawsuits from the defendants (the victims of his scheme) named in them, and to obtain default judgments by falsifying the victims’ addresses and falsifying in court documents facts regarding attempts to serve the victims.
The indictment further alleges that the fraudulently obtained default judgments were filed by Seidling in the county where the victims actually lived or owned property, and he used them to attempt to file wage garnishments against the victims and judgment executions against victims’ property.
If convicted, Seidling faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each count charged. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; Sheriff’s Departments of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Dane, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Jackson, Pierce, Polk, Sawyer and Washburn Counties; and Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation. The prosecution of this case will be handled by United States Attorney John W. Vaudreuil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)