[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
Inray Bjornbach, Kiang Bornbach, Council for Appellants David and Kiang Bornbach, Bruce Rorty, Council for Appellee Lanny J. Dugar.

[00:00:20] Speaker 06:
Just for clarity, it might have been Inray Dugar.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
Oh, sorry.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
Inray Dugar.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
My apologies.

[00:00:35] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:38] Speaker 06:
Yep.

[00:00:39] Speaker 06:
Only if you're going to try to argue.

[00:00:43] Speaker 06:
Go ahead and go ahead and make your appearance.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
Yeah, give me one second.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
uh... you know and may i have who is a record for minutes sure so and then they'll have eleven minutes right at the beginning okay go ahead and make your parents yeah uh... your honor uh... first of all uh... tell us your name so we know who's here okay your honor and my name is chum beyond bark i'm the attorney and represent myself and my husband david beyond bark appellant and uh...

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
First of all, the opposition paper should be dismissed because it was never properly served or timely served.

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
Specifically, it was filed at the end of January 2025, which is outside the prescribed time frame.

[00:01:39] Speaker 06:
Number two... Are you talking about the appellees' papers on appeal or something else?

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
The opposition paper to this case.

[00:01:49] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
In the bankruptcy court or here?

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
No, not in the bankruptcy court for this court.

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
It's a BAP.

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
In this case, independent case.

[00:01:58] Speaker 06:
Well, how were you prejudiced by that?

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
Well, I mean, I didn't really, didn't have enough time to research on these points.

[00:02:07] Speaker 06:
You might have brought that up before now.

[00:02:10] Speaker 06:
You might have brought that up before now.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
Yeah, yeah.

[00:02:13] Speaker 06:
So, but anyway, I... Why don't you get on to the meat of what you want us to do, okay?

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
So I just want the court to ignore the paper or reject the paper and also it was frivolous.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
So in the end, I reviewed it before.

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, I got on the BAP website actually and I logged in the PACER and pulled out these documents last minute, but I kind of cursory reviewed it.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
So number two is I request the court to sanction against Dugar's conduct.

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
He posted intentionally multiple times the racially charged word comments.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
Literally so ugly.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
I mean, I did attach... I'm sorry, give me that one again so I have it exactly right.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
What did he do?

[00:02:58] Speaker 02:
What did he do?

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
I just give you one example.

[00:03:00] Speaker 06:
No, I didn't hear the word you said that you found offensive.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
He post racially charged the comments on the internet intentionally.

[00:03:12] Speaker 06:
Is that in front of us now?

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
Yes, with a taste.

[00:03:15] Speaker 06:
No, hang on.

[00:03:16] Speaker 06:
I mean, what you're appealing is the entry of the discharge, correct?

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:03:20] Speaker 06:
So how is his other conduct in front of us now?

[00:03:24] Speaker 02:
Because he tried to prevent me from exercising the constitutional rights.

[00:03:31] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:03:32] Speaker 06:
Well then maybe you can sue him someplace, okay?

[00:03:35] Speaker 06:
But what you're appealing is the entry of the discharge for the debtor.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
Right, that's true.

[00:03:40] Speaker 06:
Yeah, I'm getting that point.

[00:03:41] Speaker 06:
You're not getting that.

[00:03:42] Speaker 06:
That's the only point.

[00:03:43] Speaker 06:
You're not getting there.

[00:03:44] Speaker 06:
That's it, okay?

[00:03:45] Speaker 06:
And we're going to have some serious questions for you about how you're appealing the entry of a discharge, which is a ministerial act once it's determined that the time has run

[00:03:57] Speaker 06:
and that no one has successfully challenged the debtor's right to a discharge, which is exactly where we are here, right?

[00:04:04] Speaker 06:
And you brought a non-dischargeability complaint, didn't you?

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:04:08] Speaker 06:
And you lost, didn't you?

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Right, but it was on appeal to NYSERDA.

[00:04:13] Speaker 06:
Okay, but in the meantime, has anybody changed that outcome?

[00:04:16] Speaker 06:
No.

[00:04:17] Speaker 02:
Well, it's still pending with NYSERDA.

[00:04:18] Speaker 06:
But has anybody changed that outcome?

[00:04:20] Speaker 06:
No.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
Not yet.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
But did you get a stay?

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
I mean, why does that stop the entry of the discharge?

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
No, I am not stop the entry of discharge.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
Well, I challenge the discharge was improperly entered.

