Legal
HOME: GIDEON:LEGAL CHRONOLOGY



 
Chronology of Legal Events of Hamilton Securties
(1996-Present)
Date                                                    Event
6-Jun-96 Ervin files a Complaint for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory relief and for money damages against HUD and HUD officials. [Ervin and Associates, Inc. v. Helen Dunlap, et al. (1:96-CV-001253), United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge William B. Bryant].Ervin continues to inundate HUD with FOIA requests and incur substantial legal costs to harass HUD and Helen Dunlap. The Ervin complaint states the case involves seven categories of unlawful, unethical and generally outrageous conduct: (1) contracting corruption and favoritism, (2) racial, gender and age discrimination, (3) retaliation through breach of contract, (4) theft of Ervin’s intellectual property, (5) insider trading, (6) cover-ups and (7) retaliation through defamation, rumor, innuendo, cancellation of existing work and blackballing. Hamilton was not named as a defendant, although among the allegations raised in this suit were charges that HUD engaged in contract favoritism toward Hamilton and that insider trading and bid rigging activities resulted in favoring certain "Wall Street" bidders for HUD loans.
6-Jun-96 Qui tam filed under seal [United States ex. rel. vs. The Hamilton Securities, Group, Inc. and Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, et al. (1:96-CV-1258) SEALED, United States District Court for the District of Columbia]. It appears that allegations are related to parties in partially assisted transaction, including GE Capital, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Hamilton and possibly JE Roberts and Williams & Adley. Hamilton was not informed that it was named as a defendant in the qui tam action until December of 1997, one year and a half after the suit was filed.
1-Jul-96 Hamilton learns that US News & World Report is working on loan sale scandal article that sounds as though it is targeting HUD Secretary Cisneros and Catherine Austin Fitts (who worked for Kemp as Assistant Secretary of Housing when he was Secretary of HUD). A pre-interview letter to Henry Cisneros refers to the Department as “scandal tarred.” Fitts sends a letter to many friends and David Gergen the new Editor of USNWR, accusing USNWR (Ed Pound and Jim Ito) of drawing conclusions before doing the research and of conducting a rigged investigation. USNWR agrees to listen to a Hamilton presentation explaining how loan sales work. Pound subsequently resigns and goes to USA Today; Ito goes to Washington Post claiming that Mort Zuckerman improperly sabotaged the article.
1-Aug-96 Ervin & Company files the First Amended Complaint in the Bivens action. Ervin and Associates, Inc. v. Helen Dunlap, et al. (1:96-CV-001253)
6-Aug-96 Hamilton receives the first subpoena from the HUD OIG. The HUD OIG later asserts the investigation was begun at the request of DOJ in response to a qui tam (whistleblower) suit naming Hamilton, among others, as defendants. If so, delegation by DOJ to HUD OIG is statutorily prohibited under the False Claims Act and the subpoena has illegally circumvented DOJ’s False Claims Act requirement to disclose the filing of and nature of charges under a qui tam suit to the target of the suit.
22-Aug-96 Hamilton receives the second subpoena from HUD OIG, which Hamilton argued illegally circumvented the False Claims Act requirement that the government disclose allegations to the target.
7-Oct-96 Ervin files Second Amended Complaint for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Judgment and Other Relief in Ervin and Associates, Inc. v. Helen Dunlap, et al. (1:96-CV-001253) in US District Court. Wayne Travell and Daniel Hawke of Tucker Flyer and Lewis sign as counsel. The complaint says Ervin has filed over 60 FOIA requests during the past two years.
21-Oct-96 Lauch Faircloth, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on HUD Oversight and Structure, writes a letter to Henry Cisneros (then Secretary of Housing) regarding charges made by Ervin & Associates against HUD. HUD (Hal Decell) answers on November 22, 1996 saying HUD believes the charges are baseless complaints of a disgruntled contractor. The letter also notes that this will "turn the clock back" and adversely affect a successful loan sale program. HUD assured Senator Faircloth that it is investigating the matter to see if there is any substance to Ervin's charges.
