(Topic ID: 108377)

The Official Pinside Kevin Kulek Skit-B Predator Discussion

By Xerico

5 years ago

Topic Stats

  • 18,413 posts
  • 823 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 25 days ago by freeplay3
  • Topic is favorited by 187 Pinsiders


Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 1,549 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

20200619_181740 (resized).jpg
20181223_161836 (resized).jpg
E16C0850-4F24-4E9B-AC12-7791B43AF112 (resized).jpeg
Clevon (resized).jpg
72329539_10219705910182373_6362298985876553728_n (resized).jpg
pirateplayersclub (resized).jpg
case against keith.pdf (PDF preview)
_2_16-21030.pdf (PDF preview)
Kulek.pdf (PDF preview)
6-pennywise-has-some-nickelback-funny-meme (resized).jpg
will-ferrell-fillwerrel-i-just-fell-down-the-stairs-holding-31512906 (resized).png
pinsiders (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png
194b3475e0440b8112afc0ac4ad5bf0ed0e8ec3db63fb4b6748a4f2e06a9865b (resized).jpg
31A053C2-4495-4E3E-980F-E5ADEA02F1DE (resized).jpeg

Topic index (key posts)

87 key posts have been marked in this topic, showing the first 10 items.

Display key post list sorted by: Post date | Keypost summary | User name

Post #12066 What is PACER and where are you getting the court documents? Posted by c508 (3 years ago)

Post #12502 Links to where Kevin gives "his side of the story". Posted by BillySastard (3 years ago)

Post #12515 Updated court filings. Potential cash coming into bankruptcy estate. Posted by Wolfmarsh (3 years ago)

Post #12528 Good summation of 2 year look back and possible fraudulent transfers. Posted by flynnibus (3 years ago)

Post #12580 More legal pleadings. Posted by Wolfmarsh (3 years ago)

Post #12593 Facts & allegations document for VirtuaPin Posted by c508 (3 years ago)

Post #12801 Photos of Experts of Dangerous Posted by fastpinball (3 years ago)

Topic indices are generated from key posts and maintained by Pinside Editors. For more information, or to become an editor yourself read this post!

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider jam_burglar.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

#9974 4 years ago
Quoted from Ozzie:

Why does everyone assume that he is out of money? He collected hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. He didn't produce anything - even if he was a horrendous businessperson, he could not have spent all of it.
My guess is that he has spent some of it, but no where near all of it. He probably reads these and is hoping all of you give up and let him keep the money. He probably could live off that money for a long time without getting a real job.
Although not a Predator buyer, I am watching with interest and think Keith the lawyer will end up collecting on this.

This is why they make involuntary Bankruptcy. I haven't read through this whole thread but it sure seems like someone should liquidate what's there and pay out buyers as unsecured creditors (probably pennies on the dollar).

1 year later
#15024 3 years ago

Wow, I just stumbled into this. I'm a lawyer and while I don't exclusively practice Bankruptcy law I've practiced in Bankruptcy Court enough to know my way around a little. The thread is way too long to sort through but it looks like Kuleks stole a bunch of money with their Predator scam and tried to discharge the resulting debt in a Chapter 7, but creditors filed an AP, called them on their shit and now their spot is getting blown up?

Anybody know if the U.S. Trustee has taken any interest yet? They'll criminally prosecute in some cases.

#15055 3 years ago
Quoted from CNKay:

Wow that statement of hiding funds to collect other government program benefits was a great idea. Can of worms open here! At least besides paying for the cable and heat it sounds like at least some improvements to everyones time share property have been done.

Sure sounds like they keep digging a deeper grave with every step in this process. Not showing up for court, no cooperation, hiding assets in trailers, selling prototype machines worth the big bucks to other friends, paying friends, buying mother RV with production funds.
It gets no worse.

