Fact-Checking Juliette Fairley 9-21-21 Article on Larry Patrick Receivership

Juliette, Further to our conversation, I request that you and your editor do some fact-checking on Larry Partick's assertions in your 9-21-21 article "Plea to end court-supervised receivership of Ed Stolz' radio stations denied

The article might well have been titled: "Plea to bring bogus claims into Larry Patrick's Receivership Denied." Specifically, the Receiver in the Ed Stolz Radio Station case, W. Lawrence "Larry" Patrick is quoted as saying: "Ed [Stolz] basically just says he doesn’t owe anything when in fact there are leases and contracts. I filed something with the court two months ago where I listed probably 16 to 19 people and companies that are still owed money by Stolz" Mr. Patrick's statement is false, or at minimum highly misleading, in two important respects. 1. The "something" that Mr. Patrick filed with the court two months ago was a barrage of frivolous money claims against the Receivership for well over $2 Million. One was a claim for over $ 1 million brought by Ed Stolz's former attorney in the case Dariush Adli, the other claim also over $1 million brought by one of Stolz's landlords Crown Castle. Both of these purported claimants explicitly stated that Receiver Larry Patrick invited them to file claims. Adli's claim was rejected by Judge Bernal as "a thinly-veiled breach of contract case." In other words, Adli had no claim against Stolz or the Receivership whatsoever. As to Crown Castle, while there is pending litigation between them and one of Stolz's business entities in the State Court in Nevada, there is no judgment or order in that case. Judge Bernal rejected Crown Castle because a federal court has no jurisdiction to intervene. In other words, Crown Castle had no against Stolz or the Receivership whatsoever. In full disclosure, under the supervision of Stolz's attorney Donald C. Schwartz (coped), I drafted the Oppositions to Mr. Patrick's frivolous "claims". I can surely document the above with the pleadings and Order around Mr. Patrick's "something", and am happy to do so if requested. But I think it also might be appropriate for Juliette Fairley to reach out to Mr. Patrick or his attorney Rory Miller (copied), to confirm or deny that Patrick is inviting frivolous claims. 2. Stolz's businesses rent rent office, studio and transmitter facilities. Regarding any alleged failure to pay rent, it is very important to note that Mr. Patrick has been in charge of running the business (thus paying the bills) since July 2020. It is also interesting that Patrick sought and in March 2021 obtained a court order prohibiting Stolz from being allowed to pay rent. 3. To repeat, I am misquoted regarding the law of Receivership. It is important for your readers to understand that this case - allowing a Receivership to remain open after the debtor fully satisfied the judgment - represents a departure from law which has stood for over 500 years. In closing, Ms. Fairley, I suggest you do some follow-up and fact-checking towards an updated version of this article. As it stands, this article stands squarely in the category of "fake news". -- Alexander C. Baker, J.D. President, Post Modern Justice Media Project www.pmjmp.org Archive of Special Reports and DIY- LAW videos Archive of Ask Alex videos - "questioning postmodern justice" DISCLAIMER: Alexander Baker is not an attorney and nothing he says shall be construed as legal advice. Paralegal services are offered only under the supervision of a licensed attorney. Post Modern Justice Media Project is a Nevada 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Donations are tax-deductible.