HB 2141: Prohibit Regulating Fuel Additives
H.B. 2141, P.N. 2920 (GEIST). This would create the Fuel Additive Regulatory Control Act.
This would prohibit the Environmental Quality Board from regulating the specifications for motor fuel.
posted by Comment on Pennsylvania Legislation @ 4:36 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
I guess you want to pay inflated gas prices then. If states are going to mandate boutique blends, then states should take the full responsibility for *paying for the development and distribution of those blends* so the oil companies don't have to spread the additional, ludicrous costs across the nation. Pass this bill now.
home equity
thanks for the usefull info. Here is some great informaion for you and everybody. understand zero down mortgage loans.
altoona apartment finder pennsylvania
INCREASING COST OF ENERGY and INFLATED FRAUDULENT BILLING
It is not enough that consumers are paying higher cost for energy – Gas, Electric, Tel., Etc.
Due to the market volatility and the increase demand for energy worldwide and the manipulation of market conditions by various corporation.
Deregulation, which was designed to save the consumer on the cost of energy. Many new companies have started selling gas and electric in the past 20 years, as a result of this deregulation. We now have numerous deregulated third party suppliers of Gas and Electric that are gouging the consumers – billing prices higher than the regulated utility companies, inflating the bill, billing for product never delivered, billing phantom tax on the product, reneging on fixed price contract – when market prices go beyond the fixed contract. In short any way they can cheat, deceive and defraud the consumer is fair game.
Among the companies that practice such tactics is MULTIUT CORP or Multiut LLC of Skokie, Illinois the owner of the company is well connected, one of the previous owners was a federal judge and therefore has gotten away with numerous over billing and deceptive practices, there are numerous lawsuits for fraud pending against Multiut Corp and its owner among them a Class Action Suit and Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446 The Federal Court has imposed numerous contempt orders against Multiut and its owner and its owner is involved in numerous other fraud in the Nursing Home business (defrauding the state Nursing License with false documents to obtain a Nursing Home License) and a hotel project where he committed a fraud of $45 million dollars and numerous other fraud and deception too numerous to mention. (Especially since Multiut is represented by Jack Abramoff Law Firm – which has clout).
Another Company is Santana Energy out of Texas. Some utility companies were forced to refund the consumers hundreds of million of dollars due to manipulation of pricing and billing – many of those shenanigans stem from the Enron debacle some precede it and continue on to date.
Many of these suppliers of Gas and Electric who are promoting saving are actually charging higher prices than the local utility company which defeats the intent of deregulation – Multiut’s billing shows 20% to 30% higher cost and billing for gas that was never delivered. Not to mention Multiut’s inflated billing for lighting retrofit to various Nursing Homes which inflates the Medicaid billing to the government.
Corporate CEO and other higher ups in the corporate world have been convicted of fraud and sentenced/fined (WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, Etc.). But it seems that some companies can continue to defraud the public without being hindered by the authorities.
Other frauds by Gas Electric suppliers are: Centerpoint Energy Inc.,
Pending lawsuits are: AG files fraud suit against Sempra affiliate alleging Enron-like games,
This article is presented by Citizen for Honest and Fair Billing
PS
THREE FORMER NICOR ENERGY EXECUTIVES AND OUTSIDE
LAWYER INDICTED IN ALLEGED CORPORATE FRAUD SCHEME
CHICAGO -- Three former executives of Nicor Energy L.L.C. and an outside lawyer for the Lisle, Ill.-based company were indicted today for allegedly engaging in a corporate fraud scheme to obtain $400,000 in bonuses and other benefits for themselves by inflating revenues - at times by as much as $6 million - and understating expenses to make the company appear more profitable than it actually was in 2001. The defendants allegedly fraudulently deprived Nicor Energy - a retail energy marketing company established in 1997 as a 50/50 joint venture by Nicor Inc. and Dynegy Inc. - of their honest services and caused a loss to investors in publicly-traded Nicor, Inc. and Dynegy. On July 18, 2002, Nicor Inc. issued a press release announcing that its financial results for the second quarter and first half of 2002 were negatively affected by several factors, including irregularities in accounting at Nicor Energy, and the following day, the stock price of Nicor Inc. fell approximately 40 percent. Nicor Energy is currently in the process of final liquidation.
The five-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury charges Kevin Stoffer, formerly Nicor Energy's President and Chief Executive Officer; Andrew Johnson, former Director of Financial Services; John Fringer, former Vice President of Major Markets and Power Services; and outside counsel Michael Munson, announced Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
MADIGAN, DALEY, CUB ANNOUNCE REFUND CREDITS TO APPEAR ON NEXT GAS BILL FOR CUSTOMERS OF PEOPLES GAS AND NORTH SHORE GAS
Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan, City of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and Citizens Utility Board (CUB) Executive Director David Kolata today announced that as a result of their settlement agreement with Peoples Energy more than one million current customers of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas will see refund credits on their next gas bills.
To compensate for over billing consumers between 2000 and 2004, Peoples Energy has agreed to provide a refund credit to each of the 1,014,071 current customers of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas. The credits – totaling $100 million – will be included on the first bill received by customers after April 24.