In my neck of the woods the Chapter 7 trustee would be all over this and the U.S. Trustee would probably be objecting to discharge. People think they can just file a Ch 7 and thumb their nose at creditors but don't understand that it's not that simple. Whyisnow is right about the timing though. I've had a case where crimes were committed during a Chapter 11 case and it was years later that the U.S. Attorney's office finally indicted and prosecuted.

#15056 3 years ago
Quoted from rosh:

wonder what happens when the IRS steps into this mess, could they just come along and seize it. Can they supersede the whole bankruptcy thing?

No, they have to work through the Bankruptcy system too. It's all about transparency. The IRS does have lots of preferential advantages but they can't side-step the system.

#15159 3 years ago
Quoted from investingdad:

Isn't there something on the law books that covers fraud that crosses state lines?

Yes there's some posibility of the feds getting involved, but there is also a matter of prosecutorial discretion, jurisdictional concerns etc. The bottom line is that there are a lot of factors that play into how cases are criminally investigated and prosecuted and they are often beyond the control the victims. What the victims CAN influence is the civil portion of the case and it's great to see that the victims here have not just walked away. I've seen quite a few scams over the years but I think this is the only one where I've seen victims say "enough" and do something about it themselves. Cheers to all of you Plaintiffs out there!

1 week later
#15331 3 years ago
Quoted from Pintucky:

I've seen a lot of bankruptcy, civil and criminal dealings in the courtroom in my former news reporting job. YEARS of it. I have NEVER seen a judge so lenient or protract the hearings like this fellow. The judges I've seen would have quickly moved through this and left the 'lady' swinging in the wind. No lawyer, no compliance, no records . . . tough shit. "You were told what was expected and yet you come here sobbing and deflecting questions. Last chance. You come in here with a lawyer when we convene again or you are on your own and at the mercy of this court. No exceptions. No excuses. I've a good mind to charge you with contempt. Young lady . . . you are looking at some jail time if you don't fork over the needed records and a modicum of sensible responses to future questioning. Stop dancing around the issues and provide the answers! You understand?! This is your last warning. Court is adjourned."
I've seen that scenario so many times. Everyone on here has been praising this judge and I too like him tremendously. I'm vexed though how he lets this entire case drag on so. Talk about bending over backward for the defendant(s)! She doesn't realize how lucky she is to have this guy as a judge. The one good thing I get out of his demeanor is if me .. . you . . .were in that same chair as female Kuleck, we would be thanking our lucky stars to have this judge and recognize 'the gift'. For sure, he is covering his own ass for any courtroom 'mistakes' to limit possibility for appeal or judicial review.

You may be right that he's giving the debtors every possible benefit of process so that any ruling he makes is more likely to be upheld by the District Court if there is a review. He appears to be granting the Trustee's motions though and it's not like he can circumvent an Adversary Proceeding and just jump to the end. There's a time and a place for him to rule on the case. I'm not 100% up to speed on the case but it appears to me that Keith is doing a good job either (a) getting the documents he needs (b) pinning down that they don't exist (which helps his case) and (c) illustrating that the debtors are being evasive (which helps his case). Bankruptcy judges aren't doing a whole lot of "hammering" in their everyday duties so it's not exactly an easy ask for Keith at the end of the day. Hopefully the slow build will work to his advantage when it comes time to dispose of the case.

#15411 3 years ago
Quoted from ZNET:

Technically, tax returns would be written hearsay, under the rules of evidence. However, an exception to the hearsay rule may very well apply to permit the admission of some or all of those documents. Hearsay is among the most complex areas of the law. Some verbal and written statements are known as "hearsay within hearsay" or "double hearsay."
Many lawyers do not understand the concept because they do not try cases or else their practice is limited to bench trials (sans jury).

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

The tax returns consist of statements made by the declarant, and therefore aren't hearsay. To the extent the tax returns contain statements by non-parties (hearsay within hearsay) you could potentially have a problem but it's highly unlikely this type of thing would rear its head in a case like this. In my experience, nobody objects to the entry of their own tax returns because it severely undercuts their credibility.

