On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:17:07 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Keith Henson) wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 23:05:29 GMT, email@example.com (Keith Henson)
>>On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 04:59:58 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Keith Henson)
>>>On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 01:22:27 GMT, email@example.com (Keith Henson)
>>>>Deja Vu--Bankruptcy Trial: Day One
>>>Block 2, Camino Real
>>Block 3, Camino Real (degraded from national highway)
>Block 4, Camino Venganza
Day 5: The Courtroom at the End of the Universe (last day of Keith's bankruptcy trial, October 3, 2002)
Heil, heil, the gang's all here. Kobrin, Rosen, Seid, Fuzzhead, McShamed, but where are Bright and Fishface? The door into the judge's chambers opens and everyone gets ready to rise, but it's only the clerk. Rosen giggles when he sees it's not the judge. The clerk takes another back through the door with her. One of the clerks comes back. The judge's clerk confers with another clerk. A door closes somewhere close. The judge's clerk returns to the jury box. Keith's attorney Zlotoff is working at his table. The 5 large binders functioning as volumes of RTC's exhibits form a wall between him and Rosen's table. Here's Fishface.
I can't see very well out of my right eye. The old lens I've chosen is helpful up close but not at any distance farther than a foot. I may try another one. But I can see Kobrin saying something to Fishface that is more than just a name (sounds like "Sandy"-Rosen's name), but mostly she is mouthing. Kobrin and Fishface share something that makes them giggle. Here's Bright, with a yellow pad that she gives to Fishface. She and Fuzzhead confer. It's 9:59, with a scheduled start time of 9:45. Rosen to Kobrin: "How did we get to this point? The 0 payment . . . if . . . Stan's fees . . . . But if you buy into . . . ."
Kobrin gets him to speak away from the microphone and his voice is but a drone now. A clerk comes back in. Rosen speaks to her: "We going to be long?" I think she says no, but she isn't speaking into a microphone and her voice is not as loud as his. She leaves again. Kobrin goes to speak with the transcription clerk. It will be 3-4 weeks regular transcript time, 7 days expedited. "How we charge?" she asks, "Well it varies according to the court time." Apparently they are ordering an "expedited" transcript, which costs more. This conference is likely in response to Rosen's earlier question about whether the transcripts have been ordered.
Rosen: "It's amazing how meticulous he is . . . San Francisco . . . spending his time signing orders." The woman who appears to be the chief clerk hurries back and gets on her phone. "It'll just be a minute while we're waiting for the judge to come in." I hear my attorney's voice on the conference phone setup. Why? He told me he wouldn't be here. He's appearing by phone, but why? He says something. The clerk tells him, "Mr. . . . when you talk we can hear you."
My attorney: "Oh, I'm sorry."
Clerk: "That's OK."
I'm confused. No one said anything about needing my lawyer today. Perhaps the judge will explain. It's 10:07. I'm getting the shivers wondering if I'm going to be back on the stand.
A federal marshal comes in and walks past me through the little gate in the wooden bar that separates observers from the participants in the courtroom drama. He carries his usual portable phone.
Clerk: "Still with us, Mr. . . .?" He is.
Another marshal. He goes to sit beside the first one in the two seats against the wall nearest the judge's chambers, and they are saying something to each other.
"All rise," and the judge adds as he sits down, "Please be seated, ladies and gentlemen. Appearances, please?" This is a signal for the attorneys to rise in turn and state their names for the record, as well as the names of their clients. My attorney, lacking visual cues, gives his name and mine first. All the others do likewise.
My attorney's voice breaks up. The clerk asks him if he is on a cell phone. When he says he is, she asks him if she can call him back on a landline. He gives her his office number. She immediately calls back. "State your appearance again," the judge requests, and he complies.
Now the judge begins to explain. "I was advised that when I was not on the bench that there was some conduct [that was questionable]. . . . My staff had reported to me certain conduct. .. . . Tanya, will you please swear in Ms. Mata [another clerk]." She states her name for the record, as I did on previous days.
Suggestion to the organist: play either "Toreador" from "Carmen" or "The William Tell Overture" for this next part.
Rosen rises to his feet and verbally rushes the judge. He asks if he may speak. "You have my permission, Mr. Rosen."
"Does it involve me?" this conduct. The judge admits it does. Rosen immediately demands "notice and the opportunity to have my own counsel."
