Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1451613

Complaint Review: Harvey L. Kramer of Kramer Law LLC - Denver CO

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Thoob — Memphis TN United States
  • Author Not Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Harvey L. Kramer of Kramer Law LLC Denver, CO United States

Harvey L. Kramer of Kramer Law LLC Debra Templeton Filing False Police Reports to strong arm a defendant into submission Denver CO

*REBUTTAL Individual responds: Judge Denied the Motion and Concluded Harvey Kramer acted prudently

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

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.

 

 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/13/2018 12:26 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/harvey-l-kramer-of-kramer-law-llc/denver-co/harvey-l-kramer-of-kramer-law-llc-debra-templeton-filing-false-police-reports-to-strong-1451613. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
0Consumer
1Employee/Owner

#1 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Judge Denied the Motion and Concluded Harvey Kramer acted prudently

AUTHOR: Harvey - (United States)

POSTED: Saturday, 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."

 

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now