Ian,
It is so good to see you back. You sure liven up the show.
You remember when you accused me of appearing at the 2004 Examination by Parties that have already surrendered their prepetiotn claim (remember the stipulation?) and giving away all that information...you know, the very stuff you are now saying I did not produce?
Keep in mind that 3ABN does not have standing but we opted not contest that at the time so they could plainly see we had not hidden a thing...after all, this an asset hunt, not discovery, and here is the rule for your edification:
Rule 2004. Examination
(a) Examination on motion.
On motion of any party in interest, the court may order the examination of any entity.
(b) Scope of examination.
The examination of an entity under this rule or of the debtor under § 343 of the Code may relate only to the acts, conduct, or property or to the liabilities and financial condition of the debtor, or to any matter which may affect the administration of the debtor's estate, or to the debtor's right to a discharge. In a family farmer's debt adjustment case under chapter 12, an individual's debt adjustment case under chapter 13, or a reorganization case under chapter 11 of the Code, other than for the reorganization of a railroad, the examination may also relate to the operation of any business and the desirability of its continuance, the source of any money or property acquired or to be acquired by the debtor for purposes of consummating a plan and the consideration given or offered therefor, and any other matter relevant to the case or to the formulation of a plan.
Well, my lovely lady, I warned you at the time I was more than happy to share my response I gave to them with all of you "just to be open and transparent":
Non-parties request for 2004 Examination
Petitioners Responses to 3ABN Exhibit A:
1.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. However, to the best recollection of the Petitioner, he has no such documents.
2.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. However, to the best recollection of the Petitioner, he has no such documents.
3.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. Petitioner has no such documents except the personal joint checking account of the petitioner held jointly with the petitioners wife. Petitioner has no paper work or electronic data from the joint account pre-petition.
4.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. However, petitioner was a independent contractor to New England Merchants, Corp until it’s demise in 2007. Petitioner does not recall being a licensee, officer, director, nor does the petitioner recall having a known beneficial or equity ownership.
5.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. However, petitioner has provided his copy of tax documents for 2005 and 2006 to Counsel and to the Trustee and apparently did not retain a copy. The only documents still in the petitioners possession are copied hereto.
6.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. Petitioner has attached copies of 1099’s and a copy of office expense account of the petitioner from January 1, 2005 to the present that are available to the petitioner.
7.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. Objection, Petitioners spouse is not a petitioner and the request clearly exceeds the Scope of Examination under FRBP Rule 2004 (b). To the degree it is relevant the spouse suffered a major coronary insult in May 2005 and has not been employed in 2006 or 2007. .
8.See answer to 5 and 6.
9.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. Objection- attorney client privilege – atty work product and clearly exceeds the Scope of Examination under FRBP Rule 2004 (b).
10.See production under 6 above. Petitioner was a signatory to a joint account only and has no pre-petition account information or document to the best of his recollection.
11.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. Objection, overly broad, but Petitioner will provide all documents relevant to the date of the petition to the recollection of the petitioner. No other documents are known to exist.
12.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. Objection, overly broad. Petitioner does not recall any document meeting the non-parties request.
13.Objection, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge whether the Examiner is a party in interest pursuant to Rule 2004. Objection, calls for speculation. Petitioner has no recollection of any information relating to the transfer of domain names, other than the Plaintiffs’ clear instructions that the petitioner did not wish to incur any liability for the renewal of the domain name nor for the ongoing expenses of the save3ABN.com hosting and webmaster costs of operation.
So, As can be seen we produced all that we had to produce!!! And we sat for two hours while they fumed and fussed and discovered I had no hidden assets, including a ledger of accounts back to 2004. ANd after all that time, the fools never asked a single question...not even my name and address for the record. So, now it is time to eject them so we can close and dismiss the BK and get back to a fight worth fighting.
In essence, Ms Ian, you can take it to the bank that you clearly cannot trust the statements of Counsel that has been sued by this Party. The most recent statement was their failure to produce document by May 4 as promised in writing. Thus th3e reason for the motions to compel. And it will not be the last time, either!!!
By the way, any word on the board meeting the past two days? Why don't you inquire and bring us up to date so I don't have to.
Still great to see you back...you provide such an excellent platform to discredit the loyal opposition.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Author
Topic: Subpoena Prompts CALL TO ACTION! (Read 58738 times)
