Leave a comment

Help Stop A Federal Court From Ordering A Texas Family District Court to Ignore Texas Law or Risk Federal Sanctions for Ignoring Unconstitutional Federal Bankruptcy Order

 

Why would a federal bankruptcy court in Texas order a Texas Family District Court to “determine whether Rental Income is Community or Separate Property” in Texas? Under Texas law, the answer to that question is very simple:

Under the plain meaning of Tex. Fam. Code 3.002, Tex. Fam. Code 3.102(a)(2), and Tex. Fam. Code 3.102(a)(4) “all revenue received during a marriage is community property.” Tex. Fam. Code 3.002 expressly states that “Community property consists of the property, other than separate property, acquired by either spouse during marriage.” Tex. Fam. Code 3.102(a)(2) expressly states that community property consists of all “revenue from separate property.” Tex. Fam. Code 3.102(a)(4) expressly defines community property as all “revenue from, all property subject to the spouse’s sole management, control, and disposition.”

Perhaps this exchange between attorney Michelle Shriro and the Honorable Russell Nelms provides the answer as to why a federal bankruptcy judge would order a Texas District Court to issue and advisory opinion on Texas law:

page-17-transcript-january-8-2015-hearing-bankruputcy-court-trustee-counsel-admitting-to-fear-of-state-court

See Page 17, Transcript of January 8, 2015 Hearing

Yes, attorney Michelle Shriro advised the federal bankruptcy court that if the federal court did not act to help the federal bankruptcy trustee that the Texas District Family might follow Texas law and the federal bankruptcy trustee would be “left with nothing.”

After the please for assistance from attorney Michelle Shriro  to the federal bankruptcy judge to circumvent both the laws of the State of Texas and the Federal Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Bankruptcy Court issued the following Order to the Texas Family District Court ordering the Texas Court to issue a Constitutionally prohibited advisory opinion:

The court abstains in favor of the Family Court with respect to determining whether the rental income generated by the Real Property is community property or the separate property of Carlos Foster. The automatic stay is terminated to permit the Family Court to make that determination.

[the bankruptcy court] retains authority over the distribution of any rental income. . .any settlement between the debtor and defendants . . must be approved by this [bankruptcy] Court. (Emphasis added)

Community property does not simply become a part of the bankruptcy estate simply because the property was acquired during a debtor’s marriage. Under federal bankruptcy law, the community property under the debtor’s spouse’s sole management and control only becomes a part of the bankruptcy estate if the community property under the debtor’s spouse control is also liable to the creditors who have claimed that the debtor owes them money in the bankruptcy proceeding. Under the federal bankruptcy code, the law is clear that “LIABILITY” is the legal requisite for property becoming part of the bankruptcy estate:

All interests of the debtor and the debtor’s spouse in community property as of the commencement of the case that is—

(A) under the sole, equal, or joint management and control of the debtor; or

(B) liable for an allowable claim against the debtor, or for both an allowable claim against the debtor and an allowable claim against the debtor’s spouse, to the extent that such interest is so liable.

11 U.S.C. 541(a)(2) (emphasis added)

So, why would the federal bankruptcy trustee need the federal bankruptcy judge to order the Texas District Court to issue an Advisory opinion instead of following Texas law?  Because under Texas law, a spouse is not LIABLE for the debts that the other spouse incurred before marriage.

The Federal Bankruptcy Trustee prepared the Affidavit that admitted that the rental income and the income producing property were under the sole management and control of the bankruptcy debtor’s spouse. Although the Trustee Reports that there are over $1 Million is assets that could be LIABLE, there are less than an aggregate dollar amount of $180,000.00 in Proofs of Claims for unsecured debts on file with the bankruptcy court.

As the Texas Supreme Court has expressly held:

“[m]arriage itself does not create joint and several liability.” These and other commentators agree that one spouse’s liability for debts incurred by or for the other  [11] is determined by statute. We agree.

Section 3.201(a) states:

A person is personally liable for the acts of the person’s spouse only if:

1) the spouse acts as an agent for the person; or

(2) the spouse incurs a debt for necessaries as provided by [Section 2.501].

Section 2.501 states:

(a) Each spouse has the duty to support the other spouse.

(b) A spouse who fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to any person who provides necessaries to the spouse to whom support is owed.

Thus, one spouse is not liable for the other’s debt unless the other incurred it as the one’s agent or the one failed to support the other and the debt is for necessaries.

