Tuesday, April 5, 2011

FAQ - LAW # 1: Why did the courts always rule against Spencer C. Young?

Prior to 2007, NO court in ANY jurisdiction ruled against Spencer C. Young or ANY of his Corporate Entities, which is a track record spanning more than two decades of owning and managing commercial real estate investments, as well as in corporate finance and investment banking. . . and this is something few others can claim.

And ALL rulings thereafter were result of undue corrupt influence exercised in the MorganStanleyGate scandal. This was a manifestation of the ongoing cover-up engineered by Morgan Stanley and Kirkland & Ellis entailing: (1) obstruction of justice; (2) widespread corruption; (3) denial of due process; and (4) the effects of malicious smear campaigns in New York and North Carolina.

In summary court rulings began going against Mr. Young in 2007 because:
  • In New York - The employment law attorneys engaged to prosecute Mr.Young's mounting claims against Morgan Stanley were paid off (via barter) to NOT prosecute his case, and then abruptly resign for spurious reasons.  Moreover, NASD officials were similarly corrupted to abruptly dismiss his case (on fraudulent grounds) before it could be heard.  And Mr. Young's case was cleverly dismissed "without prejudice"; which means the sudden dismissal could not be challenged; however, it could be re-filed and eventually heard, albeit another 3 to 4 years later . . . but you can be sure the same nonsense would be carried out henceforth.  The Magna Est Veritas Et Praevalebit website has details on how this was done and the firms involved, most notably the "How It's Done" section and the "NASD" section;

  • In North Carolina - In a notably similar fashion, the prestigious law firms Mr. Young engaged abruptly changed their level of service when the instances of commercial sabotage began in 2007.  Each firm promised to aggressively collect the sudden emergence of rent arrears, and file claims against and enjoin others who were deliberately trying to commercially sabotage and economically undermine Mr. Young's commercial real estate investments in North Carolina.  NOT ONE law firm accomplished ANY of the projects they were mandated to handle and each suddenly resigned without warning at a time most compromising to Mr. Young's interests.  In response, Mr. Young sought to protect his properties from foreclosure by filing managed Chapter 11 petitions for the respective corporations that owned the properties, a series of bankruptcy law firms were engaged.  And each bankruptcy firm similarly resigned for entirely concocted reasons, eventually getting to the point that NO ATTORNEY IN NORTH CAROLINA would represent Mr. Young's real estate interests.  And since EACH of Mr. Young's real estate properties in North Carolina were owned by a corporate entity (including his live/work Meadowmont condominium in Chapel Hill) the foreclosures proceeded uncontested, because NORTH CAROLINA ("NC") LAW REQUIRES ALL CORPORATIONS BE REPRESENTED BY A DULY LICENSED NC ATTORNEY. There is a lot more to this, but you get the picture in the context of the question posed.  The detailed indictment filed against Paragon Commercial Bank (whose misdeeds were carried out at the behest of Morgan Stanley), articulates how this was carried out.
So the reason why Mr. Young's pristine 21-year track record of owning and managing commercial real estate without an adverse court decision suddenly reverted to ALL loses was ENTIRELY ORCHESTRATED BY FRAUD AND CORRUPTION . . . ALL of which stemmed from the MorganStanleyGate scandal, and the tandem of Morgan Stanley and Kirkland & Ellis have a long notorious history of obstructing justice and denying due process.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.