Absent Certain Limited Exceptions, You Are Bound By Your Legal Representatives Actions and Stipulations With The Court

By Ryan C. Wood

In a recent Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Court decision an interesting issue came up as part of the larger story.  The larger story is about a debtor appealing the denial of his homestead exemption to protect equity in his home when filing for bankruptcy.  It is a little juicy given the debtor is a license attorney in California, was tried and found guilty after appeal of taking his clients entire financial award in their case to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Not good.  After losing in state court the attorney filed for bankruptcy protection to stop enforcement of the judgment while the judgment was appealed.  The judgment amount after various legal maneuvering is now $450,000.00 plus.  The short story is the debtor/attorney agreed to waive or not claim a homestead exemption under CCP 704 to make sure his former client/creditor would be paid and have a superior claim to any lien or exemption on the debtor/attorney’s home.  The debtor/attorney will have to pay their former client/creditor or lose his home. 

Now the more interesting part of the story.

When A Client Accuses An Attorney of Doing Things Without Their Consent 

The interesting part of the appeal is the debtor/attorney accusing his attorney of agreeing to various terms and conditions in a stipulation he as the client did not agree to.  What?  Clients accuse their attorneys after the fact that they did not agree to what the attorney did on their behalf?  Yes.  This phenomenon usually appear when something does not go the client’s way.  Like football, winning heals issues until……  Unfortunately, over the years I have discussed this issue with potential clients over the phone and even an actual client.  Generally, as a bankruptcy attorney, I will not get involved in any case if the client accuses the attorney of doing things without their consent.  I will take over a case where there are problems in the case independent of what the attorney is doing or not doing.  There are of course exceptions, but why get involved in a situation where the client already had problems with their current attorney?  If the case facts are solid, then the even with a difficult client, the bankruptcy case should be successful.  A discharge or confirmed plan of reorganization then discharge can be obtained even when a client is not exactly cooperative.

In the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case, the Court cited Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634 (1962) as holding clients are bound by the

What Happened In the Link Case?

In Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-634 (1962), the attorney failed to show up at a pre-trial conference and the Court dismissed the complaint after sua sponte reviewing the record and finding other issues in the case and based upon the totality of the circumstances dismissed the case entirely.  The Supreme Court of the United States as part of its holding tells us: “Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent.  Any other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his lawyer-agent, and is considered to have “notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.” Smith v. Ayer, 101 U. S. 320, 101 U. S. 326.

So, the key part of the explanation by the Court and holding is each party is considered to have “notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.  Many years ago regarding motions for relief from stay and adequate protection orders, I have clients sign the adequate protection orders to ensure no client can later say I did not agree.  Also, the client has to make the payments according to the adequate protection order, so they should be signing the order.  Other orders do not require payment and attorneys sign stipulations and orders and entered.  I also send emails to clients with documents attached for written approval via email from clients to save to their file.  Again, to make sure we are all on the same page.  The vast majority of the time bankruptcy attorneys and their clients have no issues and are on the same page to successfully seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code.  When things do not go clients way watch out.  They may turn on you and claim they did not agree to what you did.  Well, the Court says you are bound by what your attorney did, so a malpractice claim is the remedy and not undoing whatever allegedly went wrong in the case.  In the Link case the dismissal of the complaint pre-trial could have devasting consequences in the statute of limitations ran out while the present case was pending. 

 Additional Cited Cases

The Link case provides a few more case about this issue: Smith v. Ayer, 101 U.S. 320; United States ex rel. Reid v. Richmond, 295 F.2d 83, 89-90; Egan v. Teets, 251 F.2d 571, 577 n. 9; United States v. Sorrentino, 175 F.2d 721.

Smith v. Ayer was from 1879 and I did not dig into the holding.

United States ex rel. Reid v. Richmond is more interesting.  This was a criminal case, and the client/alleged criminal is trying to throw their attorney under the bus.  The Court provides: The trial strategy had much to commend it; that it failed does not mean that it was mistaken.  In any event, the failure does not entitle Ried to a second chance.  Regrettable as hindsight my prove the choice to have been, Reid must be bound by what his lawyer did and his acquiescence in that course by his owner testimony. 

