A BOUDICA POINT OF VIEW
“LIM, RUGER & KIM LLP + ADR SERVICES LOS ANGELES, HON. GREGORY C. O’BRIEN ARBITRATOR + MIN & DON CHAE vs. McCLELLAN & ASSOC. ARCHITECT = FRAUD – PLUS COUNTERFEIT LAWSUITS = MULTIPLE FRAUD
Introduction To: “TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD REDUX” , A Boudica Point of View
LIM, RUGER & KIM LLP
A Korean-Ethno-Centric Designer Law Firm
Lim, Ruger & Kim is in the business of designing counterfeit lawsuits as marketable products which it ’sells’ to its clients who are not the primary beneficiary of the product’s economic value.
Lim, Ruger & Kim LLP (“LRK”) is one of a class of law firms that has raised the art form of ‘bogus lawsuits’ to a new ethics low in the law business. The financial structure of the capitalization of these suits makes the aggressive costs and ethics issues of the emerging Alternative Litigation Financing (“ALF”) industry pale by comparison.
This is not a straightforward simple Lawyer/Client system of time billing and litigation costs. On the contrary, this is a pyramid scheme that converts client billings into virtual equities in a virtual business-investment entity in which LRK is sole beneficiary and the client is sole investor. This, virtual merchant bank is automatically, simultaneously, dissolved once a multi-tiered pyramid of bogus lawsuits dissolve on the tine curve of the underlying ‘asset’ coming to a conclusion – i.e. That asset being the original lawsuit from which a series of bogus compounding suits are spawned.. If a ruling on the original suit is in The Client’s favor, only then will the client receive some portion of return ‘of’ his investment in LRK via tranches of bogus lawsuits from which the client will never receive benefit. His investment in these suits is an investment in LRK LLP via the construction of a conduit with features of a virtual-investment-vehicle created to finance LRK LLP. If a ruling is not in the Client’s favor he will never receive benefit for financing LRK’s economic growth via LRK’s manufacture of counterfeit lawsuits.
The Business / The Food Chain – its methodology and equipment:: (see below for full details)
LRK promotes bogus legal action in a system that effectively transforms a lawsuit per se to a virtual joint-venture, a functional business entity – as an annuity – in which LRK holds a virtual carried equity interest’.(effectively, a preferred/ interest in its cash flows). The Virtual J-V (“VJV”) produces an investment ‘product’: Counterfeit Lawsuits (‘CL’).
Through this vehicle, LRK has formalized a method of litigation financing that structurally resembles a CDO. It is a pyramid of investment tiers in an instrument that LRK effectively owns, collateralized by a client’s deep pockets and secured by The Ethnic Naivete of The Client concerning the legal system that the client has violated on one hand, and is simultaneously vulnerable to respective of The Ethnic Client’s naivete concerning the use of the law to scam clients and innocent parties targeted as defendants of bogus lawsuits, which scams are virtually within the law but not within the law, and are maintained by a system of moving parts – false claims and procedures modified at critical junctures to stay a step ahead of the law throughout the process. The law firm uses these scams against The Client’s interest, while representing him. (see text below).
The Counterfeit Lawsuit is a hybrid – it functions as an investment entity – with paid-in capital, theoretical-equity-ownership, and cash-flows – but, is never formalized except as a System of capital-flow.. It is structured to produce varying levels of return of/on investment, to its capital-investor -The Client, with projected multiple pay-offs – all the while, in practical terms, it is functionally a junk-bond in/of a virtual-entity, collateralized by The Client-Purchaser, that is scheduled to self-destruct at a zero remainder – when its underlying asset has been dissolved: The Original Legal Claim from which the pyramid of CL’s has been spawned. . It isn’t marketable outside of the closed circuit of ‘The Law Firm and A Client; it is a scam that violates the Law in all States as well as violating the ABA’s model of “Professional independence of a Lawyer” concerned with ethics issues.