“These refund credits cannot change the conduct of Peoples Energy, but they will help consumers who suffered as a result,” Madigan said. “This is an appropriate response to Peoples' conduct.”
“We are pleased that consumers are finally receiving the refunds that they deserve,” said City of Chicago Corporation Counsel Mara Georges. “Consumers should not have to pay for bad planning and business decisions by Peoples Gas.”
malicious, false, meritless, and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled former employee, Yehuda "Jay" Draiman, a convicted felon who has been found guilty of charges leading to millions of dollars in judgments by the Illinois and federal court system.
Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Jay" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his former employee.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Multiut v. Yehuda".
Yehuda Jay Draiman is a former employee who was terminated in 2001 from Multiut Corporation when he was discovered diverting clients and funds of the company. He was subsequently found guilty of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices and conspiracy, and a judgment in excess of $1.5 million was entered against him, in addition to several findings of contempt, by the Cook County Circuit Court & upheld by the Appellate court (ruling 1-03-0857).
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2005/1stDistrict/July/Html/1030857.htm
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Yehuda and his wife Miriam for committing false bankruptcy filings in yet another attempt to defame his former employer. Federal courts declared the judgments to be non-dischargeable due to the fraud involved by Yehuda Draiman, for abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These facts can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Doyle Draiman".
http://www.ilnb.uscourts.gov/JudgeDoyle/Opinions/Draiman_Yehuda.pdf
Public documents verify that 'Jay' was also convicted of 10 counts of wire and mail fraud during the 1980's. Nachshon, Yehuda’s brother, originally provided Yehuda with a job in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance he provided to help Yehuda and his family following Yehuda‘s first stint of a four year sentence to the federal penitentiary for that conviction in the 80's. See United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248 (7th Cir. 1986)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/023922p.pdf
Yehuda Draiman was also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission for the Illinois General Assembly (see:4/22/75 Illinois Nursing Homes: A Report to the Illinois General Assembly). “Jay” was barred from serving in the nursing home field after he defrauded a resident under his care of more than $40,000. The report cites testimony from a resident stating that Yehuda offered to return her money if she took a ride with him to his “bank”, and instead left her stranded in a deserted cornfield in the dead of winter in 8 degree weather. Only by luck was she spotted by a passerby who reported the incident to the McHenry County Sheriff’s Department. When the sheriff’s office interviewed Yehuda, he claimed “when they got out into the country she asked to be let out. He let her out and drove back to Chicago…and found her purse in the back seat.” In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him.
http://multiut.com/responses_to_YJD /IL_Assembly_Report_04_75.pdf
The current posting is just another example of Yehuda Jay Draiman's tactics.
For more information about the above, see www.IllinoisAntiDefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com
Great article! Thanks.
Thanks for interesting article.
Response to Multiut - Nachshon Draiman rebuttle about his fraud – rev.
Nachshon Draiuman - Multiut Corp. Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in llinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois and conviction People v. Gurell – Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Just because he was able to cheat the system with political contributions and expired statute of limitations does not make him any less guilty.
Everything stated previouly by me against Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates and his Nursing Homes can be very easily verified.
Where there is smoke - there is fire.
Several courts and administrative bodies have found Nachshon Draiman culpable in providing fraudulent documents and the intentional abuse and negligence of Nursing Homes patients in Illinois – in every case Nachshon tried to blame others for his misdeeds. See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Nachshon Draiman former partner from Lydia Healthcare Arnold Simenson will testify that Nachshon has been breaking and entering and stealing his personal financial records which is recorded on video tape. Nachshon therefore lost his ownership interest in that home. Numerous Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman have been closed down by the State due to abuse and deaths of patients – Numerous judgments are entered against Nachshon Draiman’s entities for overcharges. Not to mention the over 20 litigations that are currently pending. (Such as Dynegy v Nachshon Draiman w 6 contempt of court orders – Multiut, Israel Discount Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman, State Financial Bank vs. Nachshon Draiman and others). Inflated gas bill to his own nursing home and his friends and associates in order to increase the expenses and bill Medicaid fraudulently
Not to mentioned that he is represented by a Law Firm with attorneys who pleaded guilty to criminal conduct with Jack Abramoff as one of the partners – to say the least and has numerous ethical and criminal transgressions (Greenberg Traurig).
PS – THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
States: “All men are created equal” I state (except those with money, power and influence – who are more equal than others)
NEWSMEAT - NACHSHON DRAIMAN's federal campaign contribution search ...NACHSHON DRAIMAN » IL » 60077 ... Receive an alert every time new records are added to this search for NACHSHON DRAIMAN. Your Email ...
Political Campaign Contributors415777. Paulette Dragul ... Contribution Count/Amount - 1 / $2000 415778. Nachshon Draiman ... Contribution
Count/Amount - 2 / $2000 415779. ...