[00:04:35] Speaker 02:
And that's now, well... Because the audit says, and it's going to discharge

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
many debtors, not just Dugar.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
And it would say, you know, it's all the debtors.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
So it's not very clear why the other debtors.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
No, there's only one debtor, ma'am.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
There's only one debtor.

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
Okay, one debtor.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
Oh, okay.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
That will be fine if it is just one debtor.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
But the standard review is de novo because she did... What was wrong with it?

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
Well, she... She being the clerk.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
There were constitutional issues.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
She didn't follow the law.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
And the law states very clearly says that the debtor need to provide the physical address and the tax return.

[00:05:21] Speaker 02:
He didn't provide it.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
The debtor didn't provide it, and the case gets dismissed.

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
And also, according to the 11 USC 727A1, a discharge is only available only to individual debtors, not to the trade names.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
But then in her order, it's very obvious

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
that the judge dismissed the case for the trade names as well.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
So that's pretty obvious on her order.

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
And also, the judge showed her bias by failing to investigate the intentional fraud upon the court.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
this disregard the evidence from the government agencies such as DMV records.

[00:06:12] Speaker 00:
But that's what you litigated.

[00:06:13] Speaker 00:
Huh?

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
That's what you litigated previously, correct?

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
Well, yeah.

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
The intentional crime?

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
But then, well, her discharge of the debts is based on the same theory.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
Literally, I mean, why I appeal the case, I mean, any other related case, because he has assets.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
He admitted he has assets in the court.

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
He admitted his assets in separate statements.

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
There was such a blunder mistake made by the judge.

[00:06:39] Speaker 06:
Well, if you're suggesting that the judge had some independent duty to do some investigation based on something that you told her that she already decided against you, I'm not understanding what that theory could be.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:06:52] Speaker 06:
Well, then, ma'am, what are you saying?

[00:06:53] Speaker 06:
What's the mistake?

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Well, first of all, it was a lot of issues, right?

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
I listed that the law requires the judges to look at his fiscal address and then get the tax return.

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
Second, she cannot discharge any entity on the trade names.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
Number three, and her finding of credibility is clearly erroneous.

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
Because it was very clear, I put in the brief, that the appellee claimed he is homeless.

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
And you look at him, he is not homeless.

[00:07:40] Speaker 02:
He claimed he doesn't have a home.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
He lived in a car.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
He lived in the assistant living.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
and which really contradicts what he really has.

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
And I searched out that he has a physical address linked to 10 properties in California in Washington state.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
He admitted there were two properties under the name of Lenny J. Dugard.

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
These are all claims that you made when you prosecuted your 727 action previously lost.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
We affirmed it's on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
What Judge Lafferty previously said to you was the entry of a discharge is typically a ministerial act Doesn't require the court to do really very much other than determine that the time for objections to discharge or exceptions to discharge has expired They've been resolved.

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
There's nothing more administratively to do in the case.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
They enter a discharge You're telling us things that you raised before that are still on appeal to be determined by the Ninth Circuit that we've resolved

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
What how does that make her actions illegal if?

[00:08:52] Speaker 04:
She's resolved those claims.

[00:08:54] Speaker 04:
They're on appeal the Ninth Circuit's gonna look at them.

[00:08:56] Speaker 04:
We've resolved those claims Isn't she supposed to just do what she's supposed to do under the law and enter the discharge Well, there's one issue.

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
I'm pretty concerned about them well her

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
Her order is not very clear.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
I mean, fortunately, I mean, three of the great judges here, they understand that she only discharged one person that needed to do more.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
But look at the paper.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
It's not very clear.

[00:09:24] Speaker 06:
Ma'am, it's a form order.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
That's why.

[00:09:26] Speaker 06:
Ma'am, it's a form order.

[00:09:28] Speaker 06:
It's a ministerial act.

[00:09:29] Speaker 06:
It is a form order.

[00:09:31] Speaker 06:
If you want to write to the court and say, I'd like to improve your forms, go ahead and do so.

[00:09:34] Speaker 06:
OK?

[00:09:35] Speaker 06:
That's your right.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
No, it isn't.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
She say it was including

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
No, no, I understand there's a form order, but there was some words she added on that as well.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
She is saying that the discharge applies to UGOR and any entities, any other entities on the other trade names as well.

[00:09:59] Speaker 04:
So the question becomes under California law, does an individual who does business under other names, but who is legally liable,

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
Mr.. Dugar might be I don't know what California law is on this issue if he she included their names because Technically there were allegations that were being made in the case as to other entities that he was doing business under She's saying all of them all of them because it's really him.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
It's only him legally It was not very clear what the judge say aka in California.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
Yes, we do recognize if you run the business on the job

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
on the different kind of various names, but you still consider your individual business.