4-Dec-96 Hamilton reports to HUD regarding the results of an internal investigation into an apparent discrepancy between the bidders' information packages and Lucent's optimization instructions during three previous loan sales. This anomaly had been discovered by Hamilton while it was in the process of preparing for the next loan sale. A number of high level Hamilton employees and contractors hired for this purpose spend countless hours researching the problem. Hamilton's report to HUD explains that this discrepancy has resulted in a four tenths of one percent reduction in gross sale proceeds to HUD. Hamilton assures HUD that it has taken steps to ensure that this discrepancy will not be repeated. HUD accepts these assurances and retains Hamilton for another three loan sales over the next ten months. Hamilton notifies its counsel and insurer of this development and waits to hear from HUD whether any claim will be made. No claim was made by HUD until October 1997.
14-Oct-97 Hamilton receives letters from HUD (1) canceling, (2) seizing funds owed to Hamilton for work performed and (3) demanding the return of all HUD portfolio data. Although HUD’s letter stated that the contract cancellation was “for convenience of the government,” newspaper accounts relate it to bid issues** Hamilton had reported to HUD in 1996 that had been addressed by the appropriate HUD staff and dismissed as not material. There are intimations that Hamilton proprietary software programs like Community Wizard belong to HUD and that HUD should receive a free copy. All work, including Community Wizard and community databanks, comes to a halt as Hamilton prepares to raise working capital through a private placement memorandum; all efforts to encourage Congress to pass requirements for place based disclosure stop.
24-Oct-97 HUD OIG issues third subpoena to Hamilton requiring, among other things, all documents related to e.villages, Neighborhood Networks and statements of work prepared by Hamilton. The subpoena arrives at Hamilton in the afternoon; a story in the Washington Times morning edition states that Hamilton has been subpoenaed.
5-Dec-97 A lawsuit is filed in Michigan courts against Hamilton and others by a defaulted borrower whose note was sold to HUD's loan sale program.[Stearns Building Limited Partnership v. The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. (1:97-04955), Michigan Eastern Bankruptcy Court, Judge Ray Reynolds Graves].
11-Dec-97 HUD OIG issues fourth subpoena requesting that Franklin National Bank produce all personal financial information relating to Catherine Austin Fitts.
23-Dec-97 Hamilton files a formal complaint with Neil Gallagher, Chairperson of the Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency ("PCIE"). The complaint is filed under Executive Order 12933, Section 1(a) for gross unprofessional conduct by the Inspector General ("IG") of the US Department of HUD against Hamilton. The complaint gives a detailed account of the HUD IG's abuse of authority and possibly criminal behavior. (IC #212).
7-Jan-98 Hamilton files a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request with Darlene D. Hall, FOIA Officer of the HUD IG's office, requesting nine (9) categories of information. FOIA Number: FIIG216055. Hamilton sends a second FOIA request (FI-216692) to Charlene Anderson, FOIA Coordinator in the Office of the General Counsel of HUD.
8-Jan-98 Hamilton files a motion for temporary restraining order. [Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. et al v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (1:98-CV-0036), US District Court, District of Columbia (Judge Stanley Sporkin)]. In an attempt to prevent HUD from holding up the processing of checks for amounts due under its HUD contract. Settlement agreement re: HUD OIG disclosure policy is trashed when Abbe Lowell tries to slip in a provision that would prevent Hamilton from suing HUD later.
Late Jan-98 Hamilton updates Neil Gallagher, Acting Chairman of PCIE, of Hamilton's insolvency and amends it's December 23, 1997 complaint against the HUD IG.
2-Feb-98 The Stearns Building Limited Partnership (plaintiff) and Hamilton Securities Group (defendant) stipulated and agreed (1) that the time in which Hamilton may answer or respond to their complaint could be extended to March 2, 1998, and (2) that the law firm of Jenner & block may withdraw its appearance on behalf of Hamilton in the matter. In Re: Stearns Building Limited Partnership v. The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. (97-54216-G) US Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division.