The judge demurs. "The only thing I want to do before memories fade" is to investigate whether there was misconduct.
Rosen noisily disagrees. "That is not a justification to investigate misconduct" without proper notice and counsel. "Your honor . . . with all due respect . . . the proposition that the merits of . . . ." In retrospect, it seems to me that Rosen was prepared for this. Maybe only because he has been accused before-again and again--of misconduct.
The judge repeats that he doesn't know that there was misconduct, he wants to find out *whether* any such thing occurred.
Rosen is becoming more and more upset. "You obviously know . . . if the purpose is . . . I am entitled to notice and opportunity to have my own counsel. If your honor wants . . . " rant, rave.
Finally, the judge is persuaded that Rosen will go to the ends of the earth to keep Ms. Mata from testifying to anything at this point. "We'll recess for 3 minutes. Maybe 5." He gets up and the rest of us do as well. My attorney, stuck on the phone, says, "What would you like me to do?" The judge throws the answer over his shoulder as he rushes toward the door, "Stay on the line!"
One of the marshals follows Rosen and McShame as they gallop out of the courtroom, Rosen in the lead. The marshal returns with the two right behind them after only a minute or so, as if he had retrieved them. Rosen speaks with Kobrin. Kobrin throws me a look. This time I know what it is. A very classic "if looks could kill" eye contact.
I don't get it. What's this about?
The marshal goes in and out of the judge's chambers. Kobrin whispers to Fuzzface, who disappears. Bright also leaves.
The judge reappears to theme music from "Die Valkyrie." Well, not exactly, but he says, "That's fine, Mr. Rosen." Then he speaks to my attorney. "I intend to ask some questions. You're welcome to leave the phone if you like." My man hangs up. The judge turns back to the case in hand.
Zlotoff: "I believe that I'm done."
Judge: "You're ready to rest. Now do you rest, Mr. Rosen?"
Rosen: "No, we've not admitted 291 and 293. They have been offered for impeachment of Ms. Lucas." There is some technical discussion over the admission of these exhibits. Both marshals remain in the courtroom. Bright returns.
The 3-way argument continues. Rosen's voice is loud and aggressive. He is increasingly antagonistic. Finally the judge says, "Let's stop a minute . . . but you've offered . . . " to cool things down.
Rosen continues, spouting federal rules of evidence, for impeachment, not for the truth, blah, blah. It's now 10:23. More what did I know and when did I know it. At this point, I dunno any more my own self.
The argument is essentially about how much of the 2004 examination of me must be included for completeness. Zlotoff says he wants more included for context. Rosen opposes it. The judge asks what lines. He wants one sentence, 3 lines admitted to clarify the rest of the exhibit. It does make quite a difference. The judge agrees to admit the exhibit with the lines Rosen wants left out. Rosen has lost again, and he is even madder now. "Under Rule 32 . . . Your Honor?"
Weissbrodt: "The ruling is as I said it. Both of these come in." He continues that it's 10:30 "and we decided that we would let Mr. Rosen" have time to start his closing statement. To Rosen: "Have you rested?"
Rosen, nearly choking with anger and frustration: "No. I have 2 additional documents. . . . RTC objects to the inclusion of the latest [document from Zlotoff filed this morning]. I will be . . . ." He goes to give copies of documents to the clerk. The marshals' eyes follow his every move.
Weissbrodt: "294 and 295 are admitted." But Rosen still won't rest.
Rosen: "No. I would like a recess. I have prepared-I'm prepared to argue" RTC's case but he says he can't do it with 2 marshals staring at him the whole time. "From what I've heard in the hallways . . . [this situation resulted from a] complaint by Ms. Lucas."
I'm thunderstruck. I'm just sitting here and Rosen is claiming I've complained about him. Well, it's true that I've complained about him-in these reports. And to the NY and California Bars in previous years. But not to any officer of this court about anything that has occurred here in this courtroom or in this building this time.
Rosen: " . . . to have 2 marshals . . . it has the effect of making it very" difficult for him to proceed. Once again, his voice is rising in volume and he is clearly upset. He says he will "take a walk and see Judge Whyte." If it had been possible to do this at the end of the previous day "I would have had the evening to cleanse my mind [I'm thinking of the Augean stables] . . . ." Rosen demands that Zlotoff accompany him to Whyte's court and begins to stalk out of the courtroom. The judge stops him, reminding him that he did not give him permission to walk out in the middle of a trial.