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
Because you're not incorporated, you're not an LLC, it's just you.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
Right, but Dugar has LLCs, Dugar has inks.

[00:10:51] Speaker 04:
But those weren't listed on the discharge order, were they?

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
It was just the entities he was doing business as.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
She doesn't say that.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
She just say the entities in the various trade names and the words.

[00:11:06] Speaker 06:
I mean, I just don't have the... Well, did she include another legal entity?

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
Did she include any LLCs or corps?

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
I don't have... I'm sorry.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
I just don't have this order in front of me.

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
Let me see whether I have it or not.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
I just don't have the order in front of me.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:11:21] Speaker 06:
But I remember... Well, if you have another point, you can make another point.

[00:11:24] Speaker 06:
Go ahead.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
Yeah, I just I just I just yeah, I'll come back and correct if I followed but that's one response your four minutes, too If you want to this is a good time for you to break you go ahead and break.

[00:11:34] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
Yeah, I'll break.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:11:36] Speaker 06:
Thank you so much It's easier if you sit up here if you're gonna come back yeah, okay, I

[00:11:51] Speaker 05:
Good morning, your honor.

[00:11:53] Speaker 05:
Bruce Rorty.

[00:11:54] Speaker 05:
You can move the microphone if it would help.

[00:11:57] Speaker 05:
You can move the microphone if it would help.

[00:11:59] Speaker 05:
There you go.

[00:12:01] Speaker 05:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:12:03] Speaker 05:
Bruce V. Rorty for the appellee and debtor Lanny J. Dugar.

[00:12:15] Speaker 05:
I don't need the full 15 minutes here.

[00:12:21] Speaker 05:
What I would comment here is that, as we know from the previous case, there were 140 subpoenas that were issued, but there was never any follow-up with depositions to ascertain any admissible evidence.

[00:12:40] Speaker 05:
Now we have a

[00:12:44] Speaker 06:
Apart from the adversary proceeding that's currently no no it was within the adversary I thought you're about to tell me there were 150 2004 exam requests no no no Fortunately not all right there were but that's all within the world of the AP that's up at the Ninth Circuit now is that right okay?

[00:13:06] Speaker 05:
And so we have we have here So that part of the case is is up in front of the Ninth Circuit

[00:13:14] Speaker 05:
And then we have here a no asset individual who lost his business due to heart attacks and there's never been anything proved that he's hiding assets and so the

[00:13:38] Speaker 05:
Judge Kaufman was within her discretion to grant the discharge, and that's where we are.

[00:13:51] Speaker 06:
The only thing that's, I think, been identified so far that is arguably outside of the complaint that was not, you know, Judge Kaufman did what she did, we did what we did, is up in the Ninth Circuit.

[00:14:05] Speaker 06:
is this notion that somehow other entities were discharged.

[00:14:10] Speaker 06:
And if those are simply DBAs, I mean, they're just another name for the same person.

[00:14:15] Speaker 06:
So it's really either here or there.

[00:14:17] Speaker 06:
If there are other entities, well, that would be a different matter.

[00:14:20] Speaker 06:
Do you have anything to offer on that?

[00:14:21] Speaker 05:
There are no other entities that were a part of it.

[00:14:26] Speaker 05:
Mr. Dugar used to have pre-heart attacks.

[00:14:32] Speaker 05:
He used to have these DBAs.

[00:14:35] Speaker 06:
Well, but the DBAs are just him putting another name on something, okay?

[00:14:39] Speaker 06:
That's Judge Gant's point.

[00:14:41] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:14:42] Speaker 06:
But if there's an LLC or an LP or a corp that somehow got discharged here, that would be a... I don't know that that happened.

[00:14:50] Speaker 06:
Do you have any information on that?

[00:14:52] Speaker 05:
Yeah, there are... It's Landy J. Dugar, an individual.

[00:14:56] Speaker 05:
He's the only... He was the only party that filed.

[00:15:01] Speaker 05:
He never...

[00:15:03] Speaker 05:
of the previous businesses were basically they're long gone so they're Way back in the rearview mirror so they were not included and I have never seen any of the orders in this case that dealt with some of those other entities that she's raising and

[00:15:34] Speaker 05:
I think that's really everything that I have, if you have any questions for me.

[00:15:40] Speaker 06:
So you're basically saying, I take it you're agreeing with us that the entry of a discharge under the circumstances was a fairly ministerial act, given the disposition of the AP.