4-Feb-98 Hamilton receives an acknowledgement in reference to its FOIA request (FIIG216055) on January 7, 1998. The OIG estimates that it will take 50 hours of search time to fill the Hamilton's request; the OIG can not estimate time needed to review the results of the search materials.
13-Feb-98 HUD's Office of General Counsel responds to Hamilton's January 7, 1998 FOIA request (FI-216692). The letter states that the department will expedite the processing of Hamilton's request.
17-Feb-98 A Louisiana contractor files a Motion to Compel Production of Documents [United States of America v. Streuby L. Drumm, Jr. et al (1:98-MS-0066), in the US District Court, District of Columbia (Judge Stanley Sporkin)]. The motion asks the court to compel Hamilton to produce documents to comply with the commands of a subpoena duces tecum issued on behalf of the US District Court of the District of Columbia, in connection with an aforementioned proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
3-Mar-98 HUD files Petition for Summary Enforcement of Subpoenas against Hamilton [Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton Securites Inc., et al (1:98-MS-0092), in the US District Court, District of Columbia [Judge Stanley Sporkin] signed by Wilma Lewis and Daniel Van Horn and with Judith Hetherton and Brian Saddler listed as Of Counsel. Filed Under Seal. Filing says “The Hamilton Entities have acknowledged that they maintain and have possession of records responsive to the subpoenas which they have failed to provide to the OIG.” Also filed is Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of PTE. HUD files Declaration of James Martin under seal in support of the Office of Inspector General’s Petition for Summary Enforcement of Subpoenas (with 37 Exhibits). Fitts cashes in savings to pay for attorneys to appeal to Judge Sporkin for a Special Master to serve as trustee for Hamilton documents and digital files.
3-Mar-98 Judge Sporkin issues court order in Hamilton TRO action (1) dismissing counts 3 and 4 without prejudice, (2) dismissing counts 5 and 6 without prejudice on the basis that Defendant Gaffney has represented to the court through counsel that she is cognizant of and understands her and her office’s obligations with respect to the confidentiality of investigations conducted by the office of the Inspector General of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and that she and her office have complied and will continue to comply with these obligations.” Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. et al v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (1:98-CV-0036)
6-Mar-98 David Gottesman of the civil division of the commercial litigation branch of DOJ faxes letter to Hamilton’s attorney claiming a prior interest in Hamilton auction proceeds and warning of personal liability of any company representative under the federal priority statute for any amounts paid to third parties ahead of HUD. This would appear to lay basis for seizure of any items at Fraser Court. Williams & Connolly advises Franklin National Bank that the federal government could assert a claim ahead of the first lien creditor.
6-Mar-98 Federal District Court issues an order (1) appointing Irving Pollack and Larry Storch as Co-Special Masters, (2) ordering OIG to pay fees and expenses of Special Master and all working under his authority who shall receive compensation at $100 per hour plus actual expenses, including cost of storing records, (3) ordering Hamilton to immediately deposit records with Special Master that are responsive to August 6 and 22, 1996 subpoena as modified October 24, 1997, which were not previously produced, (4) ordering representative(s) of Hamilton with personal knowledge of matter to submit to court a certification of compliance or, if not feasible, certifications satisfactory to the Special Master, (5) ordering Special Master to secure and preserve documents, (6) ordering Special Master to permit Hamilton access to records for purpose of winding up affairs and any other legitimate purpose, (6) ordering Hamilton not to sell, destroy, discard or otherwise dispose of any computer disc, hard drive or other electronic or computer data storage device that contains electronic records during period without prior approval of court and (7) ordering Special Master to determine issues and make reports and recommendations as the court may direct and (8) ordering that only the parties, the court, the Special Masters, and agents shall have access to records furnished by Hamilton. Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton Securites Inc., et al (1:98-MS-0092)
9-Mar-98 8 FBI agents, Special Master and IG Office take over Hamilton’s offices. Carolyn Betts is asked to leave. Elliot Cook stays to negotiate terms of digital document recovery. All computers are backed up by FBI despite existence of attorney escrowed back ups. HUD demands that all computers must be scrubbed of all data before they can be sold and come to office to oversee scrubbing. When informed that Hamilton has taken the prime server with copies of all digital files, HUD takes the position that “Hamilton is not allowed to retain any knowledge” and that Hamilton cannot take these computers and Hamilton can not have a copy of any of the knowledge, but does not follow with legal basis for this position. HUD OIG attempts to falsify evidence by tampering with files in building; building manager later provides affidavit to Hamilton attorneys that thwarts attempt.