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
128 01/10/2005 MINUTE ORDER of 1/10/05 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : As stated on the reverse of this order, plaintiff's motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [124-2] Defendant's request for reconsideration is denied. (See reverse of minute order.) Notices mailed by judge's staff (hp) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
Multiut Nachshon Draiman lawsuits
2001-CH-19688
GORE JACK MULTIUT CORPORATION 11/20/2001
2002-CH-21586
KSJ CORPORATION TAM FITNESS TENNIS CLUB/ Nachshon Draiman 12/02/2002
2007-L-006471
MADDY MELISSA ADAIR THOMAS, Nachshon Draiman 06/22/2007
2006-L-005786
COWANS ISABELLE BURNHAM HEALTHCARE PROPER, Nachshon Draiman 06/02/2006
2004-L-013384
FEDDELER VIRGINIA PETERSON PARK HEALTH CARE, Nachshon Draiman 11/29/2004
2004-L-008129
STATE FINANCIAL BANK EMBASSY CARE ASSOCIATES, Nachshon Draiman 07/20/2004
2004-L-000663
ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK LTD DRAIMAN NACHSHON Z 01/20/2004
2006-M1-129654
WEIS DUBROCK DOODY DRAIMAN NACHSHON 04/19/2006
1987-M1-168987
ILLINOIS PUBLIC AI DRAIMAN NACHSON D 09/09/1987
Case Number Plaintiff Defendant Date Filed
2004-M2-001804
LUBIN ROBERT MULTIUT CORPORATIO 08/02/2004
2004-M1-134094
MCCLURE WILLIAM MULTIUT 06/02/2004
1999-M2-000227
RABIN SCOTT R MULTIUT CORP 01/28/1999
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-
COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, 'insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000' and that, 'in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion.'
-5-
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for 'a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002.'
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing 'weekly payments for October through January.' The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
-6-
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers desciibed in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the 'Transfers'), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems
•
appropriate.
Ken Ditkowsky
wrote on May 16, 2007 9:52 AM:
' Read your story with interest. In my opinion we apparently have not learned from the Resko transactions. While Government cannot plan and execute a 'one car funeral' it should not delegate its responsibilites 'helter skelter.' The Illinois Court records are replete with information concerning the people involved in the transaction. '
Jerald Dims
wrote on May 16, 2007 8:52 AM:
' See Illinois Court documents federal and state regarding Nachshon Draiman, Future associates, Multiut corp. being involved in fraudulent actions and inflated billing, defrauding partners of $8 million dollars, fraudulent documents to the illinois department of Registration to obtain a Nursing Home License, defrauding the banks in Israel - currently pending a lawsuit and a criminal investigation 02c7446 '
This is just a small sample of the various actions and criminal and fraudulent acts by Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego companies.
Yehuda Draiman 8/15/2007
פרקי מלון פנינת דן בירושלים: לחייב את היזמים ב-20 מיליון שקל
טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לדיסקונט
שמואל דקלו
16:18 15/1/07
המפרקים של מלון פנינת דן שבירושלים דורשים בבית המשפט המחוזי בירושלים לחייב את יזמי הקמת המלון בפיצוי של למעלה מ-20 מיליון שקלים. בתביעה שהגישו המפרקים, עוה"ד יאיר גרין ירון פיינשטיין וניצן שמואלי, הם טוענים כי יזמי הקמת המלון, האחים נחשון ואליצור דריימן, ביצעו פעולות לא חוקיות שהביאו את המלון לחוב של כ-45 מיליון דולר, רובו לבנק דיסקונט
(
904
-0.66% )
.
המפרקים טוענים כי הם מצויים בהליכי מכירת הנכס, כאשר התשלום המבוקש הוא כ-20 מיליון דולר, ולאחר המכירה יגיע סכום החובות לכ-25 מיליון דולר.
את
מודעה
ההפרש הם מבקשים מהאחים דריימן, שהקימו את המלון באמצעות חברת חוץ שהתאגדה באלינוי.
המלון, שבו 88 חדרים ו-22 סוויטות, הופעל על ידי רשת מלונות דן, ולטענת המפרקים בעלי המלון לשעבר חייבים לרשת כ-900 אלף שקל.
לדבריהם, האחים דריימן ביצעו העברות פיקטיביות בין חשבונות; נתנו בטוחות באמצעות צ'קים שאת החשבון ממנו נמשך אחד הצ'קים סגרו; הציגו מצגי שווא בדבר סכום ההשקעה במלון; העבירו כספים לחו"ל מכספי החברה ללא הסבר וניפחו את סכום בניית המלון (כ-2,500 דולר למטר) בסכומים העולים פי כמה על הערכות הסבירות של בניית המלון.
עוד נטען, כי הם הציגו מצג מטעה כלפי מרכז ההשקעות על מנת להשיג הלוואות בערבות מדינה ומענקים. (פש"ר 119/99
Nachshon Draiman and Multiut Fraud - See: www.antidefamationusa.com
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman
Multiut Admitted to holding money belonging to customers
In a Class Action proceeding initiated in November 2001 - The case after numerous delays by Multiut, is now proceeding.