We are provided even more case citations: Egan v. Teets, 9 Cir. 1957, 251 F.2d 571, 577; United States ex rel. Darcy v. Handy, 3 Cir., 203 F.2d 407, 426, certiorari denied, 1953, Maroney v. United States ex rel. Darcy, 346 U.S. 865, 74 S.Ct. 103, 98 L.Ed. 375; Eury v. Huff, 4 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 554; see United States v. Bertone, 3 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 156, 160; Cruzado v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 789, 791; United States v. Sorrentino, 3 Cir., 175 F.2d 721, 723, certiorari denied, 1949, 338 U.S. 868, 70 S.Ct. 143, 94 L.Ed. 532; cf. United States v. Liss, 2 Cir. 1939, 105 F.2d 144.

What Are the Exceptions?

When can a client successfully throw their attorney under the bus and the Court actually change something?

Courts talk about gross negligence and there is a way to determine what gross negligence is, but this is just weighing the facts and the discretion of a Court.  So that is scary.  Courts also discuss recklessness and same story, what is recklessness and it is case by case according to a Court’s discretion.

No abandonment is a different story.  When a lawyer is gone or entirely stops acting or working on the case or ignores the case, that is different.  A Court should step in and not allow the negative consequences effect the clients case.  Allow time for a new attorney to be hired so the client can continue with their case.

Courts discuss the deprivation of due process of the client?  Again, this will be case by case and at the discretion of the Court.  I can think of all kinds of examples of deprivation of due process that are ignored, especially due process for bankruptcy debtors that have nothing to do with their attorney.   

Courts discuss the loss of liberty or property of a client and Courts stepping in to avoid severe consequences and some unjust forfeitures or liberty from their attorney’s extreme misconduct or egregious oversight?  I am not sure what this means and it seems like a slippery slope type language.  It apparently exists, but all clients when they lose believe the consequences are extreme and egregious. 

Courts discuss lack of actual or apparent authority.  Okay, so finally a legitimate issue for an attorney and client to have an issue.   An attorney’s actions cannot bind the client if the attorney had no right to act on the client’s behalf or have the apparent authority to act on the client’s behalf.  How can this happen?  Possibly a not clear retention agreement and terms of representation.  If a client can actually prove an attorney never provided a stipulation or settlement agreement for the client to review and authorize, then a Court should entertain a client’s argument the client never agreed and undo what was done.   There could be some gray area here, so hopefully communications are by email and not only by phone.  Even with emails, there can be different interpretations of what was is written.  But it is in writing.  Well, all of the necessary information may not be in the email writings to prove who is right or wrong when an issue arises.  So more is less sometimes and the more communication there is with a client the better to ensure no client can ever accuse their attorney of doing things without their knowledge or consent.

It is just a good practice to email client’s documents in the case even if they do not really need the documents or need to review the documents.  Some things are not material.  It sets up an expectation and course of conduct between client and attorney.  A pattern or habit of client reviewing and commenting and attorney providing clear communication throughout the case.  Hopefully if things do not go so well there is clear record of what took place and attorney and client are on the same page; good or bad. 

How Can The Actions of Your Minor Child Lead To Filing Bankruptcy?

Leave a reply

By Ryan C. Wood

Good day my fellow human beings.  Soon some human may win a $1.9 billion Powerball Lottery drawing.  Amazing.  In the meantime, how can the actions of your minor child lead to you the parents filing for bankruptcy?  I try and explain do not judge bankruptcy filers.  You have no idea what came before the bankruptcy filing.

