There are *many* people making serious contributions to this
fight against the predatory cult that you never hear about.
In the aggregate, they have more effect then the dozen or so
the cult focuses on. One of those is my bankruptcy lawyer Stan
Zlotoff who is doing this case on a fixed (and entirely inadaquate)
fee. He is one cool dude going up against four law firms, one
of them with hundreds of lawyers (Rosen's).
There has been too much going on for me to keep you updated.
If the writer's strike happens (I have not been following the
news) then perhaps one of them might consider being an unpaid
scribe for a while and my fans could get a blow by blow description
instead of these random reports.
Today was a hearing to disqualify my bankruptcy judge. Judge
Weissbrodt has the patience of Jobe. This has worked for me
when I was late supplying discovery to the cult during times
I was overwhelmed, and against me because he put up with a lot
of abusive actions by the cult, like letting them depose my
wife for 14 hours.
(The judge was somewhere else today and conducted hearings by
Anyway, at the last hearing (I was not there) he expressed dismay
at the cult wanting 15 days for trial, with four law firms and
a daily cost of at least $10,000, not to mention the expense
to the court and all the other court business which would have
to be pushed back. Rosen (bless his little black heart) objected
at a near violence level. So the cult filed a motion to recuse
the judge. I was looking through the papers they filed today.
The exhibits, an inch thick, were almost "Henson's greatest
hits." They had the famous 18.104.22.168 troll in there, and my
response to Barb about eagles and cruise missiles, and get this,
my comment in the early days when Tory got out saying I would
trust her with the launch codes to the French missile targeted
on gold base! I scared Stan's secretary by breaking out laughing
when I read this one.
(For terminally humor impaired clams, it is unlikely in the
extreme that the French have a missile targeted anywhere in
the US, much less on the ghodforsaken road north of Hemet where
gold base is located. Even if they did have one targeted on
(*)'s outhouse, the French are no more likely to give *me* the
launch code than the President is for our missiles.)
The exhibits include Hogan's unsupported accusation that I was
taking about bombs at an airline counter (talk about unlikely!).
The whole mess of exhibits is an inch thick. The motion is 24
pages of DA against me. I will try to get it scanned, or get
someone else to scan it, because as DA material goes, it is
a fine example, at least as good as the recent sock puppets
I do have Stan's reply in electronic form. With some people,
their written and verbal personalities are rather different.
Stan is not one of those, and you may safely feel you have met
him after reading this.
Hats off to Stan, one of the good guys!
Stanley A. Zlotoff, State Bar No. 073283
Attorney at Law
300 S. First St. Suite 215
San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone (408) 287-5087
Facsimile (408) 287-7645 Attorney for Debtor
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re: KEITH HENSON Debtor. ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) / Chapter 13 Case No. 98-5-1326 ASW Date. May 3, 2001
Time. 3:00 p.m. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY As a prelude to the March 13 trial setting conference, this court was presented with a joint statement filed by the parties, RTC and Debtor. In the statement, RTC identified 250 exhibits it proposed to introduce at trial, and it estimated 12 to 15 days of trial time. The issues for trial concerned whether Debtorís plan was proposed in good faith, whether it was feasible, and whether the best-interest-of-creditors test was satisfied. Debtor at all pertinent times was employed as a consultant, and his non-debtor wife has always been a wage earner. No "business" is or has been part of Debtorís financial affairs. It is undisputed that the only asset of any consequence in this case is Debtorís residence, which, when this case was filed three years ago, was allegedly fully protected by an allowed homestead exemption. There is no issue in this case of hidden assets. RTC may argue that it uncovered an unscheduled life insurance policy having a cash value that would be exemptable; and it may contend that three unremarkable paintings having a value less than $10,000 belong to Debtor or his wife, rather than Debtorís daughter, as the former two contend. But thatís about it. After a scorched earth campaign of discovery, RTC has little to show for its efforts except a mountain of trivial documents. On the surface we have a very pedestrian case: a nonbusiness Debtor who owns his own house, but very little else. Why, then, the need of such an elaborate trial? RTC is not really interested in the legal issues at stake here; rather, they are simply a means to the end of crushing the Debtor. Vexing an RTC dissenter with excessive and burdensome if not frivolous litigation is part of the RTC agenda. Itís known as "fairgame" and is