Also, there's always the catchall rule as well which judges can use to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence because the statement has "equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Tax Returns would be a prime example

#15414 3 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

The discussion is about whether testimony from the current bankruptcy proceeding can be brought in to a potential future criminal proceeding. What the Kuleks actually admit to in the criminal proceeding is an entirely different matter. The issue being discussed is the admissibility of the bankruptcy proceeding testimony in a potential criminal suit.

Quoted from PaulCoff:

The discussion is about whether testimony from the current bankruptcy proceeding can be brought in to a potential future criminal proceeding. What the Kuleks actually admit to in the criminal proceeding is an entirely different matter. The issue being discussed is the admissibility of the bankruptcy proceeding testimony in a potential criminal suit.

I don't practice criminal law but my thinking is that it comes in because the statements are all party admissions, and therefore not hearsay. Isn't this why parties in civil cases often plead the "fiznif"?

#15416 3 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

I agree that some of the what has been said will be considered a direct admission as a hearsay exception based on fairness but I don't know that ALL of the testimony thus far in the bankruptcy case will be deemed admissible as a party admission.

My thinking in cases like this is that the real "punishment" is the process. The amount of pressure put on people under these circumstances, even in a civil case, is crushing. Uncertainty of the result will put people under extreme amounts of stress. Admittedly, Kevin and the Mrs. don't seem like they "get it" and maybe they don't yet understand the full impact of their actions but they are at least starting to "get it" more and more as the process goes on and the pressure is building. Years may go by before criminal charges are pursued and even after the Kuleks are (hopefully) stripped of assets and fail to get a discharge, they'll still be worried about criminal charges. The guidelines on time served for theft are shockingly low in my opinion. They're looking at something like 2-3 years but may not serve any time at all if criminally convicted. Any time they serve may pale in comparison to the stress they are put under waiting to find out what happens.

All in all its sad seeing this type of thing happening. I don't feel bad for the Kuleks but it's disheartening that people act the way they do and at the end of the day it's little consolation to see them suffer. It doesn't "right" the wrong they've done.

#15452 3 years ago
Quoted from KeithinMI:

For those who were speaking about hearsay, here's a clarification.
Please don't confuse hearsay with a party admission. Admission of something, under oath or not, is still an admission of something.
By way of example: If you were at your divorce hearing, and said to the Judge: "She can have the bank account because I stole $5 from my best-friend's wallet last week, so I have money", and then you were prosecuted for stealing the $5, that statement would be clearly admissible in the criminal prosecution against you for the $5 larceny from the wallet. Notwithstanding that you made the statement in an unrelated action (the divorce action).
Compared to hearsay which would be: "Bob told me that Joe admitted to him that he took $5" if it is being offered to prove the truth of that statement, eg., that Joe admitted he took the $5. However, if you were only offering that to show that Bob said those particular words, it is not hearsay (not the truth of the statement itself [the stealing of the $5] but merely that the words were uttered [Bob actually said that]).
Hope that makes sense. It's a bit convoluted. About as much as the Rule against Perpetuities.
Additionally, testimony in a deposition is in fact under oath, and subject to penalties of perjury. It can be used to prove (or disprove) something based upon the testimony. "I took the $5" by Joe under oath is sufficient for the person who had their $5 taken to sue Joe to get the money back". It could also be introduced to a judge/jury to show the fact or to "impeach" Joe (if Joe testifies he never took the $5).

This is how I always learned it. In other words, it's not an exception to the hearsay rule because it's not hearsay to begin with.

#15458 3 years ago
Quoted from maffewl:

Side note, but I am curious since it was brought up. I was recently in an accident where the other driver admitted fault to me after the accident, and also told me "I was looking at a piece of paper to see if I had written a phone number down" as reasoning why he drifted into my lane. Then, days later, his insurance company told me that he said "he didn't remember what happened" and they "weren't going to take my word for it." Would me telling the insurance company about his admission to looking at a piece of paper be hearsay? I would think so, but now after the analogy above, I'm not so sure.

