Web Site Under Construction
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
On May 10, 1996, I filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy.
I listed City National Bank as a creditor in the amount of claim for $39,873.56.
Total creditor claims were $69,387 (the difference being mostly credit card companies).
I listed my 1/4 interest in the Fannie Borun Trust as property of the estate (valued at $463,000).
My Chapter 13 plan called for the following:
"Other property: Debtor's interest in Fannie Borun Trust (worth $463,000) to the trustee for sale and payment in full to creditors".
In other words, I was seeking that all my creditors be paid in full -
However, after more than seven years of fighting for this just result in bankruptcy court, federal district court and finally the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, our perverted judicial system would not permit this to happen!
At the earliest stage, my pro se status was a problem.
On May 25, 1996, I received notice that my case was dismissed by the clerk of court, Jon D. Ceretto. This, because I followed the filing directions under Bankruptcy Rule 1007 and did not attach blank, inappropriate schedules as part of my filing.
I was told by a clerk (Ms Dabiri) that even the blank schedules must be filed. When I asked for the authority for this contradiction to rule 1007, I was told that the authority was an untitled "internal policy statement" which the public was not allowed to see (apparently only the lawyers know of it).
The Summary of Schedules states the following:
"Indicate as to each schedule whether that schedule is attached and state the number of pages in each" .
Why does the Summary of Schedules give the debtor a choice of whether or not to attach particular schedules if -
Ms Dabiri stated, in the course of the conversation, that if I had "had an attorney this would not have happened". Bankruptcy Court filing practices are designed for the enrichment of one particular industry -
Preferential treatment is given to lawyers. Laymen pro se litigants are discriminated against. Pro se litigants do not have access to the "inside information" of secret filing procedures by which cases are dismissed -
"'We all know that law offices are big businesses, that they may have billion-
If anyone deserves special treatment it is the layman pro se litigant who generally approaches the court without benefit of lawyers' support services.
Furthermore, pro se litigation is one of the most important rights under our American Constitution.
" . . the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws." (Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F.Supp. 905,911).
Moreover, the layman pro se litigant is not required to have the legal knowledge and skill of an attorney. Even a litigant with limited ability to write and speak English has the right to litigate in pro se. A recent immigrant layman, with limited English-
I moved for a hearing to vacate the clerk's order of dismissal. This was set for June 19, 1996 -
Click here for my Memorandum of Points & Authorities in re to the July 17 hearing wherein I explained that my bankruptcy petition was made in good faith and would benefit the majority of my creditors.
I stated the following: that I am ". . . one of the four income beneficiaries of the Fannie Borun Trust, dated June 25,1949 ("trust"). City National City National Bank ("respondent") is presently trustee of the trust. Debtor is entitled to claim as exempt property 75% (and the amount of the remaining 25% necessary for the support of himself and family) of his interest in the trust. See In re Neuton (9th Cir,1990) 922 F.2d 1379. However, in the instant case, debtor did not claim his trust interest exempt. Debtor wishes the Chapter 13 trustee to sell his interest, distribute the proceeds among all of his creditors, and return the remainder to debtor. Attached hereto as Exhibit "3" is the face sheet of debtor's chapter 13 plan showing that debtor submits debtor's "interest in Fannie Borun Trust (worth $463,000) to the trustee for sale and payment in full to creditors". Approval of debtor's plan would result in debtor's creditors being paid in full. Dismissal of the case results in debtor not being able to pay his creditors. The trust is an irrevocable "spendthrift" trust. Debtor cannot voluntarily alienate his interest in the trust without an order of the Bankruptcy Court. June 1,1994, debtor -
|The Story in a Nutshell|
|About the FB Trust|
|How It Began|
|How It Began Docs|
|What is a Trust?|
|Spendthrift Trusts Docs|
|Dead Hand Doctrine|
|Duties of a Trustee|
|Vexatious Litigant Statute|
|Bankruptcy Court Issues|
|Unpublished Opinions Issue|
|Public Policy Objections|
|The Five Categories|
|Constitutionality of VLS|
|My Petition for Division of Trust|
|Milking the Trust|
|The 391.7 Hearing|
|Probate Court Hearings Transcripts|
|The Clincher - "no reasonable probablity" of success|
|The 128.5 Hearing|
|US Bankruptcy Court|
|Judge Letteau Docs|
|CN Violates the Automatic Stay|
|US District Court I|
|U.S. District Court II|
|US 9th Cir Court I|
|US 9th Cir Court II|
|Diane Watson Letters|
|Related RSS Feeds|