[00:00:04] Speaker 00:
Next, we have in Ray lasher Pamela lasher appellant appearing pro se and Suzanne grant appearing for appellee.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
Okay, miss last year, would you like to reserve some time for a bottle?

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
Three to five minutes, depending on how it goes.

[00:00:21] Speaker 00:
Is that okay?

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
All right, sure.

[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
And I wanted to adopt some of what the prior attorney started with, that I wear many hats in this proceeding.

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
I'm a debtor, I'm a lawyer and I'm pro se.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
And I think that's important because I think the fact that I'm a debtor got lost in all of this.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
And the reason I say that, I had actually written out what I was going to say, but I think it's more poignant to talk about it.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
And I think it's important to note that the state bar seeks to litigate, or it seemingly litigate, what didn't yet come to fruition in the state bar court proceedings, because they're still pending in the California Supreme Court.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
And a good portion of their argument, or most of the argument, focuses on and relies upon a regulatory motive, which, as the court knows, and I know your honors have actually engaged with counsel for the state bar in this case, and I didn't check the other one, so I know you're all familiar with the law.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
But given the state bar court proceedings, so far where we are and what we have is

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
we have a recommendation based on an opinion by the State Bar and the State Bar Court that has yet to be adopted by the Supreme Court.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
And based on that opinion, I find myself involuntarily inactive.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
And I am in a position where the recommendation doesn't even consider without any way to get the recommendation to consider the debt, which is at the core of all of this, which seems to get lost.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
And it gets lost because it acts like, the State Bar is acting like,

[00:01:42] Speaker 00:
I have a disregard for all the court orders that were made in debt collection proceedings that arose from two judgments that were, as the court knows, as your honors now know, is still in dispute because the Supreme Court has yet to rule as to whether or not the satisfaction

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
made the court orders invalid or whether I had legal arguments to challenge in those and whether I had a right to do so.

[00:02:03] Speaker 00:
Those are not properly subject here.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
What's properly subject here is whether or not the bankruptcy code protects somebody in my position.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
And a lot of what I think the record reflects is my lack of knowledge of the bankruptcy and the bankruptcy code at the very beginning.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
But I think by the time I got here, I'm now way more versed in understand it all.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
And what I understand it to be

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
is that up to this point, what the law has considered or been confronted with are attorneys who have engaged in conduct that was under the California's rules of professional conduct, dishonest or misconduct based on the rules, not on a debt.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
And this misconduct and dishonesty of those attorneys wound up resulting in debt that caused those attorneys to go to the bankruptcy court to seek refuge from having to pay that debt.

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
and maybe even argue that they can get around that debt.

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
In this case, what happened here, and I understand you disagree with what the state courts have done, but because you didn't pay this debt, there were enforcement proceedings and the Superior Court, I think it was, cited you for contempt.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
and also impose other sanctions and so on.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
And as I understand it, you're saying that none of that should count because it's all based on non-payment of a debt.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
My question for you is, don't you think this case would be very different if you just simply not paid the debt and done nothing else?

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
Can you repeat that?

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
And I apologize.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
Wouldn't this case be very different if all you did was just not pay the ECI debt?

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
So if I hadn't paid it and there were no proceedings that took place after that, and that was the only thing that happened, would the case be different?

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
Is that the question?

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
No, I don't think it would be different because I think that the government unit engaged in conduct that assisted the collection of the debt.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
I'm simply saying,

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
Maybe the question is misplaced, but I'm saying that if the judgment had been taken against you and all you did was say, I can't pay it.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
I can't afford it.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
Oh, I think I understand.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
Wouldn't that be a very different situation than we're in now?

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
No, because that's actually what I did.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
The record, it doesn't seem to me.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
No, it's not.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
You sued them.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
You sued the creditor.

