Friday, August 10, 2007








Some have eyes but cannot see,"."Some have tongues but cannot speak the truth.They have ears but can't hear. That's where the problem is." it's that rigth Lou Dobbs or you just want to be a populist bigotry, Xenophobic, racist against Mexicans.

Blaming Illegals, Undocumented, Mexicans that they are draining the Social Services won't except you from being Xenophobic and Racist.Let's bring facts Lou Dobbs Not Myth's or Incorrect facts.

SIX INDICTED FOR HEALTH CARE FRAUD SCHEME IN SOUTHEAST TEXAS



(BEAUMONT, TX) United States Attorney John L. Ratcliffe announced today that six Southeast Texans have been indicted for health care fraud in the Eastern District of Texas.

The federal indictment was returned this week naming the following individuals:

BRIAN KEITH WILSON, 34, of Orange, Texas

JOSEPH DUANE ARMSTRONG, 58, of Orange, Texas

KENESAW LANDUS BERNSEN, JR., 56, of Beaumont, Texas

ARMANDO MARTINEZ CARMONA, 52, of Vidor, Texas

NICOLA JANE HOLTZMAN, 39, of Beaumont, Texas

JIMMIE ADAMS, 56, of Beaumont, Texas

According to information presented in court, from September 2004 until August 2005, Assessment Professionals, owned by Armstrong, submitted claims to Medicaid for individual and group therapeutic sessions allegedly conducted and provided to Medicaid-eligible adolescents for drug and alcohol abuse. Under the direction of manager, Wilson, parties were held in low income neighborhoods, complete with food and entertainment, where Wilson and employees of Assessment Professionals would obtain the Medicaid numbers of attendees. Those numbers were then used to fraudulently bill Medicaid for drug and alcohol counseling. Assessment Professionals billed Medicaid $3,500,972.93 and was paid $1,789,333.94. Wilson and Armstrong used this money, in part, to buy things for themselves, such as Rolex watches and cosmetic surgery.

In an effort to make the billing appear legitimate, Wilson had counselors, Adams, Carmona, Bernsen, and Holtzman create and sign progress notes for each patient. When the Texas Attorney General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit began an audit of Assessment Professionals, copies of these files were turned over to investigators.
All six defendants were indicted on 29 counts of health care fraud. Wilson, Adams, Carmona, Bernsen and Holtzman were indicted on one count of obstruction of a health care investigation. Wilson and Armstrong were indicted on two counts of money laundering.
If convicted, the defendants each face up to 10 years in federal prison for each count and a fine of up to $250,000.00, as well as restitution.

This case is being investigated by the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Christopher T. Tortorice.

It is important to note that an indictment should not be considered as evidence of guilt and that all persons charged with a crime are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

6 comments:

jay drai said...