It may depend on the state but in my state, yes, his statements would be admissible (not hearsay because they are party admissions).

Also, you're not in Court so there's no harm telling his insurance carrier what he said.

1 week later
#15572 3 years ago

Sigh, so typical. Keith did a good job keeping quiet and letting all those barbs bounce off of him.

2 weeks later
#15775 3 years ago
Quoted from galaxian:

Found a sketch of the alleged man with all the money.

It could be a crackhead!

1 week later
#15850 3 years ago
Quoted from metallik:

Hypothetical situation:
- Kevin is doing something squirrely... say, selling things under the table to raise money without the BK court's knowledge
- You encourage people to "investigate"
- Enough people "investigate" to arouse Kevin's suspicion
- When proper lawyer (who can actually do something about it) investigates, Kevin's shields are up and doesn't reply
Not terribly likely, but possible. Best to leave the snooping to the people who can actually follow up with legal motions. Forward suspicious ads and whatnot to Keith.. don't call the dude yourself just to check.

This isn't very far from what happens in many cases. And I can assure you that doing things the right way does not involve setting up fake e-mail accounts.

If there were any actual evidence to come out of something like this, non-attorneys taking unilateral action in an attempt to "help" can actually cause a lot more work for the attorneys involved (jeopardizing or complicating the admissibility of evidence, giving the debtor more fodder for his claim that people on internet forums are harassing him, ect.). Counsel then may need to explain everything to the Court which may hurt credibility with the judge, cost the litigants more in attorney's fees, etc., etc.

Not my case, but I wouldn't want that type of "help" in any case of mine.

3 weeks later
#16668 3 years ago
Quoted from Mitch:

Don't know if I should as I'm involved in the lawsuit

Call your lawyer, I'm sure they can advise you on this.

1 month later
#17112 2 years ago

This argument over defamation seems crazy to me. So, can counsel for Virtua Pin now be sued for slandering Keith? She's accused him of being unethical in open court, and those statements are now "all over the internet." Furthermore, she knew they were going to end up on the internet. Where do you draw the line?

These safe harbors for defamation are there for a reason, so that people can litigate without having to worry about being sued for defamation. The court really needs to consider the chilling effect a ruling adverse to the trustee may have.

#17129 2 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

And also why the argument is ridiculous. Would someone sue news companies for covering the case and reporting on it's activities? Or how about suing the TV station for reporting on police filings?
The fact the information is available outside the courtroom is because it's a matter of public record. The fact the public sees the public record and reflects poorly on them is a matter of BOO F$#%$ HOO for VirtuaPin.

The standard for news/public figures is a little different but your point about the record being public is right. There's no new standard at play. A newspaper could go in and report on the case and it makes no difference. Nor should it matter if the pleadings are more detailed than required or customary. As long as there is a nexus to the suit and it's not flat-out baseless, the allegations should be protected.

If you make the standard too rigid then the system doesn't work because litigants are chilled from making claims that are based on fact, even if ultimately not successful. If you risk a defamation claim simply because you're not ultimately successful, then the standards are turned on their head.

Not only that but Federal Court's are shifting to require MORE detailed pleadings. Saying to little can lead to a defective pleading.

There are just SO many things wrong with making a defamation claim BASED ON PLEADINGS IN COURT too easy. I hope the Court puts a law clerk on this or the pleadings go well beyond the oral argument because if the Court gets this wrong it's setting a bad precident.

What a mess.

#17132 2 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

I don't think so... people gathering the court records and making them available or summaries are reporting on the details of a newsworthy topic for the community. The fact Others have opinion or commentary because they have consumed that information is available is just life. Just like people would have opinions after watching a tv segment or reading the paper. The complaint from both sets of knuckleheads is those details end up on a website... because they want the information suppressed. Sorry, not how it works... and for great reasons too. The transparency of the courts protects us all.