9-Mar-98 Hamilton files suit against HUD in Court of Federal Claims in an effort to recover amounts withheld for services rendered under its HUD contract. Jackson & Campbell is retained by Lexington Insurance Company. [Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, Inc. v. The United States (98-CV-169), US District Court, United States Court of Federal Claims, Judge Marion Blank Horn]
9-Mar-98 Representatives of the HUD OIG and FBI appear at Hamilton's offices to look at documents and copy information from computers, pursuant to Judge Sporkin's court order. Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton Securities Inc., et al (1:98-MS-0092)
10-Mar-98 Attended a 10:30 a.m. hearing before Judge Sporkin where he issued order permitting Hamilton's auction to proceed that day, subject to the requirement that information will be copied from computers before they are sold. The auction is held. Following the auction, Rasmus was served with a subpoena by the HUD OIG requiring that it turn over information about the identities of purchasers of Hamilton's furniture and equipment at auction. No final accounting of the proceeds of the auction was ever received by Hamilton, either from the auctioneer or Hamilton's first lien creditor, who received the proceeds. Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton Securities Inc., et al (1:98-MS-0092)
Mid Mar-98 The auctioneer of Hamilton's furniture and equipment was served a subpoena, requiring detailed information about the identities of purchasers of Hamilton's assets and the assets purchased. The auctioneer subsequently “lost” all records of the sale and was unable to provide a full accounting to Hamilton.
Mid Mar-98 Catherine Austin Fitts' elderly uncle was served a subpoena for financial documents relating to her sale of her interest in a family farm in New Hampshire. Fitts' uncle first received a telephone call from FBI agents in Washington stating that the OIG wanted documentation for Fitts' sale of her interest in the farm to him. He agreed to send the requested documents. Then, a few days later at about 6:30 pm, four agents from Boston appeared at his door to serve a subpoena for the information he had agreed to send to Washington.
20-Mar-98 Meeting of attorneys assigned by Lexington at offices of Jackson & Campbell. For unexplained reasons, Hamilton's insurance company does complete turnaround and provides full team of attorneys to address Michigan, Louisiana, petition to enforce subpoena and court of claims legal actions and help with all document production. First concern is complete control and mastery of all documents and protection from HUD; money suddenly appears to be no object. Hamilton spends all day with new legal team and insurance company. It appears that the originally selected law firm (which was willing to assume the case at $100 per hour) was replaced as Hamilton’s DC counsel.
23-Mar-98 First Report of Co-Special Masters Irving Pollack and Laurence Storch concluding, among other things, that computers at Hamilton’s office could be released. Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton Securities Inc., et al (1:98-MS-0092)
4-May-98 Thomas Pickard, Chairman of the PCIE, advises Hamilton that (1) it has completed its review of Hamilton's complaint (2) it referred the complaint to the Public Integrity Section ("PIS") of the Department of Justice for a determination of whether the allegations, if proven, would constitute violations of federal criminal law that would be considered prosecutable, (3) the PIS advised that the complaint did not provide sufficient information to warrant a criminal investigation and (4) the PCIE would take no further action concerning the matter and, thus, the file is closed.
