Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Insight and recommendation requested

Expand Messages
  • rbisdone
    Seeking insight and or recommendation on best course of action. An Assistant U.S. Trustee (AUST) filed adversary proceeding against debtor for filing six
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 4, 2004
      Seeking insight and or recommendation on best course of action.



      An Assistant U.S. Trustee (AUST) filed adversary proceeding against
      debtor for filing six bankruptcies in 10 years. Lawsuit asks for
      sanctions and injunction to prohibit debtor from further filings for
      two years. Debtor is parallyzed with fear because this is the latest
      assault on Debtor in a decade-long crime spee.


      Debtor's affirmative defenses were that the AUST does not have have
      clean hands and through their own negligence, they created this monster.


      AUST has offered a settlement agreement that would issue an injunction
      from filing further bankruptcies for two years. Debtor is paralyzed
      with fear not knowing what to do. Fears it is a set up. Feels AUST is
      trying to deny Debtor's right by preventing protection of futher
      Chapter 13.





      Background:

      In 1993, caregiver's stole debtor's parents' estate. As part of that
      fraud, the caregiver's defaulted on a loan secured by debtor's home.

      Then a stranger stole debtor's home by use of a fraudulent grant deed.
      Law enforcement and prosecutors kept claiming it wasn't their
      jurisdiction. Debtor forced to file Chapter 13 to keep from losing
      home.

      In early 1994, the caregiver's filed a bankruptcy in the parent's name
      with the parents or debtor's knowledge. Neither the caregiver nor the
      trustee informed the debtor. For over four years they deliberate
      concealed the bankruptcy.

      Five years later, the stranger is on his fifth crime against debtor,
      who keeps going back to the BK courts for protection because
      prosecutors keep claiming real estate crime is not their jurisdiction.

      Debtor's family spent years legally chasing after the caregivers. In
      late 1998, the family learned about the 1994 bankrutpcy. To their
      horror, the caregiver's attorney, was the trustee on that fraudulent
      1994 bankrutpcy. Family called on him to do his job and recover the
      assets. He refused and the BK judge said she didn't see a conflict of
      interest.

      Debtor goes to District Attorney to file complaint for Obstruction of
      Justice. Debtor provided evidence that the 1994 bankruptcy proved that
      the stranger had committed a real estate crime.

      DA again claimed not their jurisdiction. Sent family to FBI. FBI said
      statute of limitations expired on the 1994 BK. Directed family to AUST
      to file complaint against the trustee for malfeasance, breach of
      fiduciary duties, and obstructing justice.

      In spring of 1999, family took binder filled with 70 pieces of
      evidence to AUST. Six months later, the debtor wrote AUST to inquire
      why the victims, the witnesses, and the complainants, had not heard
      anything. Still no response.

      Meanwhile the stranger is still making the debtor's life hell with
      bogus foreclosures on notes that never existed, etc. Finally in March
      2000, debtor bought her peace by paying the stranger to go away and
      leave her alone. Bitter pill to swallow.


      The next day, debtor received a letter from the trustee of the 1994
      bankruptcy (also attorney of the caregivers that committed the crime)
      saying he uncovered an asset of the parents' estate (a deed of trust)
      and he was going to sell it to the stranger unless debtor wanted to
      bid for it.

      Motion that opened the fraudulent 1994 BK was by the AUST. No evidence
      to support anything - just AUST's declaration. The motion was not
      noticed, no hearing was held, and debtor was not informed.

      Debtor wrote numerous letters to AUST's superior, who never responded.
      Instead, AUST kept responding giving Debtor the run around. The
      trustee finally resigned and AUST brought in another trustee to finish
      the job. Despite debtor and debtor's attorney pointing out the illegal
      acton, court approved the sale of "copies" of alleged docuements that
      only the stranger claimed were legitimate. Debtor told the court they
      were failing the clean hands doctrine. Judge (same judge on 1994
      bankruptcy and the caregiver's personal judge) told debtor, "I don't
      concern myself with legaliities - we have an asset and a willing
      buyer. If debtor doesn't like it she has legal remedies in state
      court.


      The trustee then sold the stranger's documents back to him, and the
      stranger filed a foreclosure against Debtor, again. After pressure
      from a state senator, the DA's office investigated and then sent
      debtor letter saying they would not prosecute because of "Insufficient
      Evidence."


      Debtor forced back into Chapter 13 to stop stranger's foreclosure.
      After 10 years, debtor's credit is ruined from years of litigating,
      bogus foreclosures, and a derailed career.

      Stranger filed plethora of motions to kill Chapter 13 between 2001-03.
      Debtor's attorney refiled bankruptcy several times. Situation
      excerbated by auto accident that left debtor physically unable to work
      or function for over six months.

      In August 2003, Debtor's lender secretly paid the stranger to stop his
      foreclosure. Lender then sent Debtor letter stating they stuck the
      $60,000 payoff onto debtor's loan.

      Debtor's attorney converted Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 because Debtor is
      financially ruined. The trustee that had obstructed justice, is
      appointed as her new trustee. AUST refused to remove him saying no
      legal reason. Debtor freaked out fearful of more retaliation.

      A few days later, AUST filed the lawsuit against Debtor claiming
      Debtor has abused the system. Debtor's attorney becomes unavaialable.
      Debtor has to step in as In Pro Per on the lawsuit.

      The court dismissed the Chapter 7 saying Debtor did not qualify
      because attorney filed before the six-year statute of limitations
      expired.

      Adversary case just began discovery. Friends and family have been
      unable to get the media to look at this. Media says, it's too
      complicated.

      Debtor currently has no BK protection and is about to have all
      utilities shut off and home foreclosed on.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.