The CL-Pyramid instrument per se, is not defined as a joint-venture opportunity to The Client. Rather it is promoted as a value-added investment solely to The Client’s potential benefit. – benignly suggested as a bona-fide legal complaint against any claim or action taken against The Client’s initial abuse of the law and is used as a method of intimidation to block pursuit of justified remedy of The Client’s abuses. While the CL-Pyramid in actual practice is a system of blurring the boundaries of the spirit of the law prohibiting lawyers from sharing fees (‘consideration’) – or virtual-equity, carried or otherwise -’ with non-lawyers. It is a system that is typically so blurred that it is undetectable – and, neither the Courts or The Client recognize the scam of the structure of these bogus suits – until they are occasionally exposed by counter-suits – such as the legal abuse and intimidation practices of Vision Media, whose bogus lawsuits have been exposed by dismissal of their bogus legal complaints against those whom they had illegally abused. (^)
The Client does not recognize that the law firm is eating up all of the capital he invests in these CL’s, paid-in as phantom-equity of a phantom-investment vehicle that LRK has virtually-constructed as a Pyramid of CL’s that are sold to The Client as a bona fide investment in the future value of a pyramid of lawsuits. The Client will ordinarily never know that the counterfeit lawsuits constitute a conduit for LRK to launder fees thru a ‘time-factored’ ‘Private Virtual Merchant Bank’ – to LRK LLP -in which all virtual-shares are owned by LRK exclusively, and all real cash flows build LRK LLP’s leveraged future value.
The torque feature of this combination of bogus lawsuits and its financing structure is that LRK uses the invention of The CL Pyramid as the vehicle through which it virtually creates a Merchant Banking operation to finance itself and is sole investment-manager of the paid-in capital invested in the MB by The Client. The CL-Pyramid’s underlying asset, the original legal claim – is the instrument that leverages succeeding tranches of bogus lawsuits which are the product that generates the cash flows which are retained by LRK – while each tier of the CL-Pyramid is capitalized by The One Client, whose exposure increases with each succeeding CL as The Client’s risk management profile weakens, and his return of capital potential diminishes with each lawsuit that is being financed through The MB. Increasingly t he Client’s possibilities of receiving a return on his investment decreases simultaneously, as the potential future value of each tranche of bogus lawsuits diminishes with the resolution of the initial lawsuit that was sold to The Client as a bona fide legal claim. Though it was effectively pitched as a business opportunity-claim to The Client it was, above all, a ‘Product’ starter – a ‘System’ of fraud to rake in fees to The LRK Virtual Merchant Bank – which eventually dissolves itself.
The Client’s investment value is a continually moving razor’s edge that is time-dependent on the state of the matrix of the bogus lawsuits tensored by the original underlying suit. .
To run a present value cash flow analysis of any single litigation case represented by LRK is an analysis of the future value of an investment vehicle that The Client has invested in to LRK’s future value benefit above that of The Client’s – not under the strict rules of legal representation rather under the rules of a high-yield, high-risk financial product..
The Mission Summary:
- LRK designs, manufactures, and markets counterfeit lawsuits using a circuitous system in the implementation and achievement of benefits of these lawsuits, playing several roles that effectively invert a “maintenance for profit” schema. LRK acts in a dual role as legal representative and as a wrongful aide of its Client in pursuit and promotion of lawsuits – for LRK’s profit – at the Client’s expense – which is finessed as an ‘investment opportunity’ of sorts, to The Client’s benefit while characterized as being legally bona fide lawsuits – which they are not.. These suits are capitalized by The Client to LRK’s exclusive benefit – containing a ‘contingency benefit’ to The Client – not the other way around – in an ironic twist of the law…
- The Client is sucked into a virtual joint-venture between itself and LRK that only LRK knows is a ‘partnership’, as it is only LRK who knows the legal premises that it is employing to disguise its effective contractual severability between its role as legal rep and its role as business entrepreneur – manager of a pseudo financial-System that is an effective money-management and investment – at the Client’s expense.