In this particular case during class at a junior high school, a 13-year-old minor child, Minor Child 1, held a pen positioned under minor child 2, Minor Child 2, so when Minor Child 2 went to sit down,  Minor Child 2 sat on the pen, alleged causing bodily injury and severe emotional distress to Minor Child 2.  I have to wonder if the pen went into the you know where place of Minor Child 2.  A puncture wound from a pen on a butt cheek may not rise to the level of Minor Child 2 suing Minor Child 1 and its parents.  I am using “it” given the appellate decision is silent on the sexes of the minor children involved in this incident.  Yes, this is the subject of a Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision.

IN RE: Leo Del ROSARIO and Zerlyn Fonceca Del Rosario BAP No. CC-24-1163-SGL

Decided: May 02, 2025

So how does a state court lawsuit between parties lead to a bankruptcy filing?  Well, Minor Child 2 sued Minor Child 1 and both of Minor Child 1’s parents in Los Angeles Superior Court for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the Rosario’s.  Sadly, at some point the Los Angeles Superior Court determined the Rosario’s did not obey discovery orders or cooperate with the discovery process and entered terminating sanctions.  This is a severe penalty and prevents the Rosario’s from continuing to defend the lawsuit.  As a result, Minor Child 2’s attorney requested the court enter a default judgment, and a default judgment was indeed entered against the Rosario’s totaling $1,045,609.46.  No evidence presented to prove any liability or calculate damages or actually litigate the issue at hand.  The fancy legal term at issue here is vicarious liability.  Making some party other than the bad actor, Minor Child 1, also liable for Minor Child 1’s, choosing to place a pen under another minor child when sitting down.  So the California Superior Court has no problem entering a default judgment under these facts totaling over $1 million dollars?  Does this not worry you?  Did a hearing take place to even determine damages?        

I do not know, and I am speculating, but I see this is really an issue of the economics of law.  Should the initial lawsuit be filed at all?  Were the injuries that serious?  Minor Child 2’s parents convinced an attorney to take this lawsuit on a contingency basis, most likely.  The attorneys will share in the judgment upon collection and the suing party does not have to come up with thousands of dollars to fund the lawsuit.  There are no contingency agreements for defense attorneys; just hourly rates and retainer payments to do work.  Defending any lawsuit these days is generally an expensive process.  A ten-thousand-dollar retainer is a good place to start.  I am speculating, and I do not know, but the Rosario’s were probably bombarded with discovery and could not keep up or the Rosario’s did not have an attorney at all and could not respond properly.  There are any number of scenarios that could result in a default judgment over $1 million dollars.  Not good for any human being though.

The Rosario’s Choose To File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Like almost every human on Earth facing a $1 million dollar plus judgment that was entered without proof of liability or proof of the amount of damage, filing bankruptcy becomes the prudent option.  The legal choice of following the Bankruptcy Code to obtain a discharge of personal liability for debts and claims.  The law. 

Just like:

The Archdiocese of San Francisco filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on August 21, 2023, in response to more than 500 lawsuits alleging child sexual abuse by clergy members

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May 2023, overwhelmed by more than 300 lawsuits alleging child sex abuse by clergy members

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Santa Rosa filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 13, 2023, following an influx of child sexual abuse lawsuits

So, the Rosario’s are in good company filing for bankruptcy under the law, the Bankruptcy Code.

I usually look up the underlying bankruptcy petition to know the facts firsthand.  In this case it is not necessary.  Maybe the Rosario’s had other debts to discharge also.  Maybe the have a home or other assets that are exempted/protected.  I did not look up their income and expenses to see how this are going. 

What matters is Minor Child 2 continued the fight in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and let the judgment be discharged.  Back to the default judgment in the state court case.  The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel noted that Minor Child 2’s complaint did not provide facts in support of vicarious liability of the Rosario’s, parents of Minor Child 1, the pen placer, and the default judgment also contains no facts as to how the Rosario’s are vicariously liable for the acts of their child, Minor Child 1, the pen placer.

Filing An Adversary Proceeding In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy To Prove Debt Should Not Be Discharged

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code excepts from discharge any debt for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity. 