Rosen stops and protests, "I saw you nodding your head." I didn't see, but I was probably looking at Rosen, as he would have counted on. It's the kind of lie he is good at improvising, and he has done it more than once during this trial. The judge asks Zlotoff if he wishes to accompany Rosen.
Zlotoff is not inclined to be kidnapped. He says Rosen is "as bombastic as he normally is, and I don't take him seriously." He says that if he leaves the courtroom at this point he will go to Judge (spelling?) Group's court, because he is due there. "I don't believe in making an ex-parte application."
Rosen is boiling over again. Judge: "Wait a second, wait a second. How long do you need in Judge Group's court?" There is a little discussion of what Zlotoff was going to do there. He says, "I agreed to continue the hearing for 30 days."
Rosen erupts. "Is it the intention of the Court to have the two marshals here all afternoon?"
Weissbrodt: "We'll see. I didn't ask that there be two marshals. You're trying to be the judge, Mr. Rosen, not the lawyer." He allows Rosen to hijack Zlotoff to appeal to Judge Whyte. The court is recessed for a half hour till 11 am.
Rosen continues on his path out of the courtroom as the judge leaves, but stands by the door waiting for Kobrin & McShame, then Zlotoff, Fishface, and Seid. I gather up my things and am just ahead of the clerk locking up the courtroom, just behind Bright. I say to the clerk, "I haven't a clue what this is about." She says "Mm-hum," her face closed, and turns the key.
Back at 11 when the courtroom is unlocked, I hear Rosen say, "I'm going to the Bar Association. . . Stan's not in. He said 5 after 11. Anybody in the courtroom?" There are Fishface and the marshals. A few more minutes pass. On the way back into the courtroom (11:07), Zlotoff asks me what happened. He knows that something occurred between my attorney and Rosen that my attorney made light of. That's all any of us knows so far. Is it related to the investigatus interrumpus this morning? Dunno.
Another entry-the judge's clerk. There is just one marshal, now sitting on the other side of the courtroom, at the end of the jury box and out of Rosen's sightline when facing the judge. Everyone is now here except the judge and Bright. It is very quiet except for the flipping of papers. Fishface clears his throat. Rosen makes sotto voce comments (anomalous for him) to Kobrin. The judge returns. "Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, please be seated."
Rosen says, "They will call when Judge Whyte is available." He says he will make his closing argument but "I do so under obviously extreme duress." He claims that he means "no personal disrespect." Hmm. And I'm a cross-eyed donkey too.
He then proceeds to rake the judge over the coals for not agreeing to dismiss Keith's bankruptcy when RTC first demanded it. He brings up the "poor old Henson" argument that he attributes to the judge. "I feel like I'm pushing a snowball along the Sahara." Oh, I only wish you were. He again refers to a case he has brought up several times in the course of the week, "Eisen," the full citation of which I don't have. Something about arguing against the view that "bad faith only exists when the debtor intends to derive" profit from bad faith. "You know nothing about Mr. Henson." (Not true. After all, he was in this court on his own behalf until last year when he was forced to flee.)
Rosen has decided to play the victim again. How on earth someone of his size can claim victimhood is the 8th wonder of the world that I've been witnessing since 1998. It's about as convincing as a hippopotamus in a tutu. He dons the costume anyway. It's an "uphill battle." "I am fighting uphill with Your Honor." "I don't see why . . . I would be less than candid if I" said he was happy with the way the judge had ruled previously. "The buzzards" (oh it's the desert again, the poor man, struggling with heat and thirst).
Fuzzhead is back.
"He was going after amusement. He was going after status! . . . " And what are you after? You wouldn't care about status or money or amusement, would you, Mr. $615/hour attorney? Actually, I frequently speculate on what Rosen's motivations might be for pursuing Keith with such clear malice. What is it, Rosen? Can't get any other work (we know you don't have time for anything but $-ology now)? Wife, children threatened? In the Kult? Are you threatened with disconnection from relatives? Most people believe you are just in it for the $$, but I'm not so sure.
Now we turn to slander of the a.r.s. newsgroup: "these sociopaths that he associates [with] on a.r.s." He says of Keith that "He had no reason to believe that there was some wrong he was going to right."
