There is no telling what his attorney might use to influence a jury. Generally a defendant grasps at any straw he can dream up to claim that they are a victim. And yes...this entire thread could be used in an attempt to support his claim to a jury. Will it work? Will it distract a jury from the actual crime that has been committed? Who knows...but I have seen similar efforts get the sympathy of the jury and result in an acquittal. The O.J. case is proof of that....

This is a bankruptcy case so there won't be a jury hearing anything...just the judge who is sophisticated in sniffing out blame shifting efforts.

But I thought the bankruptcy case was overturned by the court?

A criminal case will be coming. The feds are just waiting for it to land in their lap with all the investigative work already done. It seems to be getting to that point soon. They will wait until the bankruptcy and any other civil case is done. This case involves too much money for them to ignore from a criminal perspective.

Actually no. Kevin listed it on his asset list... so that was the starting point...

Jaz

It was also brought up when the judge asked him in the January 20th hearing.

You may not like it, but those two had a constitutional right to be there. They broke no laws as open carry is allowed in public places. The cameraman should have complied like the guy open carrying, but really he clearly stated his case. Once again, open carry may scare people in this day an age, but it is legal in many places. Get over it.

You have 'certain rights' and with those rights you must act responsibly. These two were pushing it to the limits. No person with half a brain goes into a police station armed to the teeth with a bullet proof vest on and wearing a mask and making demands. You have freedom of speech, etc., but you can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater to cause people to fear for their lives and dangerous panic erupting.

Walking into a police station like that is a similar abuse of 'freedom'. The police were put in a situation of fear and who can blame them for taking desperate measures? These two guys may have had a 'right' to 'carry in a public place', but common sense dictates you don't go storming into a police station like that. They needed to be arrested not just because of this foolish act, but because they proved without a doubt they have 'dangerous minds'! I have no mercy for them. They tried to flaunt the law and were flat out wrong in doing that. They are lucky they didn't get shot.

Declaring what you are required to do is not "making it a point.." to let everyone know he has one.

It came up in conversation because Keith made it a point to let Kevin know it was not welcome at his offices.

As a follow up to the discussion about it instigated by jeiths's comments to Kevin.

The whole point is whysnow portrayal of it all is disingenuous

my point was that the dude has a gun. It would be stupid for anyone to go to his house period. It would be doubly stupid to do so since he has a gun. It is triply dumb for anyone to defend any of his actions and actually try and blame shift for him. Pretty obvious what your entire point

Just when I think something may have happened.... you guys are going on and on about a different Michigan case ...

As I understand, his discharge of this debt was disallowed but this is still a bankruptcy case with a trustee marshaling the assets to disburse to the creditors. The bankruptcy did not end just because he was not allowed to discharge the debt.

You don't have to break the law to give a policeman legal justification to shoot you. Reasonable cause to fear for his life or the lives of others will generally do the trick. Unless you've got the Michigan militia on the jury, most people would see an agitated idiot in a ski mask and vest brandishing a rifle in a police station as a credible threat. They don't have to wait for him to start shooting to take action.

Remains to be seen if these jokers will be convicted on any of the felony counts against them, of course.

Yes.., that you exaggerate and make shit up all the time to "flavor" your posts. Subconscious or intentional ... no one can take your posts at face value.

BULLSHIT. You cannot walk into a police department brandishing a weapon/rifle. That's not "open carry".

You read into all sorts of posts with an ulterior motive all the time it seems. It is not just my posts; you commonly seem to pick fights on the board and read in a negative connotation to the majority of what you do online. It comes off with an extremely trolling tone in case you are not aware; doubly so since you do so as an annonymous person that targets a select few indiciduals on a regular basis and repeatedly. You genuinely may want to look in the mirror with why you always seem to see the worse in a thread/post/person rather than assuming the benign or positive.

Or you could stop making inflammatory, false statements? Or pay attention to what you actually write or put some value into your words?

I mean, I'm sure you meant to say "kevin has disclosed..." or "kevin has made it known.." but when you say "Kevin has made it a point to let the courts know.." - you completely change what you are conveying.. to the point of inferring THREATS, instead of "answering a question".

Agreed, Flynnibus.

Like it or not Whysnow, this is your reputation among many on Pinside and not just in this thread. Its especially irritating when you butt into other people's business with your suspicious exaggerations and false statements.
I'm doubtful of most every comment you post on Pinside now. You've earned my distrust, Hilton, and your reputation is growing.

And please don't try to distract from this as a Flynnibus or Mr. 68 issue. I've seen you warned in various ways by many different Pinsiders and you still don't get it. I hope you do get it someday but you seem incapable so far.

Please just put me on ignore rather than trolling.

honestly, never seen a guy send 5 different PMs to lecture someone that they are putting him on ignore and then not ignoring them. Just plain odd.

It was clear. the guy selectively disclosed some things but obviously left a whole bunch off the list.

Go ask yourself why someone in bankruptcy specifically makes it a point to disclose ownership of a gun, then feigns being scared when a lawyer reminds him that guns are not allowed at his office. I am not inferring anything. KK specifically made it a point to have it known he has a gun. If anyone has the stupid idea of paying him a visit, they would be doubly dumb to do so given what is known.