Minor Child 2 filed an adversary proceeding in the Rosario’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to try and prove the $1 million dollar plus default judgment is not dischargeable due to the willful and malicious conduct of the Rosario’s when their minor child placed a pen under another minor child allegedly resulting in bodily harm and severe emotional distress pursuant to Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Minor Child 2’s first adversary complaint apparently also did not include an allegations of how the Rosario’s could be liable.  But Minor Child 2’s bankruptcy attorneys recognized this deficiency and amended the adversary complaint to include the Rosario’s are liable based on vicarious liability for the willful and malicious conduct of the  Rosario’s minor son.

Rosario’s bankruptcy attorneys countered and filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Specifically arguing that the adversary complaint failed to state how the Rosario’s could possibly have the mental state or have inflicted injury themselves on Minor Child 2 when the default judgment specifically provides vicarious liability for the acts of their child, Minor Child 1.  

The Bankruptcy Court agreed and held the Rosario’s cannot possibly themselves committed any acts with intent to inflict injury or have a belief injury was substantially likely to occur.  Yeah, their minor child, Minor Child 1, the pen placer, was the willful and malicious actor.  The Bankruptcy Court did the right thing and dismissed the adversary lawsuit of Minor Child 2 without leave to amend; which means Minor Child 2’s quest to get money for sitting in the pen is officially over and there can be no amendments or changes to try and fix the complaint to determine the $1 million plus default judgment is not discharged in the Chapter 7 case.

But There Can Be An Appeal

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower Bankruptcy Court and affirmed the dismissal of Minor Child 2’s adversary complaint.  Bankruptcy Code Section § 523(a)(6) requires that to render a debt nondischargeable the debtor, here the Rosario’s, must have the willful and malicious intent to injure as evidenced by the use of the phrase “by the debtor in Section 523(a)(6).  There is no mention of third-parties intent or actions in Section 523(a)(6) and the days of adding words to the Bankruptcy Code to achieve results are over.

What Is Cause To Convert A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case To Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case

By Ryan C. Wood

The short answer is whatever the Bankruptcy Judge assigned to your case thinks “cause” is because what “cause” is, is within the Bankruptcy Judge’s broad “discretion.”  Woo doggy.  Scary stuff.  Of wait, your Bankruptcy Judge went through a rigorous confirmation process to find out they are impartial and will treat you fairly and never ever have any type of bias for favoritism towards any party.  You may get hosed for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with your case or the law.  It all comes down to Money Money Money and not always your money.  Sometimes the money issues go your way.  Sometimes they do not. 

Money Money Money

So, you want to force the conversion of a voluntary Chapter 11 reorganization petition filed to now seek relief voluntarily in Chapter 7 and liquidate all not protected assets of the bankruptcy filer.  That means instead of the debtor, the bankruptcy filer, being in possession of the debtor’s assets, and trying to reorganize those assets for the benefit of all parties, you now want the case to be voluntarily, at your request, converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation and whatever assets cannot be protected are sold off by the Chapter 7 Trustee assigned to the case for the benefit of all parties.  If all parties are not benefiting from the voluntary conversion what is the point?  Creditors are supposed to benefit from the bankruptcy filing.  So, will creditors get more in a Chapter 7 liquidation versus and Chapter 11 reorganization?  Many Chapter 11 reorganizations are nothing more than Chapter 7 liquidations.  A Chapter 11 Plan of liquidation is proposed and the Chapter 11 Plan not a Plan of Reorganization in which the debtor, company/corporation/LLC continues to do business. 

Why File A Chapter 11 Liquidation Plan Versus Filing A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

There are all kinds of reasons.  One of the most common reasons is because the officers and directors of the insolvent debtor may have fraudulently transferred assets or money prior to the bankruptcy filing.  Or the corporation debtor or LLC debtor is a closely held corporation or LLC and commingling of assets took place raising questions about limited liability the shareholders/owners of the entity.  See these legal entities were created to allow humans to do things to other humans that humans are not allowed to do to other humans on an individualized basis.  The human gets put in jail.  No corporation or LLC can be put in jail.  They are fined money.  Money Money Money

So You Think You Will Get More In A Chapter 7 Liquidation Now

Okay, what does the Money Money Money look like?  As part of the Chapter 11 Plan there will be a liquidation analysis attached to the Chapter 11 Plan providing what the debtor, their bankruptcy attorneys, believe creditors will get in a hypothetical Chapter 7 liquidation of assets.   So, the Chapter 11 Plan liquidation analysis should always provide more Money Money Money for creditors in the Chapter 11 Plan or it would not be proposed to begin with. 