What a compact mirror statement of Keith's exact motivation for writing to Judge Whyte in the first place! The wrong he was trying to right was "tech" substituted for medical treatment, sometimes "tech" of the kind that killed Lisa McPherson. Every time he and his attorney tried to introduce this argument into Whyte's court, Rosen shot it down. Now he suddenly finds it relevant to claim that Keith had no such motivation?
Rosen claims that Keith "demands a lot of money." No, but when Rosen pressed him at 2004 examination he did facetiously suggest that RTC offer him something like $5 million. So he could have the pleasure of turning it down. That wasn't a demand. It was, like so much of Keith's behavior in all this, a joke. It's clear that Rosen can take a joke. But his client can't. And they pay him $615 an hour to forget whatever sense of humor he might still have.
At the height of his indignation act, Rosen pretends to be demoralized by the temerity of someone who would brag of "maximizing the financial impact on RTC" by forcing them to continue to defend their copyright on David Mayo's work. Well, not really. Mayo is my addition. Mr. Mayo is not available for comment or testimony on the issue, since he succumbed to a gag order years ago. There is a wonderful sign in Ameslan (American Sign Language) that so completely conveys my feeling about this point. Using not only the hand but also the face (which mimes "Wooah"), one bends the middle finger of the signing hand forward past the other fingers while making a stroking motion. It's a sarcastic way of saying "poor baby" when one means just the opposite.
Poor babies! They've had to spend all these millions that Davey could have gambled away just persecuting and prosecuting Keith, deposing his relatives, friends, colleagues and membership organizations, hiring private detectives to follow him and do "noisy investigations" of our neighbors, etc. I'm quite sure that the staff at Gilman Hot Springs are told he's the reason they can't move into those tantalizing condos that stand unfinished there while they're bused into Hemet and Fruitvale each night. It would mean another couple of hours of sleep if they could live there. But no doubt it's all the fault of that demon Henson who used to come right out there and threaten them with picket signs, calling out, in essence, "Allee allee out's in freeeee." It couldn't be because they need those names on the jury rolls in Hemet? It couldn't be because they need the power of their votes in Hemet? Something about completely controlling that company town? Nahhhhh.
The truth, not that you're interested, Rosen, is that if Henson didn't exist they'd have to invent him. It's the psychological truth that groups like this Kult need enemies in order to exist. There are 55 enemies listed on www.religiousfreedomwatch.org, and all of them are people who have the chutzpah (you're the one misspelling it for the Court, Rosen, emphasizing the ethnicity you use to play victim) to stand up to your client and their (yes, Rosen!) parent or affiliate or whatever it is in truth rather than in law, the "Church" of $-ology.
On and on about that criminal Henson. My but he's a bad guy! This is getting old for me. I've been hearing the same routine since 1998, and it's like seeing Henny Youngman for the thousandth time. The jokes are hackneyed, the phraseology ragged. "He needs help, but not the kind of help this Court can give him." Really, now. So this court couldn't provide a little justice, just a teensy bit to counter the massive injustices that plague him and other "bigots" such as Tom Padgett, who was kidnapped from Rhode Island directly by Kentucky sheriffs without an extradition hearing, basically for the crime of trying to protect a child against a brainwashed spouse.
And of course you wouldn't know that such irregularities are the reason Keith is no longer in this country, assured by agents the "church" won't acknowledge that he would die in jail. This court can't help that, but it could sanction your client and throw you out of the case, Rosen, and I wish it would.
"200 days' sentence . . . This is a man who has given up his occupation . . . to the point of abandoning his own occupation. Our brief has set forth the . . . . We have proved every single element." There is a reference to the "egregious complaint" of which I am accused of being the author. "We have the misconduct of" Henson, fulminate, castigate. Genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
It is now 11:35. " . . . ought to be dismissed on the grounds of fugitive entitlement refused . . . is a fugitive being accommodated by this Court . . . where the debtor has not testified. It's not grounds . . . it's . . . adverse influence." Here we go again. Rosen claimed in one of his papers filed in Whyte's court that Weissbrodt was aiding and abetting a fugitive by allowing him to answer interrogatories rather than order deposition that would need to be taken in the United States. In one of his typically petulant responses, Rosen claimed to be so offended by this ruling that he refused to supply interrogatories.