[00:15:54] Speaker 06:
Look, at the end of the day, the Ninth Circle, if they reverse,

[00:15:58] Speaker 06:
And there's a viable claim against Mr.. Dugar that the discharge will be neither here nor there Right exactly you can almost argue.

[00:16:06] Speaker 06:
It's even if she did enter the discharge It's harmless there because if the Ninth Circuit changes the outcome.

[00:16:11] Speaker 06:
Well, we'll just go back to the bankruptcy court, right?

[00:16:14] Speaker 06:
Yes, that's correct your address All right, I don't think I have anything else Thank you.

[00:16:20] Speaker 06:
Thank you very much.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
Thank you Yeah

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
the judge's order, but now the judge says, Lanny J. Dugard, including all the names used by each debtor, including trade names within the eight years prior to the filing of petition.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
So that word is not very clear.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
And Lanny J. Dugard, rather than... What document number are you looking at?

[00:16:47] Speaker 02:
I'm looking at the order I'm peeling.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
Which is the order of discharge?

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
I'm reading literally word by word.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
Is it included in the record at a docket entry so that we would know what you're referring to?

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
Yeah, yeah, it is in the docket entry.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
It is on the notice of PO as well.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
It says Lenny J. Dugard, include all names used by each debtor, including trade names within the eight years.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
That's the very reason I peeled it.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
But ma'am, let me, I think we can take judicial notice of this and it's ECF 20 in the main case.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
And the typed in language is Lanny J. Dewar only, which comports with the actual filing of the bankruptcy.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
There's a bracket includes all names, which is part of the form, I believe, because that is nothing other than the individual.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
I saw, I mean, I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
I saw it was not the form I saw that she typed it in that it was her.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
Even if it is, as Judge Gaines pointed out, the trade names are just the individual operating under a name.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
The debtor, as established by the petition, is Lanny J. Dugar, which is what is typed into the order of discharge.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
So I don't understand what you are, to the point you are making, I don't understand that the record before us even supports that.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
That's the problem that I'm having.

[00:18:18] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
But, okay.

[00:18:22] Speaker 02:
So I do, well, when I'm reading this, you know, I do believe that it mentions the trade names of these corporations because... See, that's the problem, is that if it's a trade name, it's not a corporation.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
Well, Eleni Judiuga does have corporations registered under his name and finance home remodeling and it becomes Image Home Design.

[00:18:45] Speaker 02:
He's a director.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
He wrote the checks from Image Home Designer to his own son-in-law.

[00:18:50] Speaker 06:
Totally different point.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
I got it.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
So, but anyway, so that's what I thought that, you know, it was the audit is concerning about his corporation as well.

[00:19:03] Speaker 02:
That's why I'm concerned.

[00:19:05] Speaker 02:
The second one is that I believe, you know, she should have set aside the, she should have granted that the, she should have stayed the, what did I say, she should have stayed the discharge while the case is pending.

[00:19:28] Speaker ?:
Why?

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
Well, because it's not, as Judge Lafferty just explained, if the Ninth Circuit reverses, it reverses everything.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
So it's not that this is going to be, despite of the Ninth Circuit, in the case they reverse.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
But they haven't reversed, you haven't stayed at the Ninth Circuit, so why can't she enter it?

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
Well, there was another issue about the due guard's conduct and, well, there was previous court orders from the BK judges and prohibited him from making racial statements.

[00:20:10] Speaker 02:
He did it anyway.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
He did it in person, and to me, and also he did it on the internet.

[00:20:15] Speaker 06:
Then pursue your cause of action if you have one, okay?

[00:20:18] Speaker 06:
That's not a- But that was- Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, that is not a discharge issue, okay?

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
No, no, it's not a discharge issue.

[00:20:24] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
It was a follow-up motion to sanction Dugard.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
It was that motion that was never decided upon, you know, by this court.

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
But I raised this issue because you can have somebody and take advantage of that and discourage people from

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
engaging in the litigation by harassing somebody.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
And that's exactly the case.

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
He harassed me for more than 10 years.

[00:20:50] Speaker 06:
That's for another court to decide.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
Oh, that's why I just let the court know that what's going on.

[00:20:59] Speaker 06:
Anybody have any further questions?

[00:21:01] Speaker 06:
No, I do not.

[00:21:02] Speaker 06:
There is nothing to this, OK?

[00:21:03] Speaker 06:
So thank you for your appearance.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
I just left again.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:08] Speaker 02:
Thank you for your time.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:10] Speaker 03:
Thank you.