Gore vs Multiut - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No. 01 CH 19688
Posted on August 29th, 2007:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
•
vs. No. 01 CH 19688
DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402
RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE (“Gore”). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. (“Multiut”).
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong – but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement “ unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining natural gas from “off system" suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled “Agreement," Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore’s agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled "Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement.” Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as “the agreement” in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore's 'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,
(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore’s §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore's deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut’s possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut's role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the "good" that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract – not the natural gas - and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax (“Tax”), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, '3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut’s services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut’s response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.
Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
Multiut owner is Nachshon Draiman of Cook County, Illinois
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
A concerned citizen
For honesty in billing
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al
On August 16th, 2007:
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446.
Multiut Corp and Nachshon Draiman dba Future Associate of Skokie, IL. are withholding evidence of fraudulent activities in the Energy industry and inflated Medicaid billing to the government for Nursing Home patients. Also Bank fraud against their bank by presenting fraudulent and inflated receivable reports in order to get and keep a credit line, Nachshon Draiman was a large stock holder of the bank. Draiman Nachshon • SC 13G • Success Bancshares Inc • On 2/17/98
Filed On 2/17/98 • SEC File 5-53545 • Accession Number 950137-98-586
Court: United States District Court Northern District of Illinois -
Case Title: Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman Future Associates et al
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Judge: Hon. John A. Nordberg
Filed On: 10/16/2002
SUMMARY
Case Number: 1:02-cv-07446
Referred To: Honorable Michael T. Mason
Jury Demand: Defendant
Demand: $9999000
Nature of Suit: Contract: Other (190)
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract
Case Updated: 01/20/2005
NAMES
Party Name: Multiut Corporation an Illinois Corporation,
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Alan Jay Mandel
847-329-8450
Firm Name: Alan J Mandel Ltd
Firm Address: 7520 North Skokie Blvd
Skokie, IL 60077
03/30/2007 225
NOTICE of Motion by Ira P. Gould for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney224 before Honorable John A. Nordberg on 4/19/2007 at 02:30 PM. (Gould, Ira) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
04/18/2007 226
MINUTE entry before Judge John A. Nordberg: Motion of Ira Gould to withdraw his appearance on behalf of Multiut Corporation 224 is granted. The motion will not be heard on 4/19/07 as noticed. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2007).
See: www.antidefamationusa.com or www.antidefamation.us
Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman, Future Associates et al - 02 C 7446.
(A $22 million dollar lawsuit for fraud and insolvency) (Numerous contempt of court)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE, a
Colorado Partnership, )
Plaintiff, )
) No. 02 C 7446
v. )
) Judge Nordberg
MULTIUT CORPORATION, an Illinois
Corporation and NACHSHON DRAIMAN, )
an Illinois Resident, FUTURE ASSOCIATES, )
an Illinois General Partnership, )
Defendants. )
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Dynegy Marketing and Trade ("Dynegy"), by its attorneys, complains of Multiut Corporation ("Multiut"), Nachshon Draiman ("Draiman"), and Future Associates, as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Dynegy is a Colorado general partnership with its principle place of business in Houston, Texas. The only partners of the partnership are Dynegy GP, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas, and DMT Holdings, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (f7k/a NGC GP, Inc.).
2. The only partners of DMT Holdings LP are (1) DMT G.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and (2) DMT L.P., LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation.
3. The sole member of DMT G.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.
4. The sole member of DMT L.P., LLC is DMT Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation which maintains its principle place of business in Texas.
5. Multiut is an Illinois corporation with its principle place of business located in Cook County, Illinois.
6. Future Associates has its principal place of business located in Cook County, and is, upon information and belief, an Illinois general partnership.
7. Draiman is an individual residing in Cook County, Illinois.
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
8. This Court has jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(l), because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states.
9. Venue is proper, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), because the defendants reside in and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.
COUNTI (Breach of Agreement)
10. On or about January 1, 1994, Multiut signed a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with Natural Gas Clearinghouse ("NGC") for the purchase and sale of natural gas (the "Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Agreement, with Exhibits A and B, is attached as Exhibit 1.
11. On July 7, 1998, NGC changed its name to Dynegy Marketing and Trade.
12. Under the Agreement, Multiut "[acted] as the duly authorized agent and representative of ultimate consumers and users of natural gas delivered to Multiut under the Agreement." (Agreement, page 1.)
13. Under the Agreement, Multiut is "responsible for collecting payment from its principals. The payment to [Dynegy] by Multiut on behalf of Multiut's principals shall be due on
-2-
the twentieth (20th) day of the month, or as to statements delivered after the tenth (10th), within ten (10) days after receipt of such statements." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (2).)
14. For natural gas Dynegy delivered to Multiut through December 2000, there existed an outstanding balance owed to Dynegy by Multiut of $1,664,501.06 (after offsets for payments made by Multiut through March 1, 2001).
15. Dynegy sent and/or Multiut received monthly invoices for the purchase and sale of natural gas under the Agreement from January 1, 2001 through December 31,2002 (the "Invoices").