The Law and Voluntary Bankruptcy Case Conversion

Discretion and more discretion is the key to “cause” and voluntarily converting a bankruptcy case to another Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code.  More less “cause” can be anything then if a Bankruptcy Judge says so.

If the lower Bankruptcy Judge’s decision is appealed and challenged, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will apply the following standards.   The decision to convert a bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 is within the bankruptcy court’s discretion.  See Pioneer, 264 F.3d at 806.   An appellate court will reverse the bankruptcy court only if the lower Bankruptcy Judge’s decision was “based on an erroneous conclusion of law or when the record contains no evidence on which the Bankruptcy Court rationally could have based its decision.” See Pioneer at 806–07, quoting Benedor Corp. v. Conejo Enters., Inc. (In re Conejo Enters., Inc.), 96 F.3d 346, 351 (9th Cir. 1996)). The standard for converting a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 is set out in 11 U.S.C. § 1112. This statute provides that the bankruptcy court “shall convert a case under this chapter to a case under chapter 7 or dismiss a case under this chapter, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate, for cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1). However, even if cause is established, Section 1112(b)(2) prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting relief under Section 1112(b)(1) if the bankruptcy “court finds and specifically identifies unusual circumstances establishing that converting or dismissing the case is not in the best interests of creditors and the estate, and the debtor or any other party in interest establishes one of two enumerated circumstances].  What does this mean?  It means depending on the arguments advanced by the various parties in the bankruptcy case, there are three primary questions: (1) whether cause exists for granting relief under Section 1112(b)(1); (2) whether granting relief is in the creditors’ and the estate’s best interests; and (3) if so, which form of relief best serves the creditors’ and the estate’s interests.

Sidenote: Good Faith Bad Faith = No Faith In Chapter 7 Conversion to Chapter 13

What we are talking about here is Chapter 11 reorganization and filing a motion requesting the Bankruptcy Court to voluntarily convert the bankruptcy case to Chapter 7 liquidation.  As a sidenote let us briefly discuss voluntarily converting a Chapter 7 liquidation case to a Chapter 13 reorganization case.  The difference between Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 is a Chapter 13 reorganization is for individual humans and not corporations or limited liability companies.  I will cut to the chase here.  While the Bankruptcy Code, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and legislative history all provide bankruptcy filers have the right to choose their destiny and voluntarily convert to Chapter 13 reorganization if they do not like how the Chapter 7 liquidation is progressing, humans not elected to Congress created an entirely new Bankruptcy Code through judicial interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code.  Your Supreme Court of the United States of America and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly and consistently hold Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to create new law that is exactly what has happened regarding converting from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 reorganization. 