Tedder v. Gardner Aldrich, LLP, 421 S.W.3d 651, 654-655 (Tex. 2013). (Emphasis added).

The REAL problem for the Federal Bankruptcy Trustee is that of the 180,000.00 in unsecured debt shown in the Proofs of Claim, $150,000.00 of the unsecured debt, Claim #9 and Claim # 11 were submitted for non-dischargeable student loan debts that the debtor had before marriage.  Under Texas law, the community property under the debtor’s spouse sole management and control is not liable for debts incurred before marriage. Under Fam. Code Sec. 3.202(b), the Texas Legislature has affirmatively provided that:

Unless both spouses are personally liable as provided by this subchapter, the community property subject to a spouse’s sole management, control, and disposition is not subject to:

(1)  any liabilities that the other spouse incurred before marriage;  or

(2)  any nontortious liabilities that the other spouse incurs during marriage.

So, in order to “help” make sure that a Texas District Court would not apply Texas Law to the claims that the Federal Bankruptcy Trustee could possibly assert in an ongoing divorce proceeding in a Texas Family District Court, the federal bankruptcy court issued not ONE but TWO UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS to limit the final judgment that the Texas Family District Court could enter in the Texas Divorce Proceeding. At least one Texas District Judge has tried to express his concerns over being unable to proceed to Final Trial in the Texas Divorce Proceeding as long as the bankruptcy order remain in place. Before the Honorable Jerome Hennigan recused himelf from the Texas Divorce Proceeding, he wrote the following letter:

hennigan-refuse-to-set-trial-letter-snippet

 

We will be setting up a GOFUNDME Account shortly for our appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with our appeal of the federal bankruptcy court’s flagrant violation of the 10th Amendment right of the Texas District Court.  This is an issue of State Rights because Texas Court MUST remain FREE and INDEPENDENT from federal interference. Check back soon for more details!

Leave a comment

When Laws Don’t Matter to Judges

My nightmare in the Texas state and federal judicial system is almost comical.  My nightmare began with this simple exchange in open court between the attorney representing a chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee and an appointed federal bankruptcy judge:

page-17-transcript-january-8-2015-hearing-bankruputcy-court-trustee-counsel-admitting-to-fear-of-state-court

Call my side naive, but at first we were not worried about this open exchange between a judge and a frustrated and greedy attorney.  The plain meaning of the law is clear as to what assets can be held liable for any of a debtor’s debts in a community property state like Texas.  The federal law clearly states:

All interests of the debtor and the debtor’s spouse in community property as of the commencement of the case that is—

(A) under the sole, equal, or joint management and control of the debtor; or

(B) liable for an allowable claim against the debtor, or for both an allowable claim against the debtor and an allowable claim against the debtor’s spouse, to the extent that such interest is so liable.

11 U.S.C. 541(a)(2) (emphasis added)

So the factual test should have been very simple to determine what interest are liable, right?

In bankruptcy the debtor’s creditors file what is known as a proof of claim.  In my case there were a total of 11 claims filed by creditors.  Two of the eleven creditors filed claims for non-dischargeable law school loans that I took out about six (6) years before my 2001 marriage.  Texas law is very clear that one spouse is not liable for the debts that the other spouse had before marriage. Under Tex. Fam. Code Sec. 3.202(b), the Texas Legislature has affirmatively provided that:

Unless both spouses are personally liable as provided by this subchapter, the community property subject to a spouse’s sole management, control, and disposition is not subject to:

(1)  any liabilities that the other spouse incurred before marriage;  or

(2)  any nontortious liabilities that the other spouse incurs during marriage.

Tex. Fam. Code Sec. 3.202(b).

So, it should be clear that under Texas law, any property under my estranged husband’s sole management and control would not be liable for the two proof of claim for student loans incurred during marriage… right?!??!   Under federal bankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(2)(B) clearly states that property under the debtor’s spouse’s sole management and control only comes into to the bankruptcy estate to the “to the extent that such interest is so liable.”  Under Texas law, Tex. Fam. Code Sec. 3.202(b)(1) clearly state that property under a spouse’s sole management and control is NOT LIABLE for “any liabilities that the other spouse incurred before marriage.”