- The Law does not recognize the scam until it is fingered by one too many victims of LRK’s system of creating wealth for itself at the expense of its Clients and of innocent parties whom it selects to victimize as Defendants of its counterfeit suits, who are used as ‘Beards’ for the cash-flow scheme.
The process of manufacturing these pseudo-investment-instruments (bogus lawsuits) cannot be defended legally. Their packaging and marketing parallel that of the role of a merchant bank, except that The Client is both underwriter, and purchaser of its investment-instrument – and, the law firm, LRK is the sole-beneficiary of its preferred stock class..
The Client’s investment position in this VJV is also a dual and contradictory role that is obscure to the Client, his role is bifurcated by LRK’s complex use of ‘time’ to disguise The Client’s dual and opposing functions :1.) The Client is sole underwriter of its product-development operations 2.) The Client is its (own) retail take-out; its sole exit strategy – while all cash flows go to LRK, and while the Client’s return of – and on – investment is effectively a sink-fund of diminishing returns – except and as the original, underlying, lawsuit may have a major pay-off.
Law firms are not in the business of returning a client’s investment ‘in them’. The LRK system of using its clients to finance its future economic value is to put the client at risk while securing its own position and its leverage 100%. (See below)..
- “Lim, Ruger & Kim LLP”, specialized Korean law firm;
- “LRK client Min and Don Chae”, Korean R.E. property owners”;
- “LRK long-standing client of ADR Services, ‘neutral’ dispute resolution provider”;
- “ADR Services announces formation of Korean Specialty Panel”;
- “Lim, Ruger & Kim LLP select ADR Services to arbitrate client Chae dispute with architect McClellan re $300K unpaid architectural fees”;
- “Min & Don Chae“/3171 Fair Oaks LLC vs McClellan, arbitrated by ‘neutral’ ADR Services” retired judge Hon. Gregory C. O’Brien;
- ”Architect McClellan loses arbitration to Korean R.E. developer Chae owing $300K unpaid architectural fees; Korean Chae client of Korean Law Firm LRK/ LRK long-standing client of ADR ‘neutral’ resolution arbitrators with ‘neutral’ specialized Korean Arbitration-Mediation Panel”;
- “Lim Ruger & Kim/ADR Services history”;
- “The Truth About Lim, Ruger & Kim LLP’;
- “The Truth About Min and Don Chae”;
- “Min & Don Chae ‘3171 Fair Oaks over-valued property mortgage”;
- “Central Pacific Bank of Hawaii, Min and Don Chae”;
- “The Truth About Central Pacific Bank’s excessive, unsecured mortgage to M&D 3171 Fair Oaks at Green, Pasadena, CA (‘FOG’)”;
- “Central Pacific Bank of Hawaii issues demand of payment/surety bond 3171 F.O.G. mortgage”;
- “The 2nd Coming of FOG”;
- “Fannie and Freddie Were Lovers”;
- “Invitation to An Autopsy Party”/)
NOTE: THE WRITER’S BIAS IS NOT RACIAL, IT IS AN INTENSE AVERSION TO A FUNDAMENTAL ANTI-AMERICANISM OF CERTAIN IMMIGRANTS THAT IS INTEGRAL TO THEIR CULTURAL CHAUVINISM AND EVIDENCED IN THEIR DISDAIN FOR THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW IN THE U.S. AS THIS IS EVIDENCED IN THEIR WILLFUL USE OF DECEIT IN THEIR BUSINESS-OPERATIONS AS A TOOL TO DEFRAUD THE WESTERN SYSTEM OF FAIR BUSINESS. THE WRITER HAS FINANCIALLY SPONSORED A KOREAN FAMILY IN HOLLYWOOD FOR MANY YEARS.
(*) From website: Tech Dirt / Vision Media’s Bogus Lawsuit Dismissed; Focus on Vision Media’s business practices
Final Par: “We keep hearing that lawyers are finally realizing that filing frivolous lawsuits to try to silence critics can backfire badly — but we keep seeing new examples to the contrary. Hopefully, with each such example people realize that silencing criticism through bogus lawsuits is not a reasonable path to take.”