See the problem is some bankruptcy filers committed fraud when filing Chapter 7 and then when things fall apart of the Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy case the bankruptcy filer seeks a better deal by converting to Chapter 13 reorganization.  What the Bankruptcy Code does not address is the time and money spent by the Chapter 7 Trustee investigating the finances of the bankruptcy filer prior to seeking conversion.  How does the Chapter 7 Trustee get paid for their time for doing their job in a voluntarily filed Chapter 7 case?  They do not get paid if the case is converted to Chapter 13, normally.  So what did the human Chapter 7 Trustees do along with Bankruptcy Court’s throughout the United States of America?  They made their own law and created a bar to conversion if the debtor/bankruptcy filer acted to bad faith in the filing of their Chapter 7 petition, honesty in listing and valuing assets, or issues with anything the debtor/bankruptcy filer does.  So a debtor/bankruptcy filer amending their bankruptcy petition became bad faith as if a debtor does not have every right to amend their bankruptcy petition.  The law says yes and humans say no.  Any type of mistake is said to be “bad faith” and Chapter 7 Trustee’s and Bankruptcy Court’s decided we will punish humans for these alleged bad acts in filing the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.  Well, the problem is the words “bad faith” do not even exist in Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.  It is made up entirely.  One Chapter 7 Trustee went so far as to take away a bankruptcy filers right to protect the bankruptcy filers assets under state law.  A Chapter 7 Trustee nor Bankruptcy Court has a right to change any state law exemption to protect a bankruptcy filer’s assets.  The bankruptcy filers, if eligible, has a right to that state law exemption period.  The Supreme Court of the United States of America had to say no, this is wrong, no Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee or Bankruptcy Court can create punishments for bankruptcy filers that do not exist in the Bankruptcy Code.

The problem is these professionals become biased or were always jaded against humans that seek protection under our Bankruptcy Code here in the United States of America.  It seems like many Americans  can no longer follow things that made and make the United States of America the greatest nation humans kind has ever known to date.  One is our insolvency laws and throwing yourself on the mercy of the Bankruptcy Code to orderly sift through the financial mess. 

But no one likes to work for free and no human should have to.  The remedy is changing the Bankruptcy Code and not creating law and procedures that do not exist pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Chapter 11 Conversion to Chapter 7

Back to the law and procedure regarding conversion and whether or not to grant conversion.  If the Chapter 11 reorganization is not working out or slowed down due to litigation it may make sense to seek conversion to Chapter 7.  Your bankruptcy attorney and you are more or less throwing in the towel and allowing a Chapter 7 Trustee to takeover all assets of the bankruptcy filer and sell or settlement regarding the assets for the benefit all creditors.  You originally filed a reorganization case so you would be in control of your assets or the assets of the business that filed for bankruptcy protection.  In theory cause exists for the conversion because conversion is in the best interest of all parties.

How To Waive Credit Counseling Course To File Bankruptcy

By Ryan C. Wood

Since 2005 a credit counseling course from an approved provider must be completed before a bankruptcy petition is filed. For over ten years I have watched debtor after debtor representing themselves request the Court waive the credit counseling course requirement for exigent circumstances. First, the credit counseling course can cost as little as $8.75, total, or free if you qualify, and will take about two hours to complete online. So, I do not know how any human, even if bankrupt, cannot pay $8.75 or seek waiver of the fee, for the course and spend two hours answering question that have no right or wrong answers.

Second, no bankruptcy attorney that knows what they are doing will recommend seeking waiver of the credit counseling course. They will say the credit counseling course is simple, quick and nothing to get your bankruptcy case dismissed over, so just do it.

Who does recommend or provide information to seek waiver of the credit counseling course? A non-attorney or petition preparer are illegally giving out legal advice and providing forms to seek waiver of the credit counseling course. Each one I have ever read is deficient and again, I know why. The non-attorney or petition preparer do not actually want your bankruptcy case to continue and be successful. They want to charge you fees that are not legal (more than the limit of $150.00 total in California for a non-attorney petition preparer) and want your case to be dismissed quickly so it never comes up they ripped off the bankruptcy filer. So the non-attorney gets paid more than they should and you get around 14 – 20 days of relief before the case is filed for being dead on arrival….. Then hopefully you call me and I tell you the truth for free. Or hopefully you are reading this right now and do not give a single penny to a non-attorney and please call an experienced bankruptcy attorney in your jurisdictions.