I don't disagree with you at the core, I was responding to your comment about suing news organizations. The standards there are a little different than the exception afforded to litigants in a lawsuit (which deals with the "litigation privilege"). See New York Times v. Sullivan, etc. for the general law on news organizations.

#17170 2 years ago
Quoted from Jvspin:

Good point. It does seem weird that the judge who was assigned to hear the bankruptcy case would also be assigned to hear the defamation case at the same time.
For the lawyers out there, is this usual?

No, it's not unusual.

#17174 2 years ago
Quoted from spfxted:

No, Tom Jones....

It's not unusual to be bummed at 341s, nunu-nunu-nahhh...

#17175 2 years ago
Quoted from Jam_Burglar:

It's not unusual to be bummed at 341s, nunu-nunu-nahhh...

It's not unusual, to see a Kulek lie.

1 month later
#17509 2 years ago

The Judge has surprised me a few times so far but a lot of this is likely protecting the record so that if/when she comes back in the future claiming she didn't know, she won't get very far. She unquestionably has notice of the trial date and I bet dollars to donuts she's listening to these hearings (at the very least after they are being posted here).

Keith obviously uncovered a pit of snakes with this thing and hopefully the Judge will figure that out when all the cards fall. It's really unfortunate that he's had so many stones thrown at him (personally) and it would be nice to see some vindication at the end of the day.

#17538 2 years ago

Anyone want to guess if Kulek shows up to trial today? I'm betting no-show.

3 months later
#17806 2 years ago

The case is still active.

The parties in the Adversary Proceeding against Virtua Pin are still arguing over the defamation alleged by Virtua Pin against the Trustee. The Court ruled that the allegations in the pleadings are not actionable as defamation but is still considering whether publishing that information on the internet is somehow defamation. The Trustee just recently filed a Motion to Reconsider in an attempt to shut down that Counterclaim entirely.

The only other AP that's still open is the one against Amanda Kulek. A status conference on that is supposed to happen today at 1:30.

All the other APs seem to have settled out with payments or judgments against the named defendants.

I assume the Kuleks won't be getting discharges but haven't looked too deeply into that.

7 months later
#18101 1 year ago

Just catching up here after many months. Usually, a Bankruptcy case being DISMISSED is BAD for the debtor (i.e. bad for Kulek). If you're Kulek and filing for Bankruptcy protection you want a "DISCHARGE", meaning your debt is forgiven and your creditors can no longer pursue you. "Dismissed" is bad because the Court rejected your case and now you are thrown to the wolves, who can pursue you indefinitely. Of course if you have no assets and gain no assets and have no job, there's not much meat to pick from the bones. It's still not a good result for a debtor to have his case dismissed.

That being said, I haven't read the pleadings and it's not clear to me exactly what was dismissed. There are a lot of ways to get things twisted in a case like this if you're not careful. For example, there are Adversary Proceedings within the Bankruptcy case that are like sub-lawsuits within the larger Bankruptcy case. If the Trustee brings an Adversary Proceeding against a party and that "AP" is dismissed, then that's typically bad for the unsecured creditors.

I do tend to agree with people who've said you have to be careful throwing good money after bad. It is very frequent in cases of theft that the bastard who stole your money wasted it away. Unfortunate but all too common.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 18.00
Apparel - Men
Pinside Shop
$ 20.00
Various Novelties
GC Pinball
$ 4.49
Yorktown Arcade Supply
$ 5,899.00
Pinball Machine
Operation Pinball
$ 14.95
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
$ 44.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
From: $ 65.00
Lighting - Other
Professor Pinball
$ 54.99
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 7,999.00
Pinball Machine
Nitro Pinball USA
$ 495.00
Cabinet - Armor And Blades
MI Pinball Refinery
$ 20.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
UpKick Pinball
$ 1,200.00
$ 32.00
$ 48.00
Cabinet - Other
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 14.00
$ 11.00
$ 149.00
From: $ 42.00
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 40.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Arcade Arts
$ 14.95

You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider jam_burglar.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside