Bradley D. Sharp US AU - Brad make up your mind
In the Bankruptcy Court of Robert S. Bardwil in the Eastern District of California, Bradley D. Sharp states "there is no dispute as to the ownership of the Salyer assets in Australia." Bardwil granted Sharp a Summary Judgement in the face of 2,684 Exhibit documents that prove there is a massive dispute. On January 8, 2013 in the Australian Federal Court of New South Wales of Justice Emmett, Bradley D. Sharp states in Sworn Court documents that "there is a dispute" regarding the ownership of the Salyer assets.

So which is it dispute or no dispute? You cannot have it both ways.

In Sworn Affidavits -
Bradley D. Sharp and his legal team along with representatives of BMO state "there is no dispute" and Judge Bardwil agrees, however, at the same time Brad Sharp and BMO continue to litigate under multiple lawsuites in the Federal Court of Australia, their own declarations filed in Australlia refute their position in the United States and the Summary Judgement filed and ordered by Judge Bardwil. There is in fact a massive dispute over the identical issue in the Federal Court of Australia before Justice Emmett.

February 2012 they file a dispute in Australia

Five months later they went to Bardwil and filed "there is not dispute, give us a Summary Judgement".

The Sharp team wrote the letter for Judge Bardwil prior to the Judgement, had Bardwil sign the letter then Bradley D. Sharp sent the letter to Justice Emmett. Bardwil did not even send the letter himself.

The dispute includes the fact that BMO refuses to provide any evidence under Federal Subpeona and no witnesses. BMO states that gosh we don't know nothing. Yet under the same subpeona Wells Fargo supplied evidence that they do know something in fact they know quite a bit. A major red flag that BMO is hiding the facts of their wrong doing.

Corruption in the Eastern District of California Bankruptcy Court -
"there are no genuine disputes" - Judge Robert S. Bardwil
Please see - Exhibits A - AV of 2337 sub-con at the botton of this page, which prove Bardwil either did not read the filing in his court or he works for Bradley D. Sharp and BMO.
NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ORDER DENYING STAY PENDING APPEAL
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING FACTS AND CLAIMS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF HOLLY L. HOSTROP IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING FACTS AND CLAIMS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

DEPOSITION OF BRENT C. WILLIAMS

NOTICE BY THE CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OF STALKING HORSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH OLAM WEST COAST, INC.

DEPOSITION OF SHONDALE SEYMOUR

EXHIBIT II

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING FACTS AND CLAIMS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

DECLARATION OF HOLLY L. HOSTROP IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING FACTS AND CLAIMS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

DECLARATION OF KELLY WOODRUFF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING FACTS AND CLAIMS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

DEFENDANTS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED AND UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING FACTS AND CLAIMS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING FACTS AND CLAIMS FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL

Defense Supplemental Points & Authorities:
Supreme Court Case Law is invoked in response to the very poorly written unsupported, Attack made by Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee, Bradley D. Sharp and his attorneys in an effort to steal Salyer assets in Australia. Confusingly Sharp decides to comingle the Criminal Case and the Civil Case as the only reasonable excuse for having given SK Foods LP to OLAM for less than 1/20th it's value with no other bidders in the process.

Typo on page 3, line 10, date should read 2009.

Exhibits A-Z and AA-AV prove Sharp and his attorneys and the attorneys of Bank of Montreal mislead the Court and implicates Bank of Montreal (BMO Captial Markets), Wells Fargo, The Morning Star Packing Co and their partners, OLAM and the Department of Justice in a conspiracy to confiscate the Salyer built assets worldwide.

Exhibit Index and Description included in Holly Hostrop Declaration | Download All Exhibits Zip file

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

Exhibit F

Exhibit G

Exhibit H

Exhibit I

Exhibit J

Exhibit K

Exhibit L

Exhibit M

Exhibit N

Exhibit O

Exhibit P

Exhibit Q

Exhibit R

Exhibit S

Exhibit T

Exhibit U

Exhibit V

Exhibit W - vacated due to duplication

Exhibit X

Exhibit Y

Exhibit Z

Exhibit AA

Exhibit AB

Exhibit AC

Exhibit AD

Exhibit AE

Exhibit AF

Exhibit AG

Exhibit AH

Exhibit AI

Exhibit AJ

Exhibit AK

Exhibit AL

Exhibit AM - The degree to which Morning Star successfully turned the government’s investigation into a vehicle to pursue SK Foods is laid bare in Manuel’s first formal interview with the FBI on October 18, 2006. The entire interview concerns alleged improprieties at SK Foods. Manuel’s embezzlement at Morning Star is not even discussed once. Indeed, because Manuel’s wrongdoing at Morning Star had not been discussed, Manuel’s lawyer requested a second interview with the government in December 2006 to disclose the details of Manuel’s embezzlement at Morning Star. Morning Star’s interest in the investigation stemmed not from a desire to seek justice but rather a desire to eliminate a competitor.

Exhibit AN

Exhibit AO

Exhibit AP

Exhibit AQ

Exhibit AR

Exhibit AS

Exhibit AT

Exhibit AU

Exhibit AV