The federal bankruptcy trustee had even prepared an affidavit for MY estranged husband in which my estranged husband swore under oath that all real estate and income from the real estate were under his sole management and control. A certified copy of the affidavit that the federal chapter 7 trustee’s office prepared can be viewed below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77NG5SWmNKcHpUNjQ/view?usp=sharing

So, if the law is clear and the facts about the student loan being incurred before marriage are not in dispute…what is the problem?!?!?!

The Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee gets paid only on a commission from the debts that she can actually pay to the creditors. If she can’t find a way around Texas law pay the $150,000.00 in student loans incurred before marriage, she won’t get paid very much at all for this case.  The other nine claims on file total less than $30,000.00 and are mostly for unpaid federal income taxes and Tarrant County Property taxes on the family homestead and one family business.  A certified copy of the Claim Registry clearly shows less than $30,000 in claims on file –excluding claim #9 and Claim #11 for student loans incurred before marriage. Just so that you can understand how a federal chapter 7 trustee gets paid:

a) In a case under chapter 7 or 11, the court may allow reasonable compensation under section 330 of this title of the trustee for the trustee’s services, payable after the trustee renders such services, not to exceed 25 percent on the first $5,000 or less, 10 percent on any amount in excess of $5,000 but not in excess of $50,000, 5 percent on any amount in excess of $50,000 but not in excess of $1,000,000, and reasonable compensation not to exceed 3 percent of such moneys in excess of $1,000,000, upon all moneys disbursed or turned over in the case by the trustee to parties in interest, excluding the debtor, but including holders of secured claims.

11 U.S. Code § 326(a)

So the math based on 11 U.S. Code § 326(a) and the facts of this case look like this:

$30,000.00 x 10%=$3,000.00     $180,000 x 5% = $9,000.00

But why would anyone think that if the judge has ignored 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(2)(B) and Tex. Fam. Code Sec. 3.202(b)(1), he would pay attention to 11 U.S. Code § 326(a)?

The federal bankruptcy judge decided that he would listen to the federal chapter 7 trustee’s plea for help to get around the bankruptcy code and Texas community property laws… after all the federal judge explained in one of his two Orders to the Texas Family Court the problems the trustee had had:

[T]he trustee filed this adversary proceeding on May 22, 2014, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Real Property is property of this bankruptcy estate and not property of Carlos Foster or his company, 1st Aid Accident Injury & Pain Center, Inc. . . .

[T]he trustee has already incurred professional fees well in excess of $100,000 in an effort to administer the Real Property.

So, let’s get this straight…..the Federal Chapter 7 Trustee now says that the property under MY ESTRANGED HUSBAND’S SOLE MANAGEMENT and CONTROL belongs to her?!?!

I am the wife.But the Trustee argue that the property doesn’t belong to either me or my estranged husband… it all belongs to the bankruptcy estate to pay her legal fees?!?!

How much property is at issue….over $1 million. The Federal Bankruptcy Trustee’s Interim Report clearly shows over $1 million.

So what law does the trustee say entitles her to over $1 million in income producing property to pay the $30,000.00 in debts that are payable from community property under Texas law ….. the properties are not in Southlake or Park Cities:

properties-not-in-southlake

Yes….she actually argues that the shopping center is not in the affluent White sections of town….so hey….let’s apply a different analysis and a different set of laws…right

My side will quote  federal bankruptcy cases like:

Nor can the trustee be considered the Debtor’s privy, for two parties are said to be in privity when they share an “identity of interests in the basic legal right that is the subject of litigation.” The interests of the Debtor in the divorce proceeding and of the Trustee in the instant case are, however, quite distinct.

In re Erlewine, 349 F.3d 205, 211 (5th Cir. 2003). (Emphasis added)

We quote the Texas Supreme Court cases like:

“Marriage itself does not create joint and several liability.” These and other commentators agree that one spouse’s liability for debts incurred by or for the other  [11] is determined by statute. We agree.

[Tex. Fam. Code]Section 3.201(a) states:

A person is personally liable for the acts of the person’s spouse only if:

1) the spouse acts as an agent for the person; or

(2) the spouse incurs a debt for necessaries as provided by [Section 2.501].

[Tex. Fam. Code] Section 2.501 states:

(a) Each spouse has the duty to support the other spouse.

(b) A spouse who fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to any person who provides necessaries to the spouse to whom support is owed.

Thus, one spouse is not liable for the other’s debt unless the other incurred it as the one’s agent or the one failed to support the other and the debt is for necessaries.