Go find your drama elsewhere tough guy.

MG is not the only game involved here. I have a feeling he is still not "ahead". So this is more minimizing damage.

This will be my last post on this subject. My views on this stuff have been changing lately. I would have totally agreed last year that these ass clowns deserved their treatment. However, there is a constitutional right to carry and a big movement to ban guns because of how they look. Also, non-rural people that aren't used to seeing such overreact. Imagine the same scenario in rural town X and the guys had cowboy boots, cowboy hat, and was carrying a shotgun on his back. The good old boys wouldn't blink. These people are challenging culture in today's state.

I know the police are super amped as well. Ferguson is not only a place, but a term now. Those Ferguson cops kept their cool despite horrible circumstances. The police in this video could have acted better. The guy with the gun immediately complied to commands and laid down. The other guy had a right to film in a public place and shouldn't have been treated as such.

What it comes down to is the reaction of these cops shed them in the wrong light. It could have been handled way better. Especially those in the back you know were just getting entertainment from a boring day and this was their one chance to pull their sidearm out.

Classic example. - Good luck Hilton, I mean that sincerely.

I hardly think that watching two armed men wearing ski masks march into your station was considered 'entertainment' for any of those officers.

Back on topic: Kevin was supposed to appear for questioning by Keith 9 days ago, have we received any information about if that happened?

No not yet. Texas kind of put it on the back burner but it won't be long and everyone will be chomping at the bit again. I predict the thread will be on fire by Wednesday.

Nothing really new on PACER yet. Late last week a document appeared where Kathy Kulek wants to re-open her adversary proceeding so she can reply to the RV claims, but that is it.

Is that request within the time for response requirements?

I don't know?

Here is her motion and the judge granted it.

kathykulek.pdf

Not too surprising - courts often allow people (especially people that seem not to know what they're doing) a mulligan on procedural issues like filing deadlines, especially if it won't screw up the rest of the case too much. Avoids later arguments that property was taken or rights lost "on a technicality."

"Your honor, this RV was a gift from Kevin, nothing more"

"But Kevin stated he has no income, so how did be pay for it?"

"Your honor, I request to cancel my re-opening of this case"

Curious how legitimate the "wrong address" excuse could be here. Would think the courts would get it to the right place. Certified / signed mail ?

I'm sure its completely legitimate, based on everything else here...

All dumpsters look the same, I'm not surprised the mailman missed it...

Courts stopped using registered mail/return receipt required since so many people refuse to sign. Happened after the financial crisis when 40% of credit card holders defaulted on their balances.

Now they just use First Class Mail and "certify" they placed the envelope in a US Mail box.

I don't see that the order was signed by the judge. I see it says motion granted but the judge's signature doesn't appear anywhere in what you attached...I'm not sure if it has too, just an observation that she might have filed something making a request that is still pending and not approved yet?

That's just page 1 and I don't see it saying anything about it being granted. Must be on one of the other 4.

I looked at the other four pages and the only place that said order granted had no signature. Perhaps it was just a proposed order and the motion is now simply pending. Dunno...

Actually the "Wrong Address" excuse seem quite appropriate.

Think about it, she lives in the RV -

"Your honor, I was parked at the WallMart on Dewey Street when the mail man was delivering subpoenas last week"

It's been granted.

kathykulek_2.pdf

Judge Opperman seems like an EXTREMELY fair judge, I am not surprised at all that he granted it.

I am actually very impressed at how the judge handles things. I suppose in a bankruptcy court the judge probably sees a lot of people who are depressed and not feeling great about being in his court. So far he seems to be a compassionate judge that wants to give everyone a chance, but not afraid to put his foot down if need be.

The ultimate goal in these cases is to settle the debts and find the best path to that... not necessarily punish people. I think that is reflected in his actions.

It's probably because his mom hasn't proven to be the crook that her son is.......

As a big supporter of the second amendment and being a person who is genuinely disgusted about the connotations being pushed these days against certain types of firearms, I really want to agree with you....but I just can't. I think at the core, your argument is correct, its bullshit that you are treated as a criminal if you want to open carry and everything that goes along with that argument. It certainly can be a slippery slope when you stop caring about when your rights are being restricted in certain situations. However, I just can't condone what those guys did. In these troubling times they are not helping the cause. What they did was done just to provoke a reaction, and while it was arguably legal, all it will really accomplish is pushing the publics favor for more regulations. I'm normally one to condone flexing your rights somewhat, but what these guys did was just foolish.

I wonder if the judge has any clue that the recordings of these court appearances are being listened to by dozens of people. That is certainly not a common thing.

I own guns, I am licensed. But not for one second am I stupid enough to walk into a police department brandishing a gun, open carry or not.

Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. The police found the actions of those 2 morons threatening. A normal person immediately lays the firearm down at the command of an officer of the law. Go ahead and defend that open carry with three rounds up your ass and 6 feet under. No thanks.

Moderator's comment:

Ok folks, let's get off the firearms topic since it's unrelated here and can quickly detour into politics.

More of an order than a comment?