12-May-98 Judge Sporkin dismisses the Temporary Restraining Order case in the matter of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc et al v. US Department of HUD, et al. (1:98-CV-0036) . 
7-Jul-98 The HUD OIG issued a subpoena duces tecum to Citibank NA for access to Catherine Fitts' personal financial records.
13-Jul-98 The HUD OIG issued a subpoena duces tecum to Morgan Guaranty for access to Catherine Fitts' personal financial records. Fitts did not receive notice from the government about the subpoena until September of 1998.
21-Jul-98 Fitts files a motion for order pursuant to customer challenge provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 in response to the HUD OIG subpoena of her personal Citibank NA financial records. [C. Austin Fitts v. US Department of HUD (1:98-MS-00262), US District Court, District of Columbia, Judge Stanley Sporkin]
21-Sep-98 Fitts files a motion for order pursuant to customer challenge provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 in response to the HUD OIG subpoena of her personal Morgan Guaranty financial records. [C. Austin Fitts v. US Department of HUD (1:98-MS-00347), US District Court, District of Columbia, Judge Stanley Sporkin]
24-Sep-98 The HUD OIG files its status report in Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton Securities Inc., et al (1:98-MS-0092)
25-Sep-98 Motion hearing with Judge Stanley Sporkin in C. Austin Fitts v. US Department of HUD, (Misc. No. 98-262) to determine if the government has the right to access Fitts' personal Citibank bank records. Nothing is accomplished during the hearing because Judge Sporkin denies receiving necessary filings needed to rule from the Defendants {the government} even though his [Sporkin] law clerk acknowledges that the filings were received.
9-Oct-98 Hamilton files Respondents’ Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery in C. Austin Fitts v. US Department of HUD (Misc. No. 98-262) in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
10-Oct-98 Judge Sporkin orders partial record unsealed in Gaffney v THSG and HSAS, Misc. No. 98-92.
13-Oct-98 Hamilton files Hamilton Securities’ Response Concerning the Protection of Proprietary Information in Misc. No. 98-92, in the US District Court for DC. Filed under seal.
14-Oct-98 Hamilton files Hamilton Securities’ Supplemental Opposition to the Petition for Summary Enforcement, Responding to Issues Raised in OIG 9/24 Status Report and Reiterating its Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery. Misc 98-92.
16-Oct-98 Ervin files Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Admissions (412 items, 23 exhibits) in Ervin v Dunlap case.
16-Oct-98 Tucker, Flyer & Lewis, Ervin & Associates’ counsel, responds to DBR’s request to specify documents believed to be responsive to Ervin’s April 22, 1998 subpoena to Hamilton, but not previously produced to Jenner & Block.
18-Oct-98 Hamilton files Hamilton Securities’ Supplemental Opposition To The Petition for Summary Enforcement addressing issues regarding (1) electronic records and financial records, (2) OIG has no basis for insisting on additional electronic records because it has not reviewed the records already available to it, (3) Hamilton’s privilege claims. Misc No. 98-0092
4-Dec-98 In the matter of case Misc. No. 98-262, C. Austin Fitts v. The United States Department of HUD, Judge Sporkin's Order (1) denies Movant's opposition to Respondent's filing of pleadings in camera; (2) denies the Movant's request that Fitt's be furnished with a copy of the Respondent's in camera filings; and (3) denies Fitt's Motion for Order pursuant to customer challenge provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act o 1978.
5-Dec-98 In the matter of case Misc. No. 98-347, C. Austin Fitts v. The United States Department of HUD, Judge Sporkin's Order (1) denies Movant's opposition to Respondent's filing of pleadings in camera; (2) denies the Movant's request that Fitt's be furnished with a copy of the Respondent's in camera filings; and (3) denies Fitt's Motion for Order pursuant to customer challenge provisions of the Right to Financial Privacy Act o 1978.