Tedder v. Gardner Aldrich, LLP, 421 S.W.3d 651, 654-655 (Tex. 2013). (Emphasis added).

But, hey ….why should a Texas Family Judge pay attention to the law if the attorney for the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee argues:

everything-belongs-to-the-trustee-from-hearing-on-trustee-intervention-part-1

Did anyone here the any law argued?   No…But it gets even funnier…The federal bankruptcy trustee begins to argue that they could have filed the divorce themselves:

we-could-have-brought-the-claims-motion-to-intervene

Yes…the Texas Family Judge actually bought the base less argument.  You may click the link to the Transcript from the Hearing on the Federal Chapter 7 Trustee Motion to Intervene in the Texas Divorce as the “owner of the Divorce claim”:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77cUEzOGJVQUpuTEk/view?usp=sharing

Oh did I mention that the bankruptcy court sent over two order ….The 2nd Order asks the Texas Family Court to decide if rental income is separate or community property in Texas:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77ekVleHlSYWszS0k/view?usp=sharing

We have repeatedly argued that Texas courts are not allowed to simply answer a question for a federal court.  We have argued that a Texas Court cannot just be asked to read the Texas Family Code Statues, as follows:

Under Tex. Fam. Code 3.102 all property acquired by either spouse during marriage is community property.  Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 3.102(a)(2), revenue from separate property is community property. And, pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code 3.102(a)(4), community property is expressly defined as “revenue from, all property subject to the spouse’s sole management, control, and disposition.” As the Texas Supreme Court has held, “[i]t is fundamental that any property or rights acquired by one of the spouses after marriage by toil, talent, industry or other productive faculty belongs to the community estate.” Vallone v. Vallone, 644 SW 2d 455, 458 (Tex. 1982).

According to the Texas Supreme Court:

The distinctive feature of an advisory opinion is that it decides an abstract question of law without binding the parties. An opinion issued in a case brought by a party without standing is advisory because rather than remedying an actual or imminent harm, the judgment addresses only a hypothetical injury. Texas courts, like federal courts, have no jurisdiction to render such opinions.

Tex. Ass’n of Business v. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 441(Tex. 1993) (internal citations omitted).

The Texas Supreme Court has also held regarding attempts by federal courts, such as evident by the Order of Abstention, the federal bankruptcy court asks the Family District Court to issue advisory opinions as the bankruptcy orders when the federal bankruptcy Court’s Order of Abstention “[calls] upon [the Family District Court] to answer a question and not render a judgment.” United Services Life Insurance Company v. Delaney, 396 S.W.2d 855, 863 (Tex. 1965). As the Texas Supreme Court has clearly held in Delaney:

Since the rendition of advisory opinions by courts is unauthorized by our constitution, it is undoubtedly sound law to say that the directive of a federal court could no more operate to vest this Court with jurisdiction to render an advisory opinion than it could empower the Family District Court to try and determine a criminal case contrary to the peculiar provisions of the Texas Constitution which vest that jurisdiction in the Court of Criminal Appeals.

United Services Life Insurance Company v. Delaney, 396 S.W.2d 855, 863 (Tex. 1965).

But who cares about the law or Texas Supreme Court cases…right? it’s all about the Order from the bankruptcy court…setting out the law and the fact . . .right:

judge-nelms-testimony-of-what-happend-in-first-order-to-state-court

 

But what if I can prove that the federal bankruptcy judge DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH in the ORDER?

The bankruptcy judge clearly says that “Mr. Foster entered into a settlement agreement with the trustee . . .but then BACKED OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT.” What if I told you that Carlos Foster, my estranged husband NEVER signed a settlement agreement:

no-signature-on-settlement-agreement

Yes…you read it correctly…. at a hearing before the bankruptcy judge, the  Chapter 7 Trustee’s ADMITS that they “didn’t have the signature of Carlos Foster.” Maybe you’re thinking that the Bankruptcy Court did not know that Carlos Foster did not ever sign a Settlement Agreement…WRONG:

order-to-sign-settlement

The bankruptcy judge KNEW that Carlos Foster had NEVER signed the Settlement Agreement with the Federal Bankruptcy Trustee to settle the divorce claims…even after the bankruptcy court issued the Order for Carlos Foster to sign the Settlement Agreement. The bankruptcy judge actually knew that Carlos Foster never even saw the terms of the trustee’s Settlement Agreement to settle my divorce claims, because the federal bankruptcy court discussed it in open court as follows:

carlos-did-not-agree-to-settle

So….there you have it….at a hearing the bankruptcy judge was told that no Settlement Agreement was EVER signed to or agreed to by Carlos Foster….

