MICHAEL CREAMER

Attorney at Law

5375 Industrial Drive, Suite 203

Huntington Beach, CA  92649

(714)  901-8504 Telephone      (714)  899-1336 Fax

August 27, 2009

Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail

mfisher875@hotmail.com

Michael Fisher

504 Looking Glass Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

            Re:      Kruse v. Fisher-O.C.S.C. Case No. 30-2008-00101183-CU-BT-CJC

                        My Prior Correspondence to You Dated August 14, 2009

Dear Mr. Fisher:

            As of the date of this letter, the following is the status of the proposed settlement of the litigation between you

            1.         On or about August 11, 2009, Mr. Gold sent a draft of a proposed settlement agreement.  Mr. Gold was quite clear that the firm of English & Gloven had not reviewed the draft and had not provided input. 

            2.         Any proposed changes by Mr. English have not yet been received.  At the same time, Ms. Schultz sent you a letter dated August 12, 2009, in which she set forth several concerns as to why the settlement proposal is not acceptable and she copied me on that letter.  I understand that you have understood her concerns and that the proposed settlement is not acceptable to you. 

            3.         No word has been received on the position of the firm of English & Gloven or their client, but the delay is not favorable.

            4.         Ms. Yee has attempted to schedule a date for review of six boxes, even though there is supposed to be a stay on the case pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

            In the interim, you have not addressed the financial concerns that I have repeatedly raised with you and I am growing more and more concerned that the settlement may not come together for the same reasons that you and Mrs. Kruse have been litigating for more than two years. 

            Beyond your unwillingness to address the financial concerns that I have raised with you, I am somewhat concerned about your lack of veracity in your prior communication with me.  One example was your representation that Estate Services Group was only a fictitious business name.  The office of Mr. English then produced proof that was contrary to your representation.  It turned out that there was a specific California corporation formed by you with that name. 

            I would like to see a settlement accomplished between you and Mrs. Kruse.  Given the history of litigation and your respective personalities, it is not easy to put together such a settlement.  I have repeatedly tried to explain to you that there are specific facts that support your positions and those are facts that Mrs. Kruse wants to bury.  If the evidence in the form of documents and details is summarized by you, then it is more likely that Mrs. Kruse will agree to a settlement.  I am willing to help document and arrange the facts and the documents.

            Absent clear presentation of the information that shows why Mrs. Kruse should settle this case, a settlement may slip away as more and more pleadings are filed.

            Unless we can resolve the financial issues, I would like to file a motion to withdraw from further representation of you and it is my opinion that the window available to you to put together a settlement may no longer be available after sixty (60) days. 

            Please advise me as to how you wish to proceed.  Your last communications have reflected an Alice in Wonderland quality wherein you are obviously not willing to meet your responsibilities with regard to successful closure of the litigation.  Burdens will increase as the case approaches trial and a settlement proposal does not eliminate the responsibilities to effectively engage Mrs. Kruse and her counsel in a manner that would persuade them to agree to reasonable terms that would effectively close the door to further litigation.  I appreciate the fact that the litigation has resulted in a heavy toll on you that has clouded your judgment, but it will not go away by virtue of an emotional response to what you consider to have been a great injustice. 

                                                                        Sincerely yours,

                                                                        Michael Creamer

cc:  Lisa L. Schultz, Esq.

(here is my response bak to him)

From: mfisher875@hotmail.com
To: shoya@yahoo.com
CC: wnt2raceme@yahoo.com
Subject: FW: Kruse v. Fisher
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:34:09 -0700

Thank you for the status update... no where in your communication did I see where you attempted or made calls, wrote letters or communicated with opposing counsel to assist in closure of this case.  You have had that right and ability and like the previous three months efforts in this case (since the last time you threatened me with removing yourself if "I didn't suck it up and smile," when I question your commitment and ethic) you have been laggardly and slothful. 
 
It appears, that money has become your primary motive, as evidenced by your "back-alley strong arm" technique of four weeks ago, when the first settlement communication came in and you cornered me that very day in your board room in an attempt to get $150,000 dollars.  All I simply requested is to know where my $55,000, thus far, has gone and an accounting on the case since inception.  To date I have received only one bill and that was over 8 months ago.  I am shocked to have you state in your communication that there is an unwillingness on my behalf, in fact just the opposite has occurred.
 
Since this case has become yours (and our initial meeting at Rob Scott's), I have paid promptly and to the penny what I agreed upon-- without variation.  You were content, until all of a sudden you said to me that you had not been paid anything.  I was shocked to hear this, but honestly, that was not and is not my problem, as I have paid exactly as I was asked and agreed to.  Because Rob Scott may not pay you is not my problem and is a totally separate issue.  I did not blow off your comments though, I asked you at that time, what you would like to do?  I suggested paying you directly and you said you would get with Rob and get back with me and you did.  You said to pay you directly and I have.  To suggest anything other than having my complete cooperation in this issue and this case, well as you put it, "Alice in Wonderland." 
 
