- Report: #1451613
Complaint Review: Harvey L. Kramer of Kramer Law LLC - Denver CO
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Harvey L. Kramer of Kramer Law LLC
Denver, CO, United States
Web:
http://www.kramlaw.com/
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Harvey L. Kramer of Kramer Law LLC Debra Templeton Filing False Police Reports to strong arm a defendant into submission Denver CO
This is an excerpt from the motion filed in court
"...The concerns described within this Motion are not simply one of the Trustee’s Counsel submitting false information to the Sheriff’s Office. Clearly, the motivation was to intimidate Ms. Chavez, and to exact revenge against an individual who was not “going quietly” from her home. Whatever prompted the Trustee Counsel’s conduct, it had the real and conceivable consequence of setting in motion a violent ending. Zealous representation of the Trustee ended when the Trustee’s Counsel reported a possible “meth lab” to the Sheriff’s Office with absolutely no basis in fact.
This type of chicanery should not be tolerated by this Court as it is offensive to the justice system and stains the core values expected within the legal profession."
Harvey Kramer, esq. abused his position and power to efface Ms. Chavez from her property.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Harvey
Denver,Colorado,
United States
Judge Denied the Motion and Concluded Harvey Kramer acted prudently
#2REBUTTAL Individual responds
Sat, August 04, 2018
The Court denied the motion and the allegations. This is from the Court's Order denying the Motion dated 12/12/2016 as Docket #86 Bankruptcy Case No. 11-12696-TBM. In addition, Ms. Chaves subsequently lost her motion to set aside the judgment as she settled after presentation of the case. Judge McNamara was not pleased with the Motion to Disqualify or with the evidence presented. Here is the excerpt from the judges order:
"In the Court’s view, the foregoing indicates that the Chapter 7 Trustee and Kramer acted prudently. They received potentially adverse information from a real estate professional regarding property in which the estate holds an interest. And, then Kramer provided such information to the Sheriff’s Office for possible further investigation. The Sheriff’s Office investigated and found only marijuana, not methamphetamines.
In any event, the criminal statute and all of the ethical rules referenced by Chavez in the Motion to Disqualify require, as a predicate, some sort of “false statement” or “false reporting” by the attorney. However, in the Motion to Disqualify, there is no assertion that the specific statements made by Kramer to the Sheriff’s Office were actually false. So that is the end of it.
Chavez suggests that Kramer had an “independent duty to confirm the veracity” of what Linda Lippincott told him. Motion to Disqualify at 5. On their face, not one of the ethical rules cited by Chavez suggests such a duty. Further, Chavez has provided no legal support for existence of such duty. And, the Court is not aware of any such duty. The suggestion that Plaintiff’s counsel should have pre-investigated the information before reporting to law enforcement for investigation is not valid.
The Court finds that the Motion to Disqualify is not well-taken. The Court also observes that the timing of the Motion to Disqualify raises concerns in that it was filed two years after the allegedly unethical behavior and right before a hotly-contested trial which has been long-delayed. But ultimately, the Court need not delve into the motivations for the Motion to Disqualify since it simply fails as a matter of law to state a basis for disqualification."
