Coders and bloggers are good at what they do and in those spheres it would generally be a good idea to defer to them for advice, however, in the sphere of law it's generally a good idea to defer to someone with expertise in that field.
Not this one. Read the blog post on which the decision is based (http://www.bankruptcycorruption.com/2010/12/kevin-padrick-of...). She sounds positively unhinged.
That doesn't mean she should owe this company $2.5 million. But this doesn't read like the work of a journalist or someone with a source. It reads like the ravings of a lunatic. I don't have near enough evidence to make a final judgment one way or another but this certainly smells more like defamation than whistle-blowing.
I can only assume the blogger is going for that phrase in Google.
www.obsidianfinancesucks.com/ is #4 for that phrase.
Hopefully the ACLU would take up her cause on appeal.
It's pretty easy to get blinders on if you're representing yourself.