I CAN DO THIS FOR EVERY PART OF YOUR LIFE IF YOU LET ME – FOR NOW HERE IS THE MAGIC REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF LIFE………

SEEK WAIVER OF THE FEE TO COMPLETE THE CREDIT COUNSELING COURSE — DO NOT WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE THE COURSE BASED UPON EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

See, I care about you and do not even know you. Here it is. Your circumstances are not exigent; there will be no waiver of the credit counseling course requirement. If you are reading this, you probably do not want to spend any money on a bankruptcy attorney. Let me tell you again, your circumstances are not exigent. The Court will deny your request waiver the credit counseling course requirement due to: “certification unsatisfactory under Section 109(h)(3).” I know which halfwits are out there spewing misinformation. But truth will make you less money and capitalism rules all. I just want to be equal to how the Court, chapter 7 trustees, chapter 13 trustees, their attorneys treat my clients as to money. No, no, only they can ignore the law to put your money in their pocket……. I digress but it is true.

File Certification of Exigent Circumstances Pursuant to Section 109(h)(3)

So, first off you need exigent circumstances. What are exigent circumstances? NOT MANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Just waiting to the very last minute to file the bankruptcy petition to immediately obtain the automatic stay is NOT an exigent circumstance. Even though your house is getting foreclosed on does not mean you cannot the credit counseling course. Since I am not your bankruptcy attorney though you may allege some sort of impossibility.

An exigent circumstance is something outside of your control not allowing you to timely complete the credit counseling course.

HERE IS MORE MAGIC: Now bankruptcy judges are clueless as to the credit counseling course, the costs, the time it takes to complete. They have never had to be a social worker/psychologist/ and do some attorney work for clients. What they do know is a human represented by a bankruptcy lawyer always properly completes the credit counseling course before every bankruptcy case is filed versus you filing your own case. Bankruptcy judges only see requests for waiver of the credit counseling course under Section 109 when humans represent themself. That is the common denominator and there is nothing exigent about not hiring an attorney. So, there are exigent circumstance only in cases that do not include an attorney? Hm no, no that makes no sense.

You will pay over $1,000.00 for a cellphone yet not take the time or spend between $1,000.00 and $2,000.00 to make sure your bankruptcy is done right.

YOU NEED TO REQUEST TEMPORARY WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE THE CREDIT COUNSELING COURSE – DO NOT REQUEST TO NEVER COMPLETE THE CREDIT COUNSELING COURSE

OMG, why are you requesting a complete waiver of the requirement, a requirement created by Congress, signed into law by your President of the United States to seek bankruptcy protection. Do not seek complete waiver but TEMPORARY WAIVER. Why are you not being told this. Well, here is it for free. I can do this for your entire life if you let me. You tell me what you want and I will tell you what must happen for you to get want you want. The problem is you cannot do it day in and day out. I read about this human man that bought a yearly pass for an amusement park to because the yearly pass came with free lunch I believe. The pass included some food anyway and the human man ate there everyday for free for over seven years with the yearly $150.00 pass. That is the sacrifice and discipline you do not have that is necessary to get it done.

So here is the trifecta of death for your self-filed bankruptcy case.

  1. Filing of skeleton petition; no statement of social security or creditor list;
  2. Request for waiver of court filing fee and no initial payment of filing fee; and
  3. Request for waiver of credit counseling course requirement

Also, the halfwit you overpaid to give you horrible legal advice also advised you to file a skeleton bankruptcy petition. If you want some love from the bankruptcy court file a complete and accurate petition while requesting TEMPORARY waiver of the credit counseling course and you will get what you want. Skeleton petitions filed by human beings in their own behalf rarely are complete and mandatorily dismissed within 14 days of filing the incomplete skeleton petition.

Now Section 109(h)(4) Is What Gets It Done – NO HUMAN WANTS THIS THOUGH

Section 109(h)(4) does provide for waiver of the requirement to complete the credit counseling course under certain horrible circumstances. After notice and a hearing, the court may waiver the requirement due to incapacity, disability or active military duty in a combat zone. You do not want to be determined to be mentally deficient so that you cannot complete the course due to impairment. No human want this. Disability is about being so physically impaired you cannot, after reasonable effort, participate in an in person, telephone or internet briefing course.

Where Does State of California Lottery Money Go?

By Ryan C. Wood

Howdy humans.  Let us discuss the California State Lottery and answer questions like where does all the California Lottery money go?  How much revenue is there each month and how is it spent?  Who are the winners and losers regarding the California State Lottery?  Can we get rid of the California State Lottery at this point?  Can the State of California live without a lottery?  If no, what does that say?  Does playing the lottery lead to filing bankruptcy, lol?

California State Lottery gross revenue is about $550 million a month.  As a percentage of gross revenue only about $116 million goes to education on a monthly basis or 21% of the total gross revenue.  Is this what you voted for?

For 2020-2021 the State of California lottery had total revenue of approximately $7.120 billion.  The California Department of Education estimates $1.5 billion will go to education.  During the last 35 years, 1985 – 2020, only about $1.07 billion a year of State of California lottery revenue went to K-12 education.  As of 2022, that represents 0.0088% (less than a percent of the total) of the total yearly budget for the State of California for K-12.     

For perspective if your gross income is $75,000 a year; 0.0088% equals a paltry $660.00.

For perspective if your gross income is $75,000 a year; 1.24% equals a paltry $930.00.

Now education receives about $1.5 billion from the State of California lottery or 1.24% of the total California education budget. 

Gaming costs are about $575 million with pure administrative expenses such as salaries are about $215 million each year.  So approximately $800 million goes to operating expenses each year while about $1.5 billion goes to education each year. 

If the total revenue was $7.2 billion for 2020-2021 and 87% or $6.264 billion

In 2020 about 66% of gross revenue was paid in the form of prizes/awards to the public.

Who Gets the California State Lottery Money?

Prior to 2010 only 50% of the money brought in by the California State Lottery had to be returned, or redistributed, to the public in the form of winnings/prizes.  A law was passed changing the payouts to 87 (of net revenue, not gross) percent to the public in the form of prizes and contributions to education and cap of 13 percent for California Lottery operating expenses. 

Prior to 2010 the money was redistributed as follows: 50 percent to public in prizes, 34 percent to public education, and no more than 16 percent to administrative expenses. 

So here you go.  Below is how lottery revenue was distributed between 1985 and 2020.

Entity                                                                                           Amount Allocated in Millions

K-12                                                                                             $1,194,705,385

Community Colleges                                                                $218,861,585

California State University                                                      $60,423,474

University of California                                                            $42,667,362

Hastings College of the Law                                                    $144,161

Department of Education – State Special Schools               $116,496

Juvenile Justice                                                                         $49,381

Department of Developmental Services                              $41,669

Total                                                                                           $1,517,009,513

Employees and Offices of the California State Lottery

In 2020 the California Lottery Commission employed 909 humans in nine district offices and two distribution centers.     

Distribution to Education 1985 – 2020

K-12 Education received about $30 billion over 35 years.  For perspective the State of California budget for 2022 is $119 billion – $124 billion.  According to the California Department of Education the total budget for 2021-2022 for K-12 programs is $124.3 billion.  Per pupil spending is up from $16,881 in 2020-2021 to $23,089 for 2021-2022.  So let us talk about $121 billion and how much money that is and where does it go.

Does Playing California State Lottery Lead to Bankruptcy?

No, I am just joking about this.  As a bankruptcy attorney in the Bay Area I regularly encourage my bankruptcy clients to buy one ticket each week or when the jackpots get huge.  Hopefully they will crack off a piece of that cheese for me.  I cannot ethically treat humans in the requisite way our system requires to obtain/earn/steal millions of dollars.  I could never sell my services as a bankruptcy attorney at 10 times the amount other bankruptcy attorneys charge regardless of how superior the services are.  This is not true of cellphones.  Apple can markup a cellphone to $1,200.00 and we all call it capitalism versus some other manufacturers cellphone selling for $100.00.  As an attorney that would be unethical even if the client chose to pay over 10 times more.  I, like most humans, will have to have blind luck to get that amount of money and that is where the California State Lottery comes in.  Do not fool yourself.  The only way to get rich is at the expense of many other human beings one way or another.  It is to capitalize.