16. Multiut breached the Agreement by failing and/or refusing to pay the Invoices in full when due.
17. As of April 30,2003, the unpaid principal balance due to Dynegy under the Invoices, after application of payments in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $12,504,912.51 (the "Unpaid Principal Balance").
18. Under the Agreement, "Should Multiut fail to pay all of the amount of any bill when the same becomes due, Multiut shall pay [Dynegy] a late charge on the unpaid balance that shall accrue on each calendar day from the due date at a rate equal to two percent (2%) above the then-effective monthly prime commercial lending rate per annum announced by The Federal Reserve Bulletin from time to time . . . . " In addition, "the late charge . . . shall compound monthly." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
19. Under the-Agreement, "If either principal or late charges are due, any payments thereafter received shall first be applied to the late charges due, then to the previously outstanding principal due and lastly, to the most current principal due." (Agreement, page 5, Article V-A (3).)
-3-
20. As of April 30, 2003, the amount of interest due, in accordance with Article V-A(3) of the Agreement, is $593,997.74 (the "Interest").
21. Dynegy has performed all of its obligations under the Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of 5593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II
(Breach of Guaranty)
22. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21, inclusive, as paragraph 22.
23. On or about October 31,1995, Draiman and Multiut executed a Guaranty (the "Guaranty"). A true and correct copy of the Guaranty is attached as Exhibit 2.
24. Under the Guaranty, Draiman and Multiut, jointly, severally, and unconditionally "[guaranteed] the payment to NGC promptly when due, or upon demand thereafter, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the full amount of all obligation or indebtedness due to NGC under the Agreement."
25. Draiman and Multiut are jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the Guaranty.
26. Draiman and Multiut breached the Guaranty by failing to pay after demand, when due, the Unpaid Principal. Balance and the Interest.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of a judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgement, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
-4-
COUNT III
(Fraudulent Transfer In Law- Multiut)
27. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as paragraph 27.
28. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a director, officer and/or control ling shareholder of Multiut.
29. At all relevant times, Draiman has been a general partner in Future Associates or otherwise had authority and/or control over the business affairs of Futures Associates or an entity that had authority over the business affairs of Futures Associates.
30. Since at least January 1999, Multiut failed to make timely payment, when due, for some or all of the natural gas delivered by Dynegy.
31. On March 7, 2001, Ginger Wright of Dynegy and Lenore Kamien of Multiut ' agreed that Multiut owed Dynegy approximately $11,000,000, excluding interest.
32. On September 5, 2001, Dynegy representatives Pete Pavluk and Mark Ludwig met with Multiut representatives Lenore Kamien and/or Nachshon Draiman at Multiut's offices to discuss the amount owed by Multiut.
33. At that meeting, Mr. Draiman said that Multiut did not have funds sufficient to pay the debt owed and that Multiut would propose a payment plan by September 17, 2001.
34. In a September 17, 2001 letter, Multiut proposed a payment plan by which it would make monthly payments, from October 2001 through March 2002, in order to pay down the amount owed to Dynegy. The proposed payments ranged from $600,000 in some months to $1,800,000 in other months. According to Mr. Draiman, Multiut was, "insurefd] [sic] an additional annual profit of $2,000,000" and that, "in the meantime, [Multiut] was working on bank financing as well as funds from private sources for capital infusion."
-5-
35 . In an October 4, 2001 letter to Multiut, Dynegy responded to Multiut's September 17, 2001 proposal by asking for "a detailed formal plan by no later than Wednesday, October 10, 2001 that outlines bringing your account balance current by no later that [sic]-January 15, 2002."
36. In an October 12, 2001 letter, Multiut responded to Dynegy's October 4, 2001 letter by proposing "weekly payments for October through January." The weekly payments proposed by Multiut totaled $7,700,000.
37. Multiut did not make all the weekly payments described in its October 12, 2001
letter.
38. Multiut's check , dated August 23, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $300,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
39. Multiut's check, dated October 26, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $150,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
40. Multiut's check, dated November 9, 2001, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000, was returned for insufficient funds.
41. Multiut check no. 1946, made payable to Dynegy for $200,000 and deposited on December 7, 2001, was returned twice due to insufficient funds.
42. On January 8, 2002, Multiut claimed it could not pay the amounts owed to Dynegy because of slow payment by the government in connection with Mr. Draiman's nursing homes.
43. On January 31, 2002, Multiut told Dynegy that it would make a $200,000 payment while it worked to raise cash through a factoring company and while it attempted to arrange a line of credit with Bank Leumi.
44. Multiut never raised cash through a factoring company or arranged a line of credit with Bank Leumi in 2002 or 2003.
45. In 2002 and 2003, Multiut did not have cash sufficient to pay the Invoices when due.
46. During 2000 and 2001, Multiut had creditors, in addition to Dynegy, to whom it did not make payments when due in the normal course of its business.
47. On June 19, 1998, Multiut entered into a Natural Gas Sales Agreement with WPS Energy Services, Inc. (“WPS”) for the purchase and sale of natural gas.