So this is what happens when Judges just ignore the law completely.

If these judges have blatantly ignored the LAW and the UNDISPUTED FACTS to support their own agenda in my case…..how many others lives have these judges ruined with their failures to follow the LAW and the UNDISPUTED FACTS . . .I can’t say that the judges are all corrupt…but I can saw that the Texas Supreme Court  actually dealt with a federal trustee attempting to intervene in a Texas Divorce…:

cockerham-v-cockerham-photo

But, why would a Texas Family Court not apply Cockerham v. Cockerham …..the law in Texas has changed in the thirty years between a Trustee intervening in Dorthy Cockerham’s case …NOPE . . .:

cockerham-case-law-photot-of-marital-liability

No…the law in Texas has not changed … just the demands of the Judges to actually conduct their courtrooms in a manner that applies the law. I will continue to fight both in court and in the political spectrum for those that are unable to fight. Feel free to join me by sharing this post and contract the Attorney General…asks what type of precedent is being set by allowing a bankruptcy attorney to order a Texas Judge to issue an advisory opinion:

Lauren Downey
Public Information Coordinator
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711 2548

By facsimile: (512) 494-8017

By electronic mail: publicrecords@texasattorneygeneral.gov

The late actions of the Attorney General’s Office when a federal judge Order a Texas Judge to violate the Texas Constitution should be brought to the agency that is responsible for defending the laws of the State of Texas.

Leave a comment

Why My Divorce is Before SCOTUS aka WHY ANOTHER WOMEN IS DIVORCING MY HUSBAND

In a week we go back to Texas Family Court to try to convince another Texas judge to defy the federal bankruptcy judge and go ahead and give me a divorce based on Texas law instead a divorce based on the questions that the bankruptcy judge posed in his orders directed to the family court in Texas.

The most amusing thing is convincing these so called “conservative” judges that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a Texas judge to just answer a question about Texas law.

Just answering a question about the law is called giving an advisory opinion.

But I have actually gone through two previous judges that would rather recuse themselves than actually rule that they have been asked to do something UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The bankruptcy judge wants the Texas judge to “determine” if rental income is community property or separate property under Texas law.

Any 1st year law student knows that Texas is a community property state where ALL income is community property.

BUT…for FOUR loong years we have been trying to convince a federal bankruptcy judge that the Texas statues that actually say ALL INCOME from whatever source is community property.

We have given the federal judge statutes and case law that say ALL INCOME IS COMMUNITY PROPERTY.

So please pray for me….I have been assigned to the one Texas Family Judge that has publicly said that the Constitution really doesn’t come into play in Texas family law.

So for those who think I am being selfish, I am not. I actually believe that if the court system will do this to me..it can and will…..and probably has….done this to others.

Why is the bankruptcy court interfering in my divorce….?????

Attorney’s fees for the federal bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy trustee tried to cut a deal with my estranged husband, but my legal team successfully beat the deal twice in bankruptcy court.

During our marriage my husband used our money to buy a shopping center, but he put it under the name of a corporation.  The corporation forfeited its right to do business in Texas soon after the shopping center was purchased.

Since my husband and I are fighting over ownership of the shopping center in the divorce, the federal bankruptcy trustee cut a deal with my estranged husband to take $50k in legal fees for herself and her lawyers and another $150k to payoff my student loans that I took out before I was married.

The problem is….you can’t legally make a husband pay for debts that his wife had before marriage.  Since the bankruptcy trustee is a chapter 7, she can’t get paid for paying off secured debys like a mortgage or a car loan. The only way this particular bankruptcy trustee can get paid is from paying off unsecured debts like credit cards. The problem in my case is….there is very little debt…less than $20k for past due income taxes and property taxes…if the bankruptcy trustee can’t pay off the student loans.

So if bankruptcy trustee just pays the $20k….she gets 15% of that money.

But, because my estranged husband had promised her $50k for doing nothing but blocking my efforts to get half of the shopping center, she has gotten greedy…she now wants over $100k in legal fees for the time she’s spent loosing at get her deal with my estranged husband approved by the bankruptcy court.

Since the bankruptcy court cannot legally force my estranged husband to pay my student loans from before I was married,  the bankruptcy judge has set his eyes on the Texas divorce court.