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
Ira P. Gould
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Ronald F. Labedz
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Steven C. Coberly
(312) 456-8400
Firm Name: Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Firm Address: 77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Party Name: Nachson Draiman an Illinois Resident
Party Type: Defendant
Attorney(s): Paul Thaddeus Fox
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Alan Jay Mandel
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ira P. Gould
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Ronald F. Labedz
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Steven C. Coberly
Firm Address: (See above for address)
Party Name: Future Associates an Illinois General Partnership
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)
Order Document for Later Delivery
126 01/04/2005 BRIEF by Dynegy Mkg & Trade in opposition to defendants’ motion for reconsideration and in support of Dynegy’s motion to compel [95-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
Order Document for Later Delivery
125 12/23/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 12/23/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Plaintiff’s reply to its motion to compel financial documents [124-1] and in response to defendant’s motion for reconsideration to be filed by 01/03/05. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
124 12/20/2004 MOTION by plaintiff to compel financial documents and for sanctions (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
86 06/22/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to Dynegy’s motion to compel [85-1] or for sanctions [85-2] and motion for protective order (Attachment). (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
85 06/17/2004 MOTION by plaintiff Dynegy Marketing and Trade, to compel or for sanctions for failure to respond to discovery (Attachments); Notice. (hp) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
79 05/13/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason: Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 6/29/04. Plaintiff has until 6/4/04 to answer or otherwise plead to defendant’s first amended counterclaims. Fact discovery cutoff is extended to 7/19/04. Defendant’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 8/2/04. Deposition of defendant’s expert to be completed by 9/1/04. Plaintiff’s disclosure of expert and expert report by 10/1/04. Deposition of plaintiff’s expert to be completed by 10/15/04. Dispositive motion filing deadline of 8/16/04 is stricken. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part [78-1]. Defendants are ordered to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests by 5/27/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees is denied. Mailed notice (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
77 05/12/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 5/12/04 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. [44-1] Defendants’ motion for leave to file the first amended answer is granted. [72-1] (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
76 05/12/2004 RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiff Dynegy’s motion for sanctions [59-1] [65-1] (hp) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
78 05/10/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachment); Notice. (air) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
68 03/18/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Motion hearing held. Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [65-1] Defendant is ordered to turn over any unproduced damage requests, invoices and related volumes for 2002 by 03/22/04. Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims and request for attonrey’s fees are denied. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
67 03/15/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding motion for sanctions [65-1] (Attachments). (hp) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
64 03/08/2004 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding second motion for sanctions (hp) (Entered: 03/09/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
65 03/05/2004 SECOND MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
61 02/17/2004 MINUTE ORDER of 2/17/04 by Honorable Michael T. Mason : Status hearing held and continued to 03/09/04 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. [59-1] Plaintiff’s request for an order dismissing the defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the breach of contract claims by 02/24/04. Defendants to respond to outstanding written discovery regarding the fraudulent transfer claims by 03/08/04. Plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions is granted. Fact discovery to close on 05/07/04. Expert discovery to close on 06/21/04. Dispositive motions to be filed by 07/21/04. No further extensions. Mailed notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
60 02/13/2004 ADDENDUM by plaintiff to their motion for sanctions (Attachments) [59-1]; Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
59 02/12/2004 MOTION by plaintiff for sanctions against defendants for failure to comply with discovery (Attachments); Notice (hp) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
Order Document for Later Delivery
Dynegy Mkg & Trade v. Multiut Corp, Nachshon Draiman et al 1:02-cv-07446
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.
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.

Jay Draiman said...

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.

Jay Draiman said...

IDB vs Nachshon Draiman - 2007 Israel Discount Bank Fraud Lawsuit $45 million – filed Jan. 2007 in Jerusalem, Israel. from Globes Financial, in Israel
The charges are that the developers of the hotel Nachshon and Elitzur Draiman committed illegal acts that brought the debt of the hotel to be about $45 million dollars, most of it to Israel Discount Bank (The hotel Jerusalem Pearl is located outside the Jaffa Gate - the old city of Jerusalem)
The court appointed trustees of the Jerusalem Pearl Hotel claim in the municipal court in Jerusalem, to charge the developers in damages of over $20 million dollars - according to the lawsuit filed by the court appointed trustees, the lawyers Yair Green, Yaron Feinshtein and Nitzan Shemueli, claim that the developers of the hotel, the brothers Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman, committed illegal acts that brought the debt of the hotel to over $45 million dollars, most of it to Israel Discount Bank.
The trustees claim that they are in the process of selling the property, at the asking price of $20 million dollars, and after the sale there will be a debt of about $25 million dollars.
The difference of about $25 million dollars they hold against the brothers Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman, they developed the hotel with a foreign company that is incorporated in Illinois. (Jerusalem Enterprises)
The Hotel which has 88 rooms and 22 suites, was operated by the Dan Hotels chain, and according to the trustees, the previous owners Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman owe the Dan Hotel Chain about $250,000.
According to them Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman committed transfers of funds between various accounts, gave various guarantees in a form of checks that one of the accounts the check was drawn on was closed, presented exhibits and fictitious and false documents as to substantiate their investment in the hotel - which is false and fraud, transferred funds overseas from the funds belonging to the hotel project without explanation or reasoning and inflated the amount of cost of construction (about $2,500 per square meter) amounts that are way greater than any reasonable estimates that would cost to build the hotel.
Additional claim is that Nachshon Draiman and Elitzur Draiman presented false and deceptive documentation to the Israeli government division of development and investment, in order to obtain loans with government guarantees and government grants. (January 15, 2007)
Possible criminal charges may be initiated.
For More Information See: www.antidefamationusa.com
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 ומענקי

Multiut President said...