48. By June 2000, Multiut was indebted to WPS in the amount of $1,625,472 for natural gas delivered to Multiut prior to May 2000.
49. On September 27, 2000, Multiut gave WPS its promissory note in the amount of $1,570,337.87 (the “WPS” Promissory Note).
50. The WPS Promissory Note was a reaffirmation by Multiut of its debt to WPS incurred under the terms of the Natural Gas Sales Agreement between WPS and Multiut.
51. In the summer and fall of 2001, Multiut did not make payments, when due, in accordance with the WPS Promissory Note.
52. On September 27, 2001, WPS filed a lawsuit against Multiut alleging that Multiut defaulted on its obligation under the WPS Promissory Note by failing to make the required payments due on July 10, 2001, August 10, 2001 and September 10, 2001.
53. According to Multiut’s 2002 tax return, Multiut transferred approximately $2,000,000 (or more) to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman’s nursing home, hotel and/or other business ventures, at some time during 2001 when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
-6-
54. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfer described in paragraph 53.
55. In the years 1999 through 2003, Multiut transferred cash or other assets to Future Associates, Draiman and/or other entities, including Draiman's nursing home, hotel or other business interests when Multiut was indebted to Dynegy.
56. Multiut did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers described in paragraph 55.
57. When Multiut made the transfers described in paragraphs 53 and 55 (the "Transfers"), Multiut was insolvent and/or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.
58. The Transfers were fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the Transfers to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT IV (Fraudulent Transfer In Fact- Multiut)
59. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 59.
60. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Dynegy, a creditor of Multiut and as-such constituted fraudulent conveyances in violation of applicable laws.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Multiut, for $12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74; voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be
-8-
used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; punitive damages and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT V
(Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Future Associates)
61. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 thorough 58, inclusive, as paragraph 61.
62. Future Associates accepted the Transfers of the assets without having provided adequate consideration for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in. its favor and against Future Associates, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VI (Fraudulent Transfer in Law- Diraiman)
63. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 63.
64. Draiman accepted the Transfers without having provided adequate consideration or reasonably equivalent value for the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of order granting judgment in its favor and against Nachshon Draiman, voiding the fraudulent transfers and returning the money to Multiut to be used to satisfy the debt to Dynegy; and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.
COUNT VII
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
65. Dynegy repeats and reasserts the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58, inclusive, as paragraph 65.
-9-
66. When Multiut purchased natural gas from Dynegy in 2001 and 2002, Multiut was insolvent.
67. Because Multiut was insolvent, Draiman, as a director and officer of Multiut, owed a fiduciary duty to Dynegy, as a creditor of Multiut.
68. Draiman breached his fiduciary duty to Dynegy by causing Multiut to take natural gas from Dynegy when Draiman knew that Multiut did not intend to and/or could not pay for it. Draiman also breached his fiduciary duties to Dynegy by making and/or authorizing the Transfers.
WHEREFORE, Dynegy requests entry of an order granting judgment in its favor and against Draiman, for $ 12,504,912.51, plus interest, through the date of judgment, in an amount in excess of $593,997.74, and for punitive damages and any further relief that this Court deems appropriate.
DYNEGY MARKETING and TRADE
Barry S. Hyman (#6188142)
Helen Wilson
SCHIFF HARDIN & WATTE
6600 Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
-10-
(312)258-5500
See: www.antidefamationusa.com.
Nachshon Draiman fraud and deception
All of Nachshon Draiman’s claims are malicious, false, meritless, and contrived. These baseless accusations are the fabrications of a disgruntled Crook caught in the act of stealing from friends, employees, customers, the government, utilizing intimidation, fraudulent documents, etc., "Nachshon" Draiman, a convicted killer of Nursing Home patients who has been found guilty of those charges leading to millions of dollars in penalties by the Illinois and federal court system. See State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman, 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Many of Nachshon Draiman’s Nursing Homes were closed by the State of Illinois due to violations and abuse.
Left with no legal or rational alternative, "Nachshon" has resorted to conjuring up false stories and contrived meritless accusations on the internet and public forums, to attempt to smear his brother who would not participate in defrauding customers and informed the customers of the fraud being committed by Multiut and Nachshon Draiman.
These facts can be verified by court records available from a Google search for "Gore vs Multiut", “Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman”, “IDB vs Nachshon Draiman”; all are current litigations not from 20 to 30 years ago.
Nachshon Draiman operates nursing homes and Multiut a Natural Gas Supply Company. When his brother Yehuda did not agree to help him defraud customers with phantom tax and inflated billing and the theft of sales commissions and over a million dollars in personal funds. Nachshon Draiman and his alter ego company Multiut Corporation decided to fabricate documents to discredit his brother Yehuda Draiman who knows where the skeletons are buried and could bring his house down. When Nachshon Draiman was discovered stealing $8 million dollars from his nursing home partners at Burnham Terrace Healthcare, diverting funds of the partnership. He was subsequently found guilty of breaches of fiduciary duty, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices and conspiracy, and a judgment were entered against him, in addition to at least Four (4) Federal findings of contempt, by the Federal Judge Mason & upheld by the Federal Judge Nordberg in “Dynegy vs Multiut, Nachshon Draiman” 02c7446.