described in Church of Scientology vs Wollersheim, 42 Cal App 4th, 628, 641-2 (1996). "The cult, according to written policy, will use any means legal or illegal to subvert and frustrate judicial process against them, and will willingly and knowingly abuse judicial process in order to attack perceived enemies." See also, e.g. Church of Scientology vs. Armstrong, 232 Cal App 3d 1060, 1062 (1991). See also, RTCís own Exhibit 23, where at p.2, line 21, Judge Whyte opined that: "RTC was extremely aggressive throughout the litigation and did for more than was necessary to prosecute its case against an individual who represented himself until shortly before trial. RTC was also guilty of trying to present evidence and actually presenting some evidence at trial without objection that had little to do with the issues but was apparently designed to try and make Henson look like a crackpot." Debtorís counsel has been an attorney emphasizing small business and Bankruptcy law for more than 20 years and has been a Bar Certified Specialist in the field for 5 years. Debtorís counsel has never experienced a Chapter 13 confirmation\motion to dismiss trial that came close to the estimate of time given for this case. A complicated business and asset case in Chapter 13 might require three to four days at most. The typical consumer case such as Debtorís will take between one-half day and two days. The longest trial ever engaged in by Debtorís counsel was eight days, but that concerned an alleged swindler involved in a ponzi scheme. Judge March of the Central District was given a taste of this case when RTC traipsed down there to depose Debtorís daughter, Amber, regarding her college expenses and the ownership of the three paintings mentioned above. Attached hereto are pertinent parts of the transcript of a motion for protective order requested by Amber, in which Judge March remarks: "I donít think Iíve even seen a Chapter 13 docket that ran 34 pages in this district. I was amazed when we requested the docket from the Northern District of California and they faxed down 34 pages of their docket from the clerkís office, and I donít think Iíve ever seen a Chapter 13 case where so many people have had either 2004 exams or depositions taken. Itís---itís absolutely amazing." (p.20) "I think in light of the history of this case that is reflected in the docket of the N.D. of Cal, which I take judicial notice of, and is reflected in the motion, that there have been a lot of long contentious and duplicative discovery in depositions taken, and that therefore, it was appropriate to move this court for a protective order."(p.24) In fact Judge March limited Amberís deposition to one hour and awarded sanctions to Amber of $1,000. Needless to say RTC appealed the decision. Judge Weissbrodt has actually been more tolerant to RTC than probably most judges would have been. This court stated each on, despite Debtorís objections, that it would give free reign to RTC to allow it to discover pretty much anything it wanted. RTCís allegations of bias show not the strength of its position, but rather its lack of understanding of Chapter 13 law. Chapter 13 law is all about the transfer of money from debtors to creditors consistent with their wealth and ability to pay. The nature and amount of the debt, that is, whether itís based upon an intentional tort or contract, and for what amount play only a small part in the case. Therefore, one can, for example, with equal ease confirm a plan proposed by an embezzler or by an uninsured accident victim. Consequently, when this court suggested that RTC consider some sort of settlement, the court means, but is too polite to say, "you idiots, this case is supposed to be about how much money you get and when you get it; so why are you spending more in litigation than you can ever hope to recover; and why are you so arrogant as to insist upon wasting my court time in your pointless exercise." Mr. Rosen can pontificate all he wants about the vaunted right of a copyright owner not to publish; but the question remains: whatís the big deal injury to RTC. Does it compare to the wrong done by an assault, battery or embezzlement? Is it any more needing of Chapter 13 recompense that a small merchant whose contract will go mostly unpaid. The courtís normal business consist of dealings with a large caseload of consumer debtors who are all seeking a fresh start as part of a compact whereby they distribute some fair amount of wealth to creditors. The logic of the practice ineluctably draws most participants toward settlement. There is not really a winner and loser in Chapter 13, in the classic sense. If every creditor, like RTC created contention over every detail in a case, then the system would break down. This court was acting on well- honed instinct to try to reason with RTC that it ought to consider some settlement. The only failure of this court is that it did not appreciate the intractable ulterior motives of RTC. RTCís motion should be denied.
Date____________________ _______________________ ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR