176 Henry St., #45
Canada N3S 5C8
Telephone (519) 770-0646
Facsimile (by arrangement)
In pro se
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re:H. KEITH HENSONDebtor.Religious Technology Center,
Plaintiff,Arel Lucas, an individual, as wife of the Debtor; Carol Wu,
as Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendant.
Case No. 98-5-1326 ASW-7(Chapter 7)
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO. 0315131ANSWER TO COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST OF A PUTATIVE CO-OWNER UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 7001(2)
The defendant apologizes for being late in answering the complaint. The reasons for lateness are explained in the attached declaration and are due to circumstances beyond the control of the defendant, including not receiving the complaint and not being able to find an attorney who will answer it.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, PARTIES
As to Paragraphs 1-3 of the Complaint, the defendant has been advised to admit these paragraphs, but I do not know the law and cannot determine if this is correct for me to do.
As to Paragraph 4, I have reason to doubt the truth of this statement, and some of the reasons for the defendant's doubt are outlined in the attached declaration.
As to Paragraph 5, I, Victoria Arel Lucas, am debtor H. Keith Henson's wife. My husband (the "Debtor") is a refugee filing a claim for asylum in Canada and is not a fugitive from anything in Canada. He does not reside in Toronto, and neither do I. I own real property in joint tenancy with my husband at 302 College, Palo Alto, California (the "Property"). RTC does in fact know where we reside and has known the whereabouts of my husband and me continuously by reports from agents.
As to Paragraph 6, the defendant does not know the law as to Trustee Wu's interest or relationship to the Property. Ms Wu has no interest known to me except as trustee.
As to Paragraph 7, I have never owned any substantial (over $100 or so) property, and never any real property, as community property with my husband. If the joint tenancy of the defendant and the Debtor in the Property is not to be upheld, then every joint tenancy in the State of California is at stake, and possibly in the United States (since I do not know the law). Our joint tenancy was drawn up by a title company whom we paid to set it up as it had been set up for our previous ownership of property in San Jose in joint tenancy. Perhaps, if the joint tenancy does not hold, we have reason to sue Chicago Title for negligence as to their representations to us of the nature of the deed we were signing.
As to paragraph 8, I believe it is a correct assessment, but I wish to restate my position for the record. Before my marriage to Debtor, we signed a prenuptial agreement that keeps our property separate except where we agree to own it jointly. Except for joint tenancy in Property, we have never owned anything jointly except for a few books and pieces of furniture. At this point I own nothing except for a few personal belongings, a little money in cash and checking accounts, my small IRA (see my declaration) and my interest in the Property. I do not have an interest in any community property. The joint tenancy in the Property as stated in the deed and accompanying papers signed at purchase constitutes the whole of our agreement as to the Property. The Property is not and never has been held as community property.
As to paragraph 9, RTC seeks more than determination of rights and interests. They seek the total destruction of the Debtor and the ruination of the defendant to be sure that I do not help the Debtor emotionally, physically, financially or in any other way. To this end, they have shamefully abused this court, law-enforcement officials and courts of the State of California, threatened my attorney, threatened my husband's attorney, threatened the Debtor, and are currently attempting to intimidate and financially impoverish me using their Complaint, among other devices.
THEREFORE, Defendant answers Plaintiff's demands regarding entry of judgment as follows:
1. The entirety of the Property is held in joint tenancy by Debtor and Defendant and is not now nor has it ever been community property.
2. No judgment of RTC's encumbers the Defendant's interest in the Property.
3. RTC's lien does not encumber the Defendant's interest in the Property.
4. RTC has no claim of any kind on the property that is subordinate to the interest of the Defendant. If this is not true, then joint tenancy as legal tenure is a mockery of law and precedent.
5. RTC is not due any costs of any action they have brought against Debtor or against me. They have continuously abused the courts and law enforcement agencies of the United States in an attempt to silence my husband and me, and except for the costs thereof the defendant would be suing RTC for injury and damages done to me by them since 1997.
6. If the Court should deem "relief" for RTC, which in fact operates as a for-profit corporation without let or hindrance by reason of its masquerade as a "religious" organization, to be appropriate, then Defendant absolutely relinquishes any hope she ever had of justice in the United States of America.
Dated: June 19, 2003
Victoria Arel Lucas
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I declare that I am over eighteen years of age. My address is 176 Henry St., #45, Brantford, Ontario, Canada N3S 5C8. On June 19, 2003, I served the attached Answer to Complaint and the attached Declaration of Victoria Arel Lucas by placing a true copy in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the Canadian mail at Brantford, Ontario, Canada, addressed as follows:
Elaine M. Seid
McPharlin, Sprinkles & Thomas
10 Almaden Blvd, #1460
San Jose, CA 95113
Helena K. Kobrin
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Blvd #900
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Samuel D. Rosen
75 East 55th St, 12th Flr
NY, NY 10022-3205
Attorney for RTC
19925 Stevens Creek Blvd
Cupertino, CA 95014-2305
Attorney for Carol Wu, Chapter 7 Trustee
David J. Cook
Cook, Perkiss & Lew
333 Pine St, 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
U. S. Trustee's Ofc
280 S. 1st St., #268
San Jose, CA 95113
I faxed a copy to the attorney for Debtor, Stanley A. Zlotoff at (408) 287-7645.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 19, 2003, at Brantford, Ontario, Canada.
Arel Lucas, Pro Per