Jay Drai..AKA Yehuda Jay Draiman..THE REAL FRAUD..and ADJUDICATED FACTS..His claims are malicious, false, meritless,misrepresentations of the REAL FACTS 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 YEARS sentence to the FEDRAL 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 defamation attempts by Yehuda Jay Draiman, see www.Illinoisantidefamation.com or www.IllinoisDefamationProtection.com

Jay Draiman said...

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.
For More Information See: www.antidefamationusa.com.

Jay Draiman said...

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
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Peterson Park
Health Care Center
Contingent
Unliquidated
1,048,361.25
BankFinancial, F.S.B.
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Bank Financial
3443 W. Touhy Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Guaranty of Real
Estate Mortgage
Loan, Lifescan
Laboratiries, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
859,670.31
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Embassy
Holdings, LLC
Contingent
Unliquidated
2,200,000.00
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
Regina Hirn
Brickyard Bank
6676 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3631
847-979-2265
Personal line of
credit
677,251.85
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St.
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Jonathon Rothstein
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St., 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
312-442-5000
Guaranty of Bank
Loan LOC, LCF
Associates
Contingent
Unliquidated
400,000.00
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St.
8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Cole Taylor Bank
225 W. Washington St., 8th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Guaranty of Real
Estate Mortgage
Loan, LCF
Associates
Contingent
Unliquidated
1,000,000.00
Danny Shabat
3531 W. Howard
Skokie, IL 60076
Danny Shabat
3531 W. Howard
Skokie, IL 60076
200,000.00
Software Copyright (c) 1996-2007 Best Case Solutions - Evanston, IL - (800) 492-8037 Best

B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07) - Cont.
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.
Debtor(s)
LIST OF CREDITORS HOLDING 20 LARGEST UNSECURED CLAIMS
(Continuation Sheet)
(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]
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
1000 Louisiana
Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
Houston, TX 77002
Judgment Creditor -
Appeal Pending
Disputed 15,348,244.72
First Bank
900 East Higgins Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
First Bank
900 East Higgins Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
Guaranty of Bank
Loan for now
inactive business,
Embassy Day Care
Center, Inc.
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
800,000.00
Great-West Life & Annuity et al.
c/o Chittenden Murday Novotny
303 W. Madison #1400
Chicago, IL 60606
Great-West Life & Annuity et al.
c/o Chittenden Murday Novotny
303 W. Madison #1400
Chicago, IL 60606
Pending litigation -
health insurance
claims
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
142,360.00
Greenberg Traurig
77 West Wacker Drive
Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Greenberg Traurig
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Attorneys' Fees and
Costs
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
827,310.10
Israel Discount Bank
Yehuda Halevy 27-31
POB 456
Tel Aviv , Israel, 65136
Israel Discount Bank
Yehuda Halevy 27-31, P.O. Box 456
Tel Aviv, Israel 65136
Pending Litigation Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
Subject to Setoff
25,000,000.00
Peterson Park
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Peterson Park
7520 Skokie Blvd.
Skokie, IL 60077
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
3,000,000.00
Premier Bank
1210 Central Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
Ginett Ramos
Premier Bank
1210 Central Avenue
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-920-1400
Guaranty on Bank
Loan, Embassy
Holdings, LLC
Contingent
Unliquidated
749,316.68
Robert Hartman
6633 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Robert Hartman
6633 N. Lincoln Avenue
Lincolnwood, IL 60712
Loan - Business 200,000.00
Ron Shabat
5936 N. Bernard
Chicago, IL 60659
Ron Shabat
5936 N. Bernard
Chicago, IL 60659
750,000.00
Virginia Feddeler et al.
c/o Paul R. Shuldiner
20 S. Clark #500
Chicago, IL 60603
Virginia Feddeler et al.
c/o Paul R. Shuldiner
20 S Clark #500
Chicago, IL 60603
Pending litigation -
personal injury torte
claim
Contingent
Unliquidated
Disputed
3,000,100.00
Software Copyright (c) 1996-2007 Best Case Solutions - Evanston, IL - (800) 492-8037 Best Case Bankruptcy

B4 (Official Form 4) (12/07) - Cont.
In re Nachshon Draiman Case No.