21-Dec-98 Stearns Building Limited Partnership v. The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. (1:97-04955), US Bankruptcy Court of Michigan was settled by other parties and the suit was dropped. Judge Graves dismissed the Complaint filed by Stearns against Hamilton with prejudice, but without costs.
5-Jan-99 District Court Judge Sporkin's Order in the matter of Gaffney v. Hamilton 1:98-MS-0092, (1) grants Gaffney's Motion to Strike the Hamilton's motion to squash subpoenas, (2) grants Gaffney's motion for protective Order, (3) and striking Hamilton's motion to quash subpoena or in the alternative motion for protective order.
18-Feb-99 Hamilton appeals District Court Judge Sporkin's January 5, 1999 order striking Hamilton's motion to quash subpoena or in the alternative motion for protective order. [Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. The Hamilton Securities Group, D.C. District Court of Appeals, 99-5046.]
7-May-99 In the matter of Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, Inc. v. The United States (98-CV-169), the government files and answer to and Counterclaim to Hamilton's complaint alleging that Hamilton owes the government for its losses.
20-May-99 Motion to Unseal Qui Tam is filed in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia (United States ex. rel. vs. The Hamilton Securities, Group, Inc. and Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, et al. 1:96-CV-1258 SEALED).
20-May-99 Mike McManus (Hamilton's counsel) has meeting with Dick Chapman in which he is told that (1) DOH has declined to prosecute Hamilton on criminal side and (2) a meeting with Tony Alexis will take place in two weeks to report whether civil investigation will be dropped; in a subsequent meeting with Alexis, Mike is told that so far, none of the civil charges raised by Ervin have panned out, but it is difficult to drop the investigation, given that other parties are targets, too; Mike reports that Dan Burton replied to the DBR letter by saying that the OIG is authorized to conduct the investigation of Hamilton.
1-Jun-99 Hamilton's counsel receives a letter from Thomas J. Pickard, Chairman of the President’s Counsel on Integrity and Efficiency (“PCIE”) that Hamilton's complaint on the HUD IG has been reopened. (IC #212)
4-Jun-99 Hamilton files suit alleging tortuous interference with business relations and abuse of process in DC Superior Court.[The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc v. Ervin and Associates, et al, 1:99-CA-003864, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Judge Susan R. Winfield.]
9-Jun-99 Hamilton and HUD file a Joint Status Report in the Court of Claims in which HUD maintains that it needs at least a ten-month discovery period, which would mean no trial date would be set until at least April 9, 2000. Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, Inc. v. The United States, 98-CV-169
14-Jun-99 Tony Alexis files opposition to Hamilton’s Motion to Unseal Qui Tam, which is apparently written by Judith Hetherton and contains many mischaracterizations and misrepresentations.
14-Jun-99 Hamilton files a Reply to HUD’s Counterclaim in the Court of Claims. The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. v. The United States of America, 98-169
16-Jun-99 Hamilton files a Freedom of Information ("FOIA") complaint with the affidavit of former field auditor for HUD OIG who reviewed the loan sales for misconduct and found none. [The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1:99-CV-1563, US District Cout, District of Columbia, Judge Stanley Sporkin.]
21-Jun-99 Filing of Hamilton’s Response to Tony Alexis’s Opposition To Unsealing Of Qui Tam case. United States ex. rel. vs. The Hamilton Securities, Group, Inc. and Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, et al. (1:96-CV-1258) SEALED
25-Jun-99 Ervin files a Notice of Removal in DC Superior Court case Hamilton Securities Group, Inc v. Ervin and Associates, et al, 1:99-CA-003864. Hamilton's lawsuit against Ervin is moved into US District Court of the District of Columbia.
30-Jun-99 Hamilton files a Motion to Remand in an attempt to return its lawsuit against Ervin to DC Superior Court, where it was originally filed. [Hamilton Securities Group v. Ervin and Associates, et al, 1:99-CV-1698, US District Court, District of Columbia, Judge Stanley Sporkin.