I had forgotten in previous reporting that he harped on possessions that had been revealed that might have been worth something. He grilled me on the 1940s set of Encyclopedia Britannica and some putative copper that Keith may have had. He tried to pin me down on the date of the books. I mostly cut him off by saying that if that old Britannica was worth money then I made a terrible mistake by giving it to the Goodwill (which I did). I felt like saying, "Most old books that are worth anything are more than 100 years old, Mr. Rosen. I'm not a specialist on rare books. I know how to care for them and how to give access to them by cataloging, but I also know that appraisers charge money to tell you what a book is worth unless you can take it into a store and try to sell it. In which case you're likely to get ripped off unless you've done research I haven't had time to do along with working full time, commuting, and sorting and disposing of 2 lifetimes of worldly goods."
So here comes the copper again. He had asked me if I had done anything with the "copper in the back yard." I said I didn't remember seeing any copper in the back yard. Washer & dryer, yes, mess, yes, but no copper. Dunno what might have happened to that. I said there were friends who helped me haul stuff away and clean up and move. Some of them took stuff. Truth. And that pesky $1500 bank balance that I thought had looked right on the schedule. It's back-why didn't Keith find out exactly what he had instead of guessing. What am I trying to hide? Well, that's fine, Mr. Rosen, I'll just be sure there is no bank balance to speak of in that account again.
The last time there was a substantial balance (around $800), RTC confiscated it. I testified to that but Rosen countered me with, "How do you know?" I received notices. Oh I did, did I? His responses and questions to me conveyed utter contempt mixed with incredulity at my hapless stupidity. He's good at that, as I already knew. I went into this knowing I was for the dungeon and the screws and the Iron Maiden, but I did have the hope, Rosen, that you would have a stroke or expose your and your client's "egregious" malice while you were putting on the shackles and sharpening the spikes. Maybe you did just that? You threatened my attorney as you did Berry and Dandar and how many others?
We'll see. That's not my truth to give.
" . . . omission of credit card debt . . . debtor is required to list all his credit cards . . . ." So that's why he questioned me about how many and what cards Keith had at the time he filed. See, there was one of those traps I fell into like a deer in the woods. "Despite what his wife says . . . ." Hmm. So there was actually a question whether I was lying?
Apparently not. It's my turn now. First the judge, then Keith and now I'm a lying bitch.
After he gets off the subject of what a bad person I am, he's back onto the possibility of conversion to a Chapter 7 and other procedural questions. Back to his opinion of the judge's handling of the case. Any judge who does not rule in his favor on a continual basis is a really baaaaad judge. " . . . better off in a state court" arguing over real property. "Our legal fees . . . Our disgust with your handling . . . appeal of orders . . . the appeal process . . . ."
More attack of any bankruptcy plan offered. "We get 0." Mmm. That sounds like a *good* idea. It is now 12:04 and he concedes the remaining few minutes allotted to him.
Zlotoff's turn. "I'm going to start with a rebuttal" using exhibit 295, page 3 of the September 18 order on attorney's fees.
Rosen is on his feet again, indignation and anger oozing out of every pore. I glance at the marshal, who is watching him acutely. Rosen has not deigned to look in his direction, but he certainly knows he's there. "Excuse me! That order is under seal. Counsel . . . !!!!"
Judge: "For the last time. It's not your choice [to rule]."
Zlotoff. "Date of the order is September 18."
Rosen (relenting-he is wrong): "I thought he was referring to the September 26 order."
Zlotoff makes a very precise point referring to State and Federal laws, etc.
Rosen is on his feet again. During this exchange he uses the word "chutzpah" and must spell it for the clerk. He misspells it. (Look it up in your Funk & Wagnall's.) He denounces Keith's sloppy schedule yet again and defends the lien placed on the property and RTC's position as both a "secured" (due to the lien) and "unsecured" creditor (because their claim keeps mysteriously climbing skyward as they bring more and more actions against Keith).
Zlotoff continues in his gentle, precise, plodding way. Plodding is the correct procedure for bankruptcy court. Not this dancing around, litigation-style railing against oppressors of victims like RTC and poor ol' Rosen. Zlotoff has been at it for 20 years, and he knows his law and what kind of language and demeanor are appropriate. It is not "I mean Your Honor no disrespect" and then 20 minutes of contempt, but "Mr. Rosen says that you can't believe anything you heard from Ms. Lucas. Her answers did seem to be different. One could understand why her memory would not be good at certain times."
He carefully picks apart each of Rosen's points as if he were cleaning and deboning a fish. One does not put one's fingers in its mouth. It might still have reflexes. One simply chops off the head and goes for the gut with a sharp knife.
Rosen rises to the assault again with another legal opinion.
Judge: "What does it hold?
Rosen: "It arose in a bankruptcy where the wife . . . as opposed to half."
Judge: "I don't think it's necessarily a state court issue."
Zlotoff: ". . . another reason why dismissal not necessarily warranted . . . post-petition."
I can't get all these legal fine points down fast enough.
I really have to admire Zlotoff's calm, patient and droll way of dealing with the dervish at the next table. Whenever Rosen commits another atrocity, Zlotoff looks like a Lutheran at a hot-dish supper confronted by a starlet in a low-cut evening gown rolling in a cart full of caviar and French pastries with price tags on them. He looks at the judge, and his face says, "This is a gag, right? I'm not really expected to deal with this, am I?"
Rosen is hampered by the names of the opposing attorneys. They may be Jewish too, and he cannot provoke them into ethnic insults or even pretend (as he did in Berry's case) the existence of such abuse.
Zlotoff: As for the point that "Mr. Henson would have to show up-not true. You don't have to show up for discharge . . . . [This has] already been litigated to the hilt. You can conduct a trial on stipulated facts or summary judgment." He cites another case. "The matter was to end up to the bankruptcy judge as a trial on stipulated fact."
Rosen cuts another oral fart of Scientology-brand law. They throw some citations at each other, but all stays calm. Rosen states, "Here's what RTC wants: post-petition appreciation [on the house] goes to the creditor . . . entitled to post-petition dollars." Before the motion to dismiss it was appraised by their appraiser at $608,00, he reiterates. But that's not a market price. I've been told by more than one person that the purpose of the appraisal determines the amount--that often people getting a divorce get 3 appraisals and take the middle one. (That's a thousand dollars in expenses right there.)
Zlotoff hammers home a point he has made before, that if RTC has any part of its debt secured "The last two years have been a sham." Rosen argues that the *debtor* is showing bad faith?
Continuing to debone the fish, Zlotoff tackles another argument. About the credit cards-is he counting joint cards or only his? Unsecured lines of credit . . . ?
Judge: "Whether a debtor can use a credit card. . . . . The record is not clear."
Rosen jumps in again. Neither Zlotoff nor the judge can utter more than 10 words strung together without Rosen's "I object to counsel putting testing on the record." The marshal is watching Rosen closely now, because he's becoming agitated again. Zlotoff's arguments are too well conceived for his comfort.
Zlotoff: "There was a hearing . . . ."
Judge: "But . . . the trustee . . . .?"
Zlotoff: "He has made all his payments [to the trustee] for 4 years. There is evidence that . . . [and another citation]." Now he moves to the meat of the reason for Rosen's presence and objections: " . . . people called 'SPs' . . . Henson . . . wanted to make a first amendment stand. He lost and so the only thing for Henson [to do was declare bankruptcy]."
Gloves off, Rosen jumps in again. " . . . beat RTC out of the debt. He knew . . . !" and so on.
Zlotoff again: "You're looking at damages. He was headed for bankruptcy. This is not like Eisen." And he argues against the application of that citation that Rosen has continued to use. There was a contract Eisen wanted to get out of. As to the dischargeability of the debt, he points out that Judge Whyte's ruling is "not sufficient standard" because the standard is "reckless," and Whyte's order says "willful means reckless," finding "willful violation." He cites another case.
And as to the charge that Keith "stonewalled discovery," he eventually turned over everything. "Henson could have acted faster," he admits, and says "You can look at the docket here." Then he takes up the matter of RTC's 2004 examination of our daughter about her artwork.
Oh no, I've forgotten to turn my phone off again. I am in the last seat on the back bench and just answer it and leave. It's about donating Keith's car, which I'll be lucky to get rid of without having to pay to get someone to take it. (One recycler offered to charge $75.) I turn my phone off and return to the courtroom as quietly as I can.