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Federal courts have also entered subsequent judgments against Nachshon Draiman and Multiut for refusing to provide documents ordered by the court and Nachshon Draiman’s refusal to admit to insolvency and fraud. Nachshon Draiman and his entities and the fraud involved fictitious billing to the tune of millions of dollars and abusing the court system in a manner similar to the way he now attempts to abuse the internet. These facts can be verified by federal court records available from a Google search for "Gore vs Multiut".
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Public documents verify that 'Nachshon' was also convicted of 4 counts of Federal Contempt of Court during the 2004-2005. Yehuda, Nachshon’s brother, originally provided Nachshon help in the Multiut company subsequent to general assistance Yehuda provided to help Nachshon in his Hotel project in Israel for over a year, while Nachshon and his Multiut company devised and instituted schemes to defraud Customers with inflated natural gas bills, inflated lighting retrofit bills to his own nursing homes and others. The abusive billing practices by Multiut and Nachshon Draiman are well documented in. See “Gore vs Multiut”, where court documents show that Multiut and Nachshon Draiman admitted holding millions of dollars belonging to customers, the funds were used by Multiut for its general expenses and that they are refusing to refund those funds to the customers. Multiut and Nachshon Draiman deceptively withheld information and documents from customers that requested them in order to advance and hide the ongoing fraud.
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Nachshon Draiman is also the subject of a special investigation conducted by the Israeli government Investigating Nachshon Draiuman’s fraudulent and deceptive documents provided for favorable financing for his Hotel project (The Jerusalem Pearl). Israel Discount Bank has initiated in January 2007 a lawsuit of $45 million against Nachshon Draiman for fraud and deception relating to his hotel financing in Jerusalem. See “IDB vs Nachshon Draiman”. Nachshon Draiman deceived the Illinois Nursing Home Administrators licensing’s board in providing him with a license No. NACHSHON DRAIMAN 44001323 Terminated 1995.
Nachshon Draiman lied on his application of his Administrators license that he has a college degree, when he had no such degree and provided the agency with a fraudulent College Diploma.
In these instances, as well as the recent litigation, Nachshon Draiman's tactic has been to invent illegalities to accuse his victims of, in order to shift the focus of attention away from him. The records are replete with Nachshon Draiman’s crimes and wrongdoings.
Other lawsuits and litigations for fraud are pending against Nachshon Draiman et al.
The only way to finance Multiut and Nachshon Draiman litigation is by over-billing customers and blackmail.
http://www.antidefamationusa.com
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.
Nachshon Draiman – Multiut also submitted false and inflated receivables reports to Success Bank/Bank Financial (where he was one of the largest stockholder) in order to receive an inflated receivable financing by the Bank.
The current posting is just another example of Nachshon Draiman's intimidation tactics.
For more information about defamation attempts by Nachshon Draiman, see www.antidefamationusa.com or www.antidefamation.us
For more information about Yehuda Draiman, see www.usgaselectric.net or www.renewableenergy2.com
For more information about Energy Savers dba Yehuda Draiman, see www.energysavers2.com
Energy Independence begins with Energy efficiency - It's cheaper to save energy than to make energy
Updated October 3, 2007
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R23
By Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Today’s energy industry is perhaps the world’s most powerful. Energy is the basis of all this world’s wealth, and for perhaps earth’s entire history, the sun’s energy has fueled all ecological and economic systems. If early humans did not learn to exploit new sources of energy, humankind would still be living in the tropical forests. Without the continual exploitation of new energy sources, there would have been no civilization, no Industrial Revolution and no looming global catastrophe.
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects, replacement of appliances, motors, HVAC with the use of energy efficient materials-products, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, insulation, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning, increase the use of outside air for ventilation and cooling (which also reduces indoor pollution and healthier), and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated) (Construct new transmission lines and renewable energy zones) (We should also utilize solar energy for ocean water desalinization to alleviate the increasing water shortages – the scientists are claiming ocean levels are elevating – population, economic advancement and technology are increasing which increases demand)
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
I believe what America needs are cool headed government leaders who understand how markets function and can work with consumers, voters and oil industry leaders to develop a viable energy strategy that will help and not hinder as our nation transitions to our new energy reality.
"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91324
October 3, 2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
"the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change."
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Nachshon Draiman Conviction for the death of a patient and abuse in his Mill View nursing homes in Niles, Illinois. R1
Nachshon Draiman - Multiut Corp. – Future Associates Fraud
You will note that State and Federal Court records in Illinois and elsewhere are replete with lawsuits, judgments and wrongdoing by Nachshon Draiman and his companies. Causing the death of patients in the Nursing homes and a lawsuit by the State of Illinois with civil and criminal conviction People v. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman (1983), 98 Ill.2d 194, 207, 74 Ill.Dec. 516, 456 N.E.2d 18.). Abusing nursing home patients see State of Illinois records.