The bankruptcy court has ordered the Texas court to not only answer the legal question about rental income, but the bankruptcy court has asked the Texas court to answer the question of how the Texas court would divide the shopping center if the Texas court could divide it.

Now bear in mind, there are other assets …like bank accounts, cars, equipment,  and furniture that all are supposed to be considered by the Texas court. But the Texas judge is not allowed to do anything other than follow the bankruptcy court order to determine what the Texas court would have done with the shopping center if I had not filed for bankruptcy. …so that the bankruptcy court can give that amount to his bankruptcy trustee for her legal fees that she spent loosing to my side in his bankruptcy court.

Now, if the trustee gets her way with this Texas judge…after the Texas judge determines that the rental income received by my estranged husband every month for the past 48 months is community property and half the value of the shopping center is mine…the trustee will walk away with over $500k….and the children and I will get nothing but child support. The shopping center is worth about $700k and brings in at least $6000 per month.

That’s the story and …. why my divorce has drug on for over four years.

Bankruptcy Court Order to Determine if rent is separate or community property

Bankruptcy Court Order to Determine how the Texas Court would Divide if the Texas Court could divide just the Shopping Center

Letter Ruling from Texas Family Court on the two Bankruptcy Court Orders

Letter Ruling from Texas Family Court REFUSING to set a trial as long as the two Bankruptcy Court Orders are in effect

Motion to Reopen Case and for Rehearing to the US Supreme Court

Leave a comment

WERE THEY TALKING ABOUT SCOTUS?!?

FIFTH CIRCUIT VIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL JUDICAL APPOINTMENTS

Leave a comment

Corruption in Courts is Real-I Have Proof

Now the federal courts are just making up the rules . . .show me the rule that requires leave of court to file a response to summary judgment.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1e_XAuP_K77T1BYUmd2N3BRdkU

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Russell Nelms issues two (2) orders to Judge J. Hennigan in the 324 Judicial in Tarrant County Texas, Family Divorce Court, to allow bankruptcy court to distribute marital property to ensure Texas State marital Law is NOT applied so that federal trustee can get paid:

The Judge Nelms Orders Directs Judge Hennigan to decide if RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED DURING MARRIAGE is COMMUNITY PROPERTY or SEPARATE PROPERTY under Texas Law.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77Vm5XckxXTm1mdlE/view?usp=sharing

The federal bankruptcy court then sent an order to the state divorce court ordering the state divorce court to decide how the state court would decide the divorce if he could…so that the federal court could decide how much property to divide between the federal bankruptcy trustee and my husband in the bankruptcy court.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77Vm5XckxXTm1mdlE/view?usp=sharing

Corruption of States Right’s Issue when Federal bankruptcy court ORDERS a Texas Family Court to ignore Texas Family Code and allow bankruptcy court to divide claimed marital property between federal trustee and the non-filing spouse (efforts to circumvent Tex. Fam. Code 3.201 & Tex. 3.202 & federal code 11 U.S.C. 726(c)(2)(C) which forbid s payment of debts incurred by one before marriage from property under the other spouse’s sole management and control. see also 11 U.SC. 541(a)(2)(A) & 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(2)(B); Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W. 2d 162 & See also Stern v. Marshall ..holding that federal bankruptcy court had no Constitutional Jurisdiction to interfere with Pure State Law Domestic claims like divorce and probate matters).

Ordering a Texas Court to ADVISE another court is a violation of TEX. CONST. art. II, § 1 see also United Services Life Insurance Company v. Delaney, 396 S.W.2d 855, 863 (Tex. 1965) and Tex. Ass’n of Business v. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 441(Tex. 1993) (internal citations omitted).

The 10th Amendment gives jurisdiction over divorce to Texas Court. All federal courts are prohibited by 28 USC 2283 from entering ANY ORDERS to interfere with a state Court proceeding….unless it has been expressly authorized by Congress.

