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) |