1-Jul-99 Hamilton's counsel receives letter from Bryan Saddler, Associate Counsel of the HUD IG, requesting that the Affidavit of the HUD Audit leader be withdrawn on the basis that it was not authorized by the IG in accordance with applicable regulations (which provide, in fact, for an exception to the rule in the case of a lawsuit against the Government). Hamilton Securities Group v. The United States of America, 1:98-CV-169, US Court of Federal Claims
2-Jul-99 Per Curiam Order filed granting the motion for summary affirmance and denying the motion for summary reversal. Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton (99-5046, District Court of Appeals)
20-Jul-99 Representative Tom Lantos sends a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno suggesting that she investigate the practices of HUD IG, Susan Gaffney, to insure no occurrences of abuse of power in connection with probe into her handling of a civil rights complaint filed against her (where she appointed an investigator to investigate the investigator hired to conduct the probe).
23-Jul-99 Ervin requests leave to file Opposition to Hamilton's Motion to Remand and for Attorneys’ Fees ex parte and under seal. Hamilton Securities Group v. Ervin and Associates, et al, 1:99-CV-1698
23-Jul-99 Ervin files an opposition to Hamilton's Motion to Remand, with portions redacted from Hamilton's copy because it contains "sealed, non-public information relating to the sealed matter" in the qui tam suit. Hamilton Securities Group v. Ervin and Associates, et al, 1:99-CV-1698
24-Jul-99 Declaration of Kathryn M. Rock.
2-Aug-99 Hamilton files Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motion For Leave to File Opposition Brief ex parte and under seal in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Hamilton Securities Group v. Ervin and Associates, et al, 1:99-CV-1698
3-Aug-99 Hamilton alerts the "PCIE" of the latest activities of the HUD IG. The letter states that Hamilton filed a FOIA suit (The Hamilton Securities Group, Inc v. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1:99-CV-1563 )against HUD to gain access to a favorable audit conducted on Hamilton by the Denver Audit Office of the Office of Inspector General for HUD. In addition to the complaint, Hamilton filed an affidavit of the lead auditor on the audit team. July 1, 1999, Hamilton received a letter from Bryan Saddler, Associate Counsel to the Inspector General, claiming that Lead Auditor's affidavit was unauthorized and therefore must be withdrawn. Hamilton's Counsel believes Mr. Saddler knew the position advanced by the OIG in his letter is legally wrong, and further that he must have known that prior to writing his letter. The letter further expresses concern about the Lead Auditor's safety. (IC # 212)
6-Aug-99 Hamilton's attorneys in its civil suit against HUD in the Court of Claims have a six-hour meeting with David Gottesman regarding the joint admissions statement requested by Judge Horne. The Government's attorney refuses to admit the loan sale credit subsidy calculations. Hamilton Securities Group v. The United States of America, 1:98-CV-169, US Court of Federal Claims
17-Aug-99 Joint Status Conference before Judge Horne in Court of Claims to hear arguments from parties re: whether Hamilton should be permitted to file a motion for summary judgment. The Government opposes this motion. Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton Securities Group, Inc., 1:98:-MS-0092
23-Aug-99 Mandate issued in District Court of Appeals. Rehearing has to be rescheduled for 1:98-MS-0092 in District Court before a decision can be issued in this case.
3-Sep-99 Judith Hetherton, counsel to the HUD OIG, takes early retirement.
13-Sep-99 Catherine Austin Fitts interviews with Tony Alexis and members of HUD OIG staff.
21-Sep-99 Hamilton files Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories. Hamilton Securities Group v. The United States of America, 1:98-CV-169, US Court of Federal Claims.