See People of the State of Illinois vs. Gurell, Nachshon Draiman et al – 456 N.E.2d 18 there has been numerous patient abuse and deaths due to that abuse. In 127 Ill.App.3d 1165, 483 N.E.2d 731, 91 Ill.Dec. 385 Sonnenberg v. Mill View Associates, Nachshon Draiman where millions of dollars had to be paid as damages for abuse and death of a patient, not to mention numerous patients who died falling down an elevator shaft.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian W. Ellis Claims he has DNA forensic evidence that Nachshon Draiman - Multiut forged and modified documents presented to the Court in his lawsuit against his brother Yehuda J. Draiman
The Supposed 1991 IMA Agreement Put Into Evidence by Multiut – Nachshon Draiman Is a Fraud
The evidence overwhelmingly favors Yehuda Draimans' account of events. There are at least eight separate, independent indicators that Nachshon Draiman deceptively modified an IMA Agreement that Yehuda received and signed in 1989, added terms to which Yehuda never agreed, including the incorporation of an unsigned Employee Confidentiality Agreement, and inserted a false date of execution to create the document introduced as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. First, Defendants' expert forensic ink analyst, Erich Speckin, testified that he found manufacturer date tags in the ink for the disputed writings on Plaintiff's Exhibit 10, and that the sequence of those date tags establishes without question that the ink was manufactured in 1993, two years after Nachshon Draiman said he made the writings. (8/14/02 Tr., at 2214-25) That testimony is undisputed.
It is a known fact that justice in Chicago can be swayed in your favor with proper incentives. The trial judge left the bench after this case when the court ignored overwhelming evidence against Multiut and Nachshon Draiman and other cases were investigated by the government.
Nachshon Draiman’s intimidation of witnesses, blackmail and other scare tactics will not work.
Nachshon Draiman defrauds Israel Discount Bank in Hotel financing to the tune of $45 million dollars.
Utilizing modified and fabricated sales contract of units in the Jerusalem Pearl purchased and totally paid for by 1. Nachshon Draiman, 2. Elitzur Draiman, 3. Irwin Katz a former Federal Judge and part owner of Multiut, 4. Barry Ray, 5. Danny Shabat, 6. Gershon Bassman, 7. Dr. Sam Lipschitz, 8. It seems presenting false and deceptive documents is a way of life for Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman presented a forged College Diploma to the Illinois Department of Registration in order to receive his Nursing Home Administrator’s license No. 44001323.
See: www.antidefamationusa.com
Bad news in my opinion, gas prices are set to get high, but not as high as say the UK. We need to move away from fossil fuels and stop the oil men ruling the world.
Mark
Car Breakdown Cover
AAA is funding the media outreach campaign in support of this bill. Cancel your AAA memberships!!!
NACHSHON DRAIMAN 09-17582 and Multiut 09-17575 file for bankruptcy
ilnbke
09-17582
ilnbke
09-17575
On May 14, 2009, NACHSHON DRAIMAN filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filer is being represented by Michael L Ralph, Sr of the firm Ralph, Schwab & Schiever, Chtd.
A bankruptcy petition preparer’s failure to comply with the provisions of
title 11 and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may result in
fines or imprisonment or both 11 U.S.C. §110; 18 U.S.C. §156.
Multiut Corporation
/s/ SCOTT R. CLAR
SCOTT R. CLAR 06183741
Crane, Heyman, Simon, Welch & Clar
Suite 3705
135 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603-4297
312-641-6777 Fax: 312-641-7114
May 14, 2009
Nachshon Draiman
/s/ Nachshon Draiman
President
May 14, 2009
I certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided above is true and correct.
Signature of Debtor: /s/ Nachshon Draiman
Nachshon Draiman
Date: May 14, 2009
Software
B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07)
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Illinois
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s) Chapter 11
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
Following is the list of the debtor's creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims. The list is prepared in
accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(d) for filing in this chapter 11 [or chapter 9] case. The list does not include (1)
persons who come within the definition of "insider" set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 101, or (2) secured creditors unless the value of
the collateral is such that the unsecured deficiency places the creditor among the holders of the 20 largest unsecured claims.
If a minor child is one of the creditors holding the 20 largest unsecured claims, state the child's initials and the name and
address of the child's parent or guardian, such as "A.B., a minor child, by John Doe, guardian." Do not disclose the child's
name. See 11 U.S.C. § 112; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(m).
(1)
Name of creditor and complete
mailing address including zip
code
(2)
Name, telephone number and complete
mailing address, including zip code, of
employee, agent, or department of creditor
familiar with claim who may be contacted
(3)
Nature of claim (trade
debt, bank loan,
government contract,
etc.)
(4)
Indicate if claim is
contingent,
unliquidated,
disputed, or subject
to setoff
(5)
Amount of claim [if
secured, also state
value of security]
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Alan Mandel
7520 N. Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Attorney's Fees and
Costs
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
193,963.62
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Personal Line of
Credit
120,000.00
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Lifescan
Laboratiries, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
259,748.58
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Post a Comment
<< Home