Zlotoff is concerned about the time. "Your honor, how much . . . ?"
He has 12 minutes. Rosen graciously grants him the 19 minutes he didn't use. There is something about testing, Anderson, 9th Circuit 1994. "Test is moot. Expenses and income are relevant. No need for mathematical certainty." (This refers to Rosen's denouncement of Keith's "wild-assed guesses" on his bankruptcy schedule.) More cases.
Rosen counters with another case. Zlotoff continues with his list of points and authorities. It's like thrust and parry, Zlotoff with a poignard, Rosen with a machete.
"I object!! This is further evidence . . . !" Ad infinitum. Another tussle. The judge stops it and asks Zlotoff whether he wants to stop and check something, but Zlotoff says he's rather continue, "unless I'm going to get interrupted . . . ."
Of course he does. There is an objection to every exhibit and every argument from here on. Zlotoff is full of facts and figures about Keith's employment and unemployment, his income. " . . . it doesn't cheat RTC. In fact, we knew he was going into the hole. We didn't say Mr. Henson's duty is to pay based on his being a malingerer, it's based on what he estimated . . . his best efforts. . . . Ms. Lucas . . . was seriously challenged. The stock purchase was a bad investment."
As a negotiated compromise, instead of fulminating, Rosen is now simply stating that he is making the same objection each time.
Except now he has a few minutes to counter. He uses "chutzpah" and misspells it again. Once again he claims that "RTC is the only creditor in this case." Not really, just the only objecting creditor. Most of the other debts are joint (joint credit card, joint mortgage payment), and if we stopped making those payments I would suffer the loss of my home and my credit (which is bad enough with a bankrupt husband), so of course I've held up more than my end when necessary, in essence lent Keith money. I asked a couple of attorneys if I couldn't become a creditor in the case myself, particularly since I seem to have no other standing and do not get copies of filings therefor.
Rosen: "Your Honor was, let us say, meticulous [in asking Rosen for all his citations]. I have now heard a half dozen cases [of which he doesn't have copies.]"
Judge: Do you want me to recess so Mr. Zlotoff can make copies . . . ?"
Rosen: "The transcript will obviously show it." (Rosen is always more mindful of the transcript than of the real courtroom action. It is as if the only real thing is the transcript and this is merely shadow play. He is simmering again. "$150 a month, 60 months equals $9,000, and we get zero." Which is true, because RTC has caused so much trouble that Zlotoff has asked for and gotten permission to pay himself from the "estate" or trust fund minded by the trustee. No way the originally agreed-upon fee paid for all this time-5 days of trial so Rosen could prance and pout.
More talk of the "post-petition lien" that was apparently filed in an interim period between dismissal and reinstatement of the original bankruptcy petition. Rosen is railing again about document destruction-Keith's little joke about having a fireplace and burning papers in it. Of course there was no destruction of documents rightfully covered by RTC's subpoena. It's my understanding that one must keep documents relating to the 5 years previous to a bankruptcy to allow creditors to examine them for evidence of anticipation of bankruptcy and consequent transfer of assets. This was the big deal about Amber's artwork. They maintained that it was Keith's art and that he gave it to Amber to hide assets. Or at least that was the supposition. There was no proof of that anywhere, but it was used as an excuse to abusively depose her and caused me to spend $13,000 to defend her from a deposition lasting longer than 1 hour. I handed over several whole paychecks for that one, and am still paying off that debt.
More on Keith's absence. "He does not have the temerity to come to the witness stand." Come right over here, Mr. Henson. We have the shackles and the stake all ready for you (rubbing hands gleefully).
"You cannot find good faith." He is instructing the judge again. "I did whatever I did in good faith. I challenge Mr. Zlotoff . . . There is dismissal or conversion. You can take your pick." More railing against Keith, "*He is a criminal*." And you are . . . ? And your client is . . . ?
My notes do not show at what point in the afternoon a young woman showed up in the courtroom, was acknowledged by the judge and said that Judge Whyte would not be available all that day.
The matter of Rosen v Everyman and woman who doesn't lie down and let him roll over them may come to hearing yet. I've put it in my crosshairs-I mean I've crossed my fingers.
Next: Rosen Does College Avenue, or the 10/10 hearing on the fate of our home. As of Monday night, October 7, no ruling from the judge in this trial.