11 usc 362(c)(2) “the STAY of any other act under subsection (a) of this section CONTINUES UNTIL the earliest of – (A) the time the case is closed; (B) the time the case is dismissed; or (C) if the case is a case under chapter 7 of this title concerning an individual or a case under chapter 9, 11, 12, or 13 of this title, the time a DISCHARGE is GRANTED or denied; – (See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/11/3/IV/362#sthash.v0wLJxoy.dpuf)

THE ORDER OF DISCHARGE WAS GRANTED NOVEMBER 15, 2012 (11/15/12)

11 USC 362(j) On request of a party in interest, the court shall issue an order under subsection (c) confirming that the automatic stay has been terminated. – See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/11/3/IV/362#sthash.i0UeDs48.dpuf

Here are links to various other filings:

Corruption of States Right’s Issue when Federal bankruptcy court ORDERS a Texas Family Court to ignore Texas Family Code and allow bankruptcy court to divide claimed marital property between federal trustee and the non-filing spouse (efforts to circumvent Tex. Fam. Code 3.201 & Tex. 3.202 & federal code 11 U.S.C. 726(c)(2)(C) which forbid s payment of debts incurred by one before marriage from property under the other spouse’s sole management and control. see also 11 U.SC. 541(a)(2)(A) & 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(2)(B); Cockerham v. Cockerham, 527 S.W. 2d 162 & See also Stern v. Marshall ..holding that federal bankruptcy court had no Constitutional Jurisdiction to interfere with Pure State Law Domestic claims like divorce and probate matters).

Federal Bankruptcy court orders Texas Family Court to allow bankruptcy court to distribute marital property to ensure Texas State marital Law is NOT applied so that federal trustee can get paid:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77Vm5XckxXTm1mdlE/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77Vm5XckxXTm1mdlE/view?usp=sharing

Federal bankruptcy trustee admits that trustee is afraid that a Texas Family Court would correctly apply Texas law and federal bankruptcy trustee would not get paid:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77S3VNeEJwYVpZMVE/view?usp=sharing

Federal trustee asking court to take notice that it is just urban property and not “Park Cities” Property (Property is located at 4716 E. Lancaster Fort Worth Texas 76103):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77UWhKV05jMXRhaHM/view?usp=sharing

Transcript showing federal trustee submitted a FORGED Settlement agreement to Court in order to circumvent Texas Family Court:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1e_XAuP_K77cjZpT051S3MxZlE/view?usp=sharing

Link to all supporting documents, including certified transcripts, court orders, federal trustee report showing $1.02 in marital assets and eleven proofs of claim showing less than $30,000 in community debt and $150,000.00 in debt incurred before marriage that state and federal law prohibit from being paid from community property under the other spouse’s sole management (see 11 U.S.C. 726(c)(2)(C)) & 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(2)(A):
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B1e_XAuP_K77R2RIRGtvdVcwZzg&usp=sharing

Leave a comment

SUPPORT GOOD POLICE OFFICERS ..STOP PAYING FOR THE BAD

SUPPORT GOOD COPSSUPPORT GOOD POLICE OFFICERS ..STOP PAYING FOR THE BAD

Taxpayers have paid over $1B for alleged bad conduct by just a few police officers in just ten (10) US…

Wouldn’t that same $1B of taxpayer money have been better spent training and paying good police officers better salaries?

Across the country, police departments claim that they cannot afford to pay good police officers the salary that the good police officers deserve.

In many cities, the police departments claim that the cities do not have the budgets to hire more police officers or the budget to hire good police officers at a rate of pay that would actually attract good police officers.

Each year, bad cops cost taxpayer millions.  Police department policy in many major cities force good police officers to act like revenue agents to for the government to simply try to recoup a small portions of the money spent on civil judgments paid by the taxpayers for the actions of just a few bad police officers, prosecutors, or other government workers.

Taxpayers cannot continue to allow the lives of good police officers to be placed in danger just to try to recoup a small fraction of the millions of dollars paid out each year in a growing number of cities and counties across the US.

The good police deserve the respect of a decent paycheck for their commitment to serve and protect.  Police department must stop using good police to just serve and collect.

The good police are not responsible for the $$$ millions paid out for the wrongful actions of just a few bad apples. Good police deserve the taxpayers support!

Why should the taxpayers AND the good police pay the price for the wrongful actions of just a few bad police officers?

Let’s make bad police officers pay for bad behavior and not the good officers or the taxpayers.

Shouldn’t the few bad police officers and other bad government workers be responsible for their own actions?

Source:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/police-misconduct-cost-taxpayers-over-1b-since-2010/207765/

Leave a comment

IT’S NOT A RACE PROBLEM . . .IT’S A PROBLEM OF ENDING CORRUPTION FOR ALL RACES

Whites Kiled by Police United Meme

%d bloggers like this: