Bankrupt Casey Anthony interviewed by KPHO CBS in Phoenix #2

[ThinkTank]

Bankruptcy Court filed an ORDER yesterday, August 14,2013.

Casey Anthony has wanted the Zenaida, Kronk, and TexasEquuSearch cases thrown out by the bankruptcy judge, since she filed bankruptcy in January 2013, but all three cases are still active and ongoing by ORDER of the judge filed on August 14, 2013.
Next HEARING set for Sept 17, 2013.

ACTIVITY:

June 10, 2013 - Casey atty files document stating she might "disappear"
She wants the Zenaida, Kronk, and TexasEquuSearch cases thrown out
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIUXJLNWt2T0tiM1U/edit?pli=1
see page 6

June 25, 2013 - HEARING for Zenaida and Kronk - cases not thrown out - Judge gave them 21 days to RE-file their cases, done on July 22, 2013

July 2, 2013 - HEARING for TexasEquuSearch - case not thrown out
Judge gave TES until Sept 4, 2013 to file an AMENDED Complaint stating how Casey benefited from TES services
ORDER filed August 14, 2013

July 3, 2013 - Casey AND Trustee reached a Compromise for her to pay $ 25,000 for rights to her story - Judge granted July 31, 2013.

July 10, 2013 - Casey filed secret CHANGE OF ADDRESS with Court

July 29, 2013 - Trustee withdraws Motion to Turn Over Computer

August 21, 2013 - DEADLINE for Casey to file Answer to Zenaida and Kronk new case filings

August 14, 2013 - ORDER filed on TexasEquuSearch case from July 2nd HEARING
Deadlines for filing do not start until ORDER is filed. They have 21 days from the date the ORDER was filed.

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part and Continuing Pretrial Conference.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpISFVkeUV1ams0NlU/edit?usp=sharing


Casey asked the judge to DISMISS the TexasEquuSearch Complaint which objected to Casey's dischargeability of debt, and Casey also objected to TES' Discovery Requests [which were TES's First Request For Admissions and First Set of Interrogatories].

- The judge said that Casey's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part, and requires TES to amend their Complaint to state what benefit Casey got from TES' services.

TES has 21 days from ORDER on August 14, 2013 - to Amend their Complaint
due by Sept 4, 2013

After TES files their Amended Complaint - Casey has 21 days from that date to
file her Answer/Response

- The judge said that Casey's Motion to Dismiss is denied in part as to all other aspects of her Motion to Dismiss, and Casey cannot re-file a Motion to Dismiss as to the remaining allegations in TES's Complaint.

- The judge set the next HEARING for Sept 17, 2013 at 2:00pm in Tampa

- The judge said that Casey's Objection to TES' pending Discovery Requests is sustained in part, meaning that neither Casey nor TES shall begin Discovery until after TES files their Amended Complaint.

- The judge said that Casey and TES must have a Discovery Conference as soon as possible to determine the Discovery Schedule.

- The judge said the depositions of Casey, George and Cindy are cancelled, PENDING RESCHEDULING - after they set up their Discovery Schedule and Conditions.

- The judge said all Discovery Requests by TES are suspended until after TES files its Amended Complaint. Then Casey can file her Responses and Objections to the TES Request for Admission and Interrogatories, according to the Discovery Schedule and Conditions that have been agreed upon by Casey and TES.

 

[ThinkTank]

Matt Morgan on his Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Matt-Morgan/198787563537953

Denise M. Ward
Thanks a lot Matt you still didn’t answer our questions under see all about Z.

Matt Morgan
We are currently sifting our way through the bankruptcy hearings.
Aug 13, 2013

Matt Morgan
We have filed a formal complaint within the bankruptcy hearings to ensure our claim is not discharged. We are staying the course. Hopefully, we will be out of bankruptcy court soon!

Wilma Morrison
Hi Matt I hope you are still working on Zeniada case she deserves something for all the lies Casey said about her and others
August 5 at 9:38am

Matt Morgan
We are!!
August 13, 2013

 

[ThinkTank]

The reason we all keep hanging in here, hoping and praying for some semblance of Justice for Caylee!

 

[ThinkTank]

Motion To Determine Non-Core Elements of Complaint
Filed by R Scott Shuker on behalf of Plaintiff Zenaida Gonzalez.
(Entered: 08/20/2013)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIVFZmX2FUZnBnSEk/edit?usp=sharing

... requests the Court determine that all aspects of this adversary proceeding related to liquidation of any debt owed to Plaintiff [Zenaida] by Casey Marie Anthony [the Debtor] are non-core under 28 U.S.C. 157.

... Plaintiff [Zenaida] requests the Court determine that the liquidation of Plaintiff's defamation claim be determined a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157, and that such aspects of the case be reserved for the State Court or district court.

Section 157(b)(2) sets forth a list of proceedings deemed to be core proceedings over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction. Personal injury torts are not included on this list, and instead are specifically excluded from bankruptcy court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5).
Defamation is a "personal injury tort" for purposes of 157(b)(5).
Section 157(b)(5) states: "The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending."
Thus, the bankruptcy court may not hear the liquidation aspects of the Complaint because they are grounded in the Defamation Claim.

Because Plaintiff [Zenaida] does not consent to this Court resolving the Defamation Claim, only the State Court or the district court may resolve the liquidation aspects of the Defamation Claim. Plaintiff consents only to the bankruptcy court determining the core aspects of its 523(a)(6) complaint.

... requests this Court enter an Order (ii) determining that the liquidation aspects of the Complaint are non-core under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2);
(ii) reserving for determination by the State Court or federal district court such liquidation aspects of Plaintiff's [Zenaida's] defamation claim raised in the Complaint;
(iii) providing such further relief as this Court deems fair and equitable.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Motion To Determine Non-Core Elements of Complaint
Filed by R Scott Shuker on behalf of Plaintiff Zenaida Gonzalez.
(Entered: 08/20/2013)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIVFZmX2FUZnBnSEk/edit?usp=sharing

... requests the Court determine that all aspects of this adversary proceeding related to liquidation of any debt owed to Plaintiff [Zenaida] by Casey Marie Anthony [the Debtor] are non-core under 28 U.S.C. 157.

... Plaintiff [Zenaida] requests the Court determine that the liquidation of Plaintiff's defamation claim be determined a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157, and that such aspects of the case be reserved for the State Court or district court.

Section 157(b)(2) sets forth a list of proceedings deemed to be core proceedings over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction. Personal injury torts are not included on this list, and instead are specifically excluded from bankruptcy court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5).
Defamation is a "personal injury tort" for purposes of 157(b)(5).
Section 157(b)(5) states: "The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending."
Thus, the bankruptcy court may not hear the liquidation aspects of the Complaint because they are grounded in the Defamation Claim.

Because Plaintiff [Zenaida] does not consent to this Court resolving the Defamation Claim, only the State Court or the district court may resolve the liquidation aspects of the Defamation Claim. Plaintiff consents only to the bankruptcy court determining the core aspects of its 523(a)(6) complaint.

... requests this Court enter an Order (ii) determining that the liquidation aspects of the Complaint are non-core under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2);
(ii) reserving for determination by the State Court or federal district court such liquidation aspects of Plaintiff's [Zenaida's] defamation claim raised in the Complaint;
(iii) providing such further relief as this Court deems fair and equitable.

Sounds like good news for Zenaida so far ......?..... but where are Tim and Roy Kronk's motions asking for the same?

 

[ThinkTank]

Sounds like good news for Zenaida so far ......?..... but where are Tim and Roy Kronk's motions asking for the same?

Zenaida and Kronk have repeatedly cited LAW which would not allow Casey to discharge their cases in the bankruptcy court arena. They are stating LAW again, which says they should be allowed to take their cases back to State Court or federal district court [in Orlando], and NOT be held in the bankruptcy court in Tampa.

Kronk "may" file a similar Motion tomorrow? It is possible that a Motion was filed, but has not shown up on the docket yet.

Tim Miller has until Sept 4th to file their Amended Complaint.

Casey's bankruptcy attorney has until tomorrow, August 21st, to file an Answer to Zenaida and Kronk's Complaints which they filed on July 22nd.

 

[Frigga]

God Bless Matt Morgan- this became personal to him a long time ago... thank God for that.

 

[ThinkTank]

God Bless Matt Morgan- this became personal to him a long time ago... thank God for that.

Matt Morgan is behind the original Zenaida case, and he continues to oversee the case now that it is the bankruptcy court ... and there is Zenaida's actual bankruptcy attorney Scott Shuker who is working really hard on the case. He deserves a lot of credit also.

 

[ThinkTank]

Motion To Determine Non-Core Elements of Complaint
Filed by R Scott Shuker on behalf of Plaintiff Zenaida Gonzalez.
(Entered: 08/20/2013)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIVFZmX2FUZnBnSEk/edit?usp=sharing

... requests the Court determine that all aspects of this adversary proceeding related to liquidation of any debt owed to Plaintiff [Zenaida] by Casey Marie Anthony [the Debtor] are non-core under 28 U.S.C. 157.

... Plaintiff [Zenaida] requests the Court determine that the liquidation of Plaintiff's defamation claim be determined a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157, and that such aspects of the case be reserved for the State Court or district court.

Section 157(b)(2) sets forth a list of proceedings deemed to be core proceedings over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction. Personal injury torts are not included on this list, and instead are specifically excluded from bankruptcy court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5).
Defamation is a "personal injury tort" for purposes of 157(b)(5).
Section 157(b)(5) states: "The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending."
Thus, the bankruptcy court may not hear the liquidation aspects of the Complaint because they are grounded in the Defamation Claim.

Because Plaintiff [Zenaida] does not consent to this Court resolving the Defamation Claim, only the State Court or the district court may resolve the liquidation aspects of the Defamation Claim. Plaintiff consents only to the bankruptcy court determining the core aspects of its 523(a)(6) complaint.

... requests this Court enter an Order (ii) determining that the liquidation aspects of the Complaint are non-core under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2);
(ii) reserving for determination by the State Court or federal district court such liquidation aspects of Plaintiff's [Zenaida's] defamation claim raised in the Complaint;
(iii) providing such further relief as this Court deems fair and equitable.

What it means:
They want to move their case back to State Court or federal district court [in Orlando], and get it out from under the bankruptcy court control.

Means those types of cases don’t fall within the Bankrupty Court’s jurisdiction according to the Bankruptcy code. [LAW]

What Zenaida's bankruptcy attorney Shuker is trying to accomplish here is, personal injury torts do not belong in the Bankruptcy court, but, rather in the State Court where the original Complaint arose and was filed, which was Orlando. He’s asking the Court that it should be reversed to State Court as the elements of her Complaint are non-core issues within the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction

 

[ThinkTank]

KRONK filed a similar Motion as Zenaida's, today Wednesday August 21, 2013.
Here is the document on google docs.

Also on google docs - the docket showing that Casey's attorney [David L. Schrader] filed a "secret" CHANGE OF ADDRESS with the court - but there is no document attached for the public to see.
Wonder where she moved to?

July 10, 2013 - Casey filed secret CHANGE OF ADDRESS with Court

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIak82NXBtSmNEZWM/edit?usp=sharing
CHANGE OF ADDRESS in TES Adversary Case

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpISUxRdXZNZUxjVUE/edit?usp=sharing
CHANGE OF ADDRESS secret main case

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Determine Whether Proceeding Core
Filed by Michael Nardella on behalf of Plaintiff Roy Kronk
August 21, 2013

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIbTdDbVlaLUVqLW8/edit?usp=sharing

Kronk initiated adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of certain of Casey's debts to Kronk pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a) - Casey defamed Kronk.

On July 23, 2013 ORDER entered scheduling next Hearing - instructing "any party objecting to the entry of final orders or judgments by this Court on any issue in this proceeding file Motion requesting that this Court determine whether this proceeding is a core proceeding or otherwise subject to the entry of final orders or judgments by this Court.
The Order states that the failure of any party to file a motion on or before the deadline provided in this paragraph shall be deemed consent by such party to this Court entering all appropriate final orders and judgments in this proceeding ...
Kronk files this Motion in an abundance of caution only to ensure that Kronk is not waiving his right to a jury trial or his right to have his damages liquidated in another forum.

Kronk asks Court to determine that liquidation of Kronk's defamation claim be determined a non-core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157, and that such aspects of the case be reserved for the state court or district court, together with Plaintiff's right to a trial by jury.

The liquidation of personal injury torts are specifically excluded from bankruptcy court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5), and defamation is a "personal injury tort" for purposes of 157(b)(5).
... Kronk has not consented to their being adjudicated by this [bankruptcy] Court, but reserves his rights to adjudication of his damages in state or district court and to his rights to a jury trial.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

What it means:
They want to move their case back to State Court or federal district court [in Orlando], and get it out from under the bankruptcy court control.

Means those types of cases don’t fall within the Bankrupty Court’s jurisdiction according to the Bankruptcy code. [LAW]

What Zenaida's bankruptcy attorney Shuker is trying to accomplish here is, personal injury torts do not belong in the Bankruptcy court, but, rather in the State Court where the original Complaint arose and was filed, which was Orlando. He’s asking the Court that it should be reversed to State Court as the elements of her Complaint are non-core issues within the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction

Well, it certainly seems logical enough and if it's the law ~ I will look forward to seeing how all parties deal with it. Pleased to see Kronk got his in on time, too.

Thanks, ThinkTank! :tyou:

 

[Tulessa]

I wonder how she's liking Raleigh?

 

[FLmom777]

I think she is still in Florida, unfortunately.

 

[ThinkTank]

I wonder how she's liking Raleigh?

Very credible info that she is ... or was ... or plans to be ... in Raleigh.
However, I also believe that she moves around a LOT - particularly whenever her generous benefactors get tired of paying all her bills for her.

She left Cape Canaveral and could be in Raleigh ... or Columbus, Ohio .... or Tampa ... or Mt. Dora .....

I just hope her secret money-making deals are always found out and exposed!

 

[ThinkTank]

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpINUlrYlZHMU9jWWs/edit?usp=sharing

8/22/2013 - DEADLINE to ANSWER was 8/21/2013
Motion to Extend Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaints
Filed by Debra Ferwerda on behalf of Debtor Casey Marie Anthony

Reasons for Request for Extension of Time:
- A member of the Debtor's legal team is unavailable due to a family medical emergency and requests an additional thirty (30) days to answer the Plaintiff's [Zenaida and Kronk] complaints.

- Ferwerda says no prejudice to any party as a result of this request.

- Ferwerda attempted to confer with R. Scott Shuker - attorney for Zenaida, and Howard S. Marks - attorney for Kronk, for their positions on this Motion without response.

Casey asks Judge to enter ORDER granting request of extension of time to answer Zenaida and Kronk Complaints and give (30) extra days.

Ferwerda says she electronically filed this on August 21, 2013 [DEADLINE] with the Clerk of the Court and notice of electronic filing was sent to Howard Marks and R. Scott Shuker.

FERWERDA is ONLY Casey Anthony attorney name on this Motion [no Schrader]

 

[ThinkTank]

Motion for Entry of Default against Casey Marie Anthony
Filed by R Scott Shuker on behalf of Plaintiff Zenaida Gonzalez
8/22/2013

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIQmI2WV94UnhXOTQ/edit?usp=sharing

Zenaida asks for entry of default by the clerk against Casey Anthony for failure to serve an answer within thirty (30) days after the date of issuance of the summons and complaint [ANSWER DUE August 21, 2013].

Complaint and Summons were served by FedEX overnight delivery on July 22, 2013 to Casey's attorneys Debra Ferwerda, and Charles Greene, and David Schrader, and delivered on July 23, 2013, and signed for.

 

[?noanswer]

It would be great if CA's attys messed up, but knowing CA's ability to slide on everything, I'm not getting my hopes up.

JMO

 

[ThinkTank]

It would be great if CA's attys messed up, but knowing CA's ability to slide on everything, I'm not getting my hopes up.
JMO

Since Casey attorney(s) failed to file their ANSWER by August 21, 2013, Zenaida’s attorney is asking for a DEFAULT JUDGMENT on her case.

Now we will see if the bankruptcy judge [who sides with Casey] allow Casey’s attorneys to miss the DEADLINE and accept their excuses of the family medical emergency?

I don’t believe the judge will grant Zenaida’s request for DEFAULT JUDGMENT, but I certainly admire their tenacity!

Casey bankruptcy attorney asks for more time to file their ANSWERS to Zenaida and Kronk.

I find it interesting that Casey’s bankruptcy attorneys David Schrader and Debra Ferwerda have signed all the recent bankruptcy documents they filed for Casey — but this Motion filed yesterday, was ONLY signed by attorney Debra Ferwerda — NO Schrader.
The last document filed by Schrader was July 10th SECRET CHANGE OF ADDRESS.
I wonder if another one bit the dust?!
And another interesting note -- Debra Ferwerda is now Casey Anthony’s attorney — and she used to be attorney for DOMINIC CASEY.

And why does Ferwerda wait until the very very LAST second to file this Motion by the DEADLINE of August 21, 2013, asking for 30 more days?
Why weren’t Casey's slew of attorneys already working on this to have it ready BEFORE DEADLINE, and BEFORE the member of their team has a “family medical emergency”?

Whichever attorney had the emergency … there was always ANOTHER attorney to handle it.
Casey has never had a shortage of attorneys working on her case.

 

[believe09]

Strategy. File on the deadline day and try and get another 30 days. Force a hearing, and get an even longer time. Fire an attorney and hire another one who has to get up to speed on the case....yawn.

I know we have beaten this one into the ground, but where is the money for all of this coming from? Imagine if these folks donated their time to an indigent lawyer type program for domestic violence victims, custody issues etc?? Wow, what a difference they could make.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Strategy. File on the deadline day and try and get another 30 days. Force a hearing, and get an even longer time. Fire an attorney and hire another one who has to get up to speed on the case....yawn.

I know we have beaten this one into the ground, but where is the money for all of this coming from? Imagine if these folks donated their time to an indigent lawyer type program for domestic violence victims, custody issues etc?? Wow, what a difference they could make.

Amen. If they have all this time to donate it should be to worthwhile causes, helping people with genuine problems, not this parasite trying to evade payment.