1-Oct-99 Hamilton and HUD file briefs re: motion in limine on issue of applicability of Inspection of Services Clause and Economic Loss Rule in Court of Claims. HUD’s brief is signed by Robert M. Hollis, Asst Dir and David Gottesman, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, US Department of Justice under the authority of David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General and David M. Cohen, Director. Virginia Kelly Ackerman is listed as of Counsel for HUD. Hamilton Securities Group v. The United States of America, 1:98-CV-169, US Court of Federal Claims.
21-Oct-99 Thomas Pickard , Chairman of the PCIE, advises Hamilton that (1) it has completed its review of Hamilton's complaint (2) the committee found Hamilton's complaint against the HUD IG unsubstantiated, thus, placing the file in closed status.
14-Jan-00 Hamilton's counsel discovers in the Washington Post that District Court Judge Stanley Sporking is retiring the day before a hearing with Hamilton and the government. The following cases involving Hamilton will have to be reassigned to a new judge; Susan Gaffney, HUD IG v. The Hamilton Securities Group (1:98-MS-0092,US District Court), Hamilton Securities v. Ervin (1:99-CV-1698, US District Court), Gaffney, HUD IG v. Hamilton (99-5046, District Court of Appeals), and Hamilton Securities Group v. US Department of HUD, (1:99-CV-1563, FOIA suit in US District Court). All legal action is on hold until cases can be reassigned.
2-Feb-00 Bryan Saddler, Acting Counsel to the Inspector General, informs Hamilton's counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath, that the IG cannot take final actions until a judge is assigned to replace Judge Stanley Sporkin.
8-Feb-00 Bryan Saddler sends a letter to Special Master Laurence Storch informing him that HUD has entered into a contract with a company that will capture and copy data from Hamilton's back-up tapes pursuant to Judge Sporkin's December 18, 1998 order. 
14-Feb-00 Hamilton's Counsel, Drinker Biddle & Reath is informed by Special Master Laurence Storch of the letter from Bryan Saddler to Laurence Storch stating that HUD plans to begin to capture and copy data from Hamilton's back-up tapes.  The correspondence indicates that a copy was sent to Drinker Biddle & Reath.  However, the firm did not receive it.
28-Feb-00 Solari discovers an article in the Washington Times by George Archibald entitled "Justice unable to find bids worth $5.2 billion." The article refers to the "criminal" investigation of Hamilton many times, even though the so called "investigations" have been dropped by the Department of Justice. The article is filled with libelous material and inaccuracies, but the largest infraction of the Times is they failed to contact Hamilton for comment. This is about the fifth article written by Archibald about Hamilton where he has failed to contact Hamilton for comment despite Hamilton's repeated complaints to the Times.
29-Feb-00 Hamilton's Counsel sends a letter to the Editor of the Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, demanding a meeting to discuss the ongoing inaccuracies, failure to verify alleged facts with Hamilton and libelous charges that Hamilton "admitted" to "bid rigging." Later, Hamilton's Counsel receives a letter from the Times attorney proposing language for a retraction.
15-Mar-00 Judge Horn in the matter of Hamilton Securities v. The United States of America (98-169, Court of Federal Claims) issued an order allowing the government to pursue Count I of their First Amended Counterclaim for consequential damages. The court also schedules a status conference April 5, 2000 at 10:30 a.m.
28-Mar-00 In response to Judge Horn's March 15, 2000 order, Hamilton files a Motion for Reconsideration moving the court to reconsider its Order. Hamilton also files a Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and to Stay further proceedings moving the Court to amend its Order dated March 15, 2000, to include the finding prescribed by 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(d)(2), certifying the Order and the following controlling question of law for interlocutory appeal: "Whether the inspection of Services Caluse provides the exclusive remedy when the services do not conform to contract requirements and the defects cannot be corrected by re-performance?" The motion also moves the Court to stay further proceedings, including discovery, pending the conclusion of any interlocutory appeal. Hamilton Securities v. The United States of America (98-169, Court of Federal Claims)
HomeTrust Action NetworkSolariGideon
top of pageContact UsUse Our ServicesSearch/SitemapWho We Are