You have not been in this case Michael for almost three months now.  This was evidenced by your failure to meet deadlines relative to discovery and other requests, even to the extent that English had to head into court and Alan had to brow beat you into performance.  It took you two months of my prodding to even subpoena the best witness we could ever have, the accountant, Beth Bostick.  When you did finally do it, you stood her up on the date of deposition, not even informing her YOU had postponed it.  This happened the second time also, but she knew better than to go again and waste hours of her life. 
 
You have problems with finding, misplacing and organizing stuff and even knowing what the paperwork in his case consists of, even though my wife and I spent 30 hours combined going thru all of the papers and cataloging them all-- even creating a little bates numbering system and description list that was put into excel.  How many times would I see discovery laying in your office for three and four weeks without ever being touched?  Too many Michael! 
 
Your letter is creative, non-sensical at points, abstract, vague in other areas and lastly, bellicose, the last paragraph is 100% Alan, I have been around long enough now to actually hear his style and voice in my mind's eye.    
 
Two things have never happened to me in my existence;  I have never been called stupid before and I have never had my veracity or truthfulness questioned by anyone.  I have been in your office so much that I have learned a little about all of your personal lives, even your wife coming in and attempting to clean and establish some order for you. 
 
I debated within myself whether to even respond to your communication, yet like every request you have made WITHOUT EXCEPTION, I am responding.  Michael we are on the same team!  Possibly not though.
 
Michael, beyond codes and law, you and I have acknowledged together a belief and commitment in Yeshua.  He asks us, when we do our work, to do it as unto the Lord.  I attest before Him, that I have done that with every ounce of strength I have, including mental, financial, emotional and spiritual.  If you have done the same, I understand then.  In my prayers, I hear Him say, an internal chord has been struck and this case goes deeper than just paper, personalities and money... it is here that I pray you find yourself and that you listen to the Spirit.  Our tests in life are all the same, and it is only the consequences and damages that change for us.  These seem to increase as we take the tests over and over until we pass.  He does not force us to do anything, but I have found there is strong encouragement.
 
We are about to be victorious, not the victory that would be ideal for me or for you, but we are there.  It is like a marathon at 22 miles, and I must finish, How about you?     

When you read this I hope you are as revolted as I am and will write a letter like I did.  This is against sound reasoning.  I have a couple of problems, number one no human on this earth is worth $100 million a year, I don't care what you do, I would buy and sell companies for that amount.  Secondly, all he does is speculate on energy, and contributes absolutely NOTHING to our world, humanity and society, and lastly, how can a company that was and is BROKE, do this?  This is OUR MONEY folks, speak up or one of these days we will all be their slaves!

Citi's $100M man wants his check now

Ex-lawmaker convicted in freezer cash case

Jefferson was accused of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A federal jury convicted a former Louisiana congressman Wednesday of taking bribes on 11 of 16 counts in a case in which agents found $90,000 in his freezer.

Former Rep. William Jefferson, a Democrat who had represented parts of New Orleans, was accused of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes and seeking millions more in exchange for brokering business deals in Africa.

Jefferson, Louisiana’s first black member of Congress since Reconstruction, showed no emotion as the verdicts were read. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 30.

Jefferson could face 185 years in prison if convicted on the maximum for each of the guilty verdicts, but prosecutors refused to speculate on what sentence U.S. District T.S. Ellis III might impose.

It took jurors five days to reach a decision after an eight-week trial. Most of the trial was government testimony. The defense wrapped up its case in a matter of hours.

The defense argued that Jefferson was acting as a private business consultant in brokering the deals and that his actions did not constitute bribery under federal law.

Prosecutors accused Jefferson of hiding bribes by funneling money disguised as consulting fees through sham companies controlled by his wife and brother.

In one recording played by defense attorneys, Jefferson explained that he did not want his name on any of the deals to avoid an appearance of impropriety.

“Congressman Jefferson has a compact with the citizens of Louisiana and the people of the United States, and he violated his trust and sold his office,” Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, told reporters outside the courthouse.

“He used his office and his influence to enrich himself,” Boente said. “... No person, not even a congressman, is above the law.”

Legally, much of the case turned on whether Jefferson's deal-brokering constituted an "official act" under federal bribery laws.

Jefferson has been under investigation since March 2005. In August of that year, FBI agents searched his Washington home and found $90,000 cash in his freezer, wrapped in foil and hidden in boxes of frozen pie crust.

Jefferson has disputed a claim by prosecutors that the freezer cash was bribe money.

• Anybody? 
• Anything?
• No? 
• Didn't think so!

The 'Department of Energy' was instituted on

8- 04-1977

TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh????? 


AND NOW ITS 2009, 32 YEARS LATER

AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS NECESSARY DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR

IT HAS

16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

AND APPROXIMATELY

100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES

AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!

THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY

'WHAT WAS I THINKING?'

Ah, yes, good ole bureaucracy...

And NOW we are going to turn the Banking System, health care, & the auto industry over to them?