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
You got sanctioned for contempt and for attorney's fees in the course of the collection action.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
So you're talking, if I understand about the original debt in the small claims court, and then you take that original debt to the next one.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
No, I don't think it would be different because that debt was actually paid.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
Um, which is, I think it was a, the copies of the rec of those records were attached to the request for judicial notice.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
And I mean, you're not asking us to decide the validity of that judgment though, right?

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
You're asking to decide the effect of the discharge.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
So I would suggest you move on to the discharge question.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
Even if, even if you were

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
to prevail on the debt issue.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
There was some litigation that was going on, and the record says, courts concluded that you abused the judicial process.

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
Even if you were right that you don't owe the money, that's different from how you behave in the tribunal.

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
Well, I guess the query would be, it depends on what you think about how I behave, because under 525 and under the discharge, the only way you get to where my argument is, is if one, the debt is dischargeable, and two, you are insolvent.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
Well, but we have a record where courts have said, and I'm looking at one of the quotations here, is that you engaged in unprofessional conduct, and there was abuse of the judicial process.

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
Well, I don't think that 525 discusses the issue about abuse of process, regulatory motives, assuming I would agree with the court that that's the record, because the record down below, which we're not allowed to consider, talks about fee waivers all along.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
And what's missing in this record, because we're talking about abuse of process, is that the court is litigating

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
While we start out the idea that we're not litigating those issues, we're seemingly back to litigating those issues before this panel, because for you to consider that I allegedly abused the process, you would be usurping the California Supreme Court's authority to make that decision, number one.

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
And number two, not only would you be usurping that authority, but FCC versus NextWave and Wiki say, I don't know how you pronounce that, but Wiki say that you can't consider regulatory motives.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
So assuming I did all that and I abused all the process, you can't escape that this case is exactly like FCC and Perez.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
Because in Perez, the debtor got into some auto accidents and he didn't pay the debt.

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
And there was some law, some licensing law that says, you didn't pay that debt, you can't have a license.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
And then he said... Let's go there.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
That's different.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
That was, you didn't pay the debt, you can't have a license.

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
Here it is.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
It's not about the debt, but it was you didn't behave well in court proceedings up to the standards that are required of lawyers.

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
And that's why you were in trouble, not because of the debt.

[00:07:24] Speaker 00:
So what your honors are saying then is that we're in the middle of debt collection proceedings and I don't behave properly because you and this assumes that I violated court orders because I didn't produce a document relating to my own personal finances and therefore I misbehaved.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
And even though I was allegedly not insolvent because I abused the process or I used the process, I filed an appeal.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
No court found that I abused the process by filing an appeal.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
You have a right to file an appeal.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
My underlying superior court judgment was a slap judgment, and we didn't really get into that.

[00:08:00] Speaker 00:
But it was a slap judgment, which I lost not on the merits, but because I didn't have an opposition.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
And then that judgment was paid by the underlying deposit of the

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
the money with the court.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
But irrespective of all that, that's not what 525A says.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
And, yes, I think I disagree with the interpretation that

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
I, my case is different than the press situation because if I had paid this debt 20 years ago or not paid the debt 20 years ago and they didn't debt collect, we wouldn't be here.

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
But if I got a discharge and that discharge voids the underlying judgment and it voids every order that arises from is based on and is related to my personal liability to that discharge debt and every, you want me to stop?

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
No, I was going to say personal liability is the key part of that section.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
But I want to take you back to 525 because 525A protects your right to get a license.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
Well, it says they can't deny you a license solely because you didn't pay a dischargeable debt.

[00:09:02] Speaker ?:
Right.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
But here, the state bar is telling us it's not because the non-payment, it's because of the misconduct you engaged in the subsequent litigation.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
How can you say that that license denial is solely due to your non-payment of a debt?

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
That's because 525A and 524 can't be in a vacuum without each other.

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
Under 525, you get a discharge, and all these debt collection orders, because they're a personal liability, they presume to impact my personal liability to this now-discharged debt, which means that all those debt collection orders are void.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
If all those debt collection orders are void, then how would you enforce the debt collection, or how would you enforce the charges?

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
It begs the question.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
You don't know that the debt collection orders are void.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
You don't know what's non-dischargeable.

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
You don't know what's non-dischargeable because the state bar doesn't care anymore.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
They don't care whether you pay this or not.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
They're just barring you.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
So how does 525A fit under that scenario?

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
It does for lots of reasons because under Perez and under FCC, the regulatory motive doesn't matter.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
You can't take away the requirement to pay and get around 525.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
525 in the House report say lots of different things about how discrimination can take place.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
You can take place not because you don't pay and not because you get a discharge because it doesn't matter if you get a discharge.

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
It's based on dischargeable debt.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
Okay, which you don't know.

[00:10:33] Speaker 02:
Sorry.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
You don't know whether it's dischargable or not.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
Yes, I do.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
Because I guarantee you, you don't.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
And I would move on if I were you.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
I don't know if it's dischargable.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
Yes, because 523A7 is a complicated statute.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
I guarantee you there's no answer to that yet.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
You're talking about the contempt judgment then.

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
You're not talking about the East County debt because it's- Exactly, exactly.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
Understood.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
I didn't know that's where the emphasis is going.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
However- I'm sorry.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
I jumped in for judge court, but I apologize.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Well, no, I apologize too, but there's a debt component here and you have a right to defend yourself.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
And even if you won and you concluded that there was no debt, in that process, in defending yourself,

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
As a lawyer, you had a set of rules dealing with the decorum and what you could do.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
Even if you were successful and could prove that there was no debt, you were in a courtroom and you took action that the California Bar Association is saying is so egregious that you shouldn't be allowed to practice law.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
Even if there was no debt,

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
If there was no debt, I wouldn't be here, because these are all debt calls.

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
No one has said that they didn't have a right to pursue it.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
You had a right to defend yourself.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
And even if you prevailed, you still had to appear and act in accordance with a set of rules that apply to lawyers.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
And that's what was

[00:12:05] Speaker 00:
I guess I'm misunderstanding what the court's getting at, because if the debt had been paid or they had not collected, these orders would not exist.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
They're all debt collection orders from the gate.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
From 2014, every single one of these are debt collection orders, and they're all dischargeable under Inri Albert Sheridan.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
because of discovery orders.

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
And an answer to the previous question about dischargability, even though there's a presumptive discharge, the data is dischargable.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
It's the kind of class under 5, 2, 3, 8, 2, 4, or 6 that is either dischargable, I'm sorry, presumptive dischargeable.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
But the conduct, the conduct was the basis.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
The conduct, we're going to hear from the Bar Association in a second here, but it's the conduct that they're saying

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
Is the reason why.

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
But the conduct is the violation of court orders that are now discharged by the by the debt and 5 to 5 doesn't require a discharge.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
It only requires.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
I just want to point out that you're inside your 3 minutes now.

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
If you want to reserve, you could, you could certainly reserve whatever time you have left.

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
I'll reserve whatever time I have left.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
Okay, Ms.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
Grant, please go ahead.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
Good afternoon, may I please the court?

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
My name is Suzanne Grant.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
I'm an attorney for Appalita State Bar of California.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
This appeal arises from the bankruptcy court's orders, correctly concluding that Ms.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
Lasher's bankruptcy and discharge do not impact her discipline.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
The proceedings at issue were not debt collection mechanisms.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
The state bar is not a debt collector.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
The state bar exercises a critical component of public protection and the integrity of the legal profession.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
Latcher, as the court recognized in some of the questioning, has engaged in 18-year pattern of ethical improprieties.

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
While her conduct tangentially related to an initial judgment debt, her recommended discipline was based on violations of her professional duties.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
The violations are the only basis for discipline.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
regardless of whether she pays this debt or not, regardless of if the debt is discharged.

[00:14:06] Speaker 04:
And this case underscores that attorney regulation serves a fundamentally different purpose than debt enforcement.

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
So Your Honor, when you were talking about 523A7 and the dischargeability, that's the current subject of an ongoing adversary proceeding right now between Ms.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Lasher and creditor ECI.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
Well, no, no, no, that's not A7, that's A6.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
A6, I'm sorry, A6, I apologize.

[00:14:26] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but it is the subject of an ongoing adversary proceeding.

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
Well, A7 might be something that you would bring here, but you haven't.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
So I just met the debt.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
My point was the debt, the dischargability of the debt is being litigated in a separate forum right now.

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
But, you know, currently, that is irrelevant as our argument is that the discharge does not enjoy the continuation of the proceedings which are currently pending in the California Supreme Court briefing has concluded so we're waiting for

[00:14:48] Speaker 04:
a decision in front of the California Supreme Court, nor does it void the discipline.

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
So critically, Lasher fails to demonstrate a violation of the discharge injunction because the discipline is not a debt collection.

[00:14:58] Speaker 04:
The recommendation of the discipline of the state bar court was based on numerous grounds, and it seems the court is familiar with that.

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
First, she failed to obey 10 court orders.

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
Lasher is simply incorrect that these orders were all discharged or based on failure to pay money.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
For instance, there were four separate court orders that she violated, producing discovery, compelling her to respond to discovery, providing accounting, providing privilege logs, as well as some other information.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
She also violated two court orders relating to an assignment order of the Superior Court and order modifying that assignment order.

[00:15:28] Speaker 04:
And even the ones that did relate to failure to pay money, they were sanctions, attorney's fees based on our unlawful conduct.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
She still violated those orders, whether or not maybe 10 years later or 15 years later, she declared bankruptcy, she still did violate those court orders.

[00:15:41] Speaker 04:
Her other discipline, the culpability was found on maintaining an unjust action, which was filing a fearless appeal.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
The Court of Appeals recognized that she engaged in conduct that was an abusive waste of judicial resources, engaged in sanctionable conduct, and referred that decision to the State Bar of California.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
Lastly, she also was recommended to be disciplined based on co-mingling of client funds and a client trust account, as well as failure to report judicial sanctions.

[00:16:07] Speaker 04:
So in sum, this conduct is not negated simply because she declared bankruptcy.

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
Despite whether or not she currently owes that money to a third party, the state bar is not currently a creditor because there is no money that's currently owed to it.

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
There might be some money owed to it once the court issues its order for dismal costs or monetary sanctions.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
As this panel recognized in Inri Scheer, in which Marilyn Scheer made a largely identical argument regarding the nature of the discipline system, the state bar's action in disciplining attorneys is not to recover debt, but to discipline conduct deemed harmful to the public.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
Determining disbarment was the appropriate remedy.

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
The State Bar Court Review Department went through a very detailed analysis detailing her conduct causing significant harm over a lengthy 18-year period.

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
ECI pursued over $80,000 in attorney's fields that were deemed to be an abusive waste of resources and determined that public protection requires disbarment.

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
Secondly, Miss lasher argues that the discharge injunction voids her discipline, which we right now for one thing, the bankruptcy court correctly concluded there is no judgment that can be voided because there is no final discipline order, what we have now is a recommendation from the State Bar Court Review Department.

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
to the California Supreme Court.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
We can only recommend discipline.

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
We are an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court who has authority to impose that discipline.

[00:17:19] Speaker 04:
Secondly, even if the recommendation could be construed as a judgment or an order, the recommendation is not a judgment on Ms.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
Lasher's personal liability, which is required for it to be avoided.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
In fact, the discipline does not involve payment of money at all.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
Rather, it just disbar's Ms.

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
Lasher.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
Well, it does recommend payment of money to the state bar for discipline cost, but that's not at issue, not part of Ms.

[00:17:39] Speaker 04:
Lasher's argument.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
Next, with regard to the anti-discrimination provision of Section 525, as was pointed out during the questioning of Ms.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
Lasher, it requires the government entity cannot deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license solely because the individual is a debtor.

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
We are not withholding her license solely because of any reason to fail to pay a debt.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
If Ms.

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
Lasher repaid everything she owes of the over 167 approximately, I don't have the number in front of me, but if she paid all of that money back, she would still remain.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
involuntarily and actively enrolled due to her unethical conduct, which makes this case different than the next wave and the Wikee case in which the license was conditioned upon payment of a debt.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
Therefore, we are not withholding her license for failure to pay debt, much less solely for failure to pay debt.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
I'd like to make sure you, I want to make sure you save some time to talk about your 11th amendment and younger arguments.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
But if you want to finish this off first, go ahead.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I was, I was just going to actually bring that up in relation to Ms.

[00:18:36] Speaker 04:
Lashard's supplemental brief.

[00:18:38] Speaker 04:
which is untimely, and we did not have a chance to respond to due to her belated filing of this document.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
But we have always consistently maintained that Ms.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
Lasher's argument should be made in front of the California Supreme Court.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
And that goes to both our 11th Amendment and Younger Abstention Argument.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
We are not a creditor.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
This case doesn't involve property of the state.

[00:18:56] Speaker 04:
So as set forth in the briefing under Katz and its progeny, the state bar retains its 11th Amendment immunity.

[00:19:01] Speaker 01:
Hasn't the Supreme Court held

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
twice in the Hood and Katz cases that the discharge is enforceable against states?

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
Well, we are not arguing that it's not enforceable against the state and if the state bar, for instance, could not collect on debt that has been discharged.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
So we admit that it is enforceable against us.

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
But what we're saying here is that currently this proceeding doesn't involve that.

[00:19:24] Speaker 04:
It involves a license, which is not property of the estate.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
So until it involves 525,

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
525 turns on the discharge ability of the debt.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
And I think it's pretty clear that 525 basically reinforces, makes the discharge meaningful for debtors.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
So it preserves their livelihood to a certain extent.

[00:19:43] Speaker 01:
So do you really think that the Supreme Court would hold that 525 is not enforceable in a federal bankruptcy court?

[00:19:51] Speaker 04:
Well, um, I'm not aware that that's been addressed but our argument is that here on her, her, her arguments aren't impacting that that debt so I'm not saying that 525 couldn't be applicable or if her debt, or if she owed money to the state bar for instance and we actually were withholding.

[00:20:08] Speaker 04:
her license solely for failure to pay dischargeable debt, then there might be jurisdiction.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
But here... You see, that's the merits.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
That goes to the merits, whether 525 is violated.

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
That's one question.

[00:20:19] Speaker 01:
I'm now talking about jurisdiction.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
The question is whether the federal court can enforce 525 in the face of a pending state court case.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
And I think you're saying that it can't.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
And I'm wondering whether that could be right.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
No, I think it could.

[00:20:35] Speaker 04:
I mean, I think we're arguing, or we are arguing, under these circumstances, the state bar is immune because her case solely involves discipline, that it does not involve the bankruptcy of the state.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
I think if this case actually did involve the state bar's role as a creditor, for instance, then 8525 could be enforced against the state bar.

[00:20:53] Speaker 01:
But it does involve the discharge in that the debtor's rights under 525 turn on the discharge, right?

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

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
So I come back to my question, why can't a federal court, a federal bankruptcy court enforce 525, even though there's a pending state court proceeding?

[00:21:12] Speaker 04:
I think they could.

[00:21:13] Speaker 04:
I agree with that.

[00:21:14] Speaker 01:
I think under the circumstances of this case, I don't think that is that issue here for the reasons we stated in our brief, that there is no... Would you say the same thing about the younger abstention doctrine, that the bankruptcy court isn't required to abstain in a case alleging that 525 is violated?

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
But yeah, I agree with that.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
If there was a situation where we were a creditor, for instance, in the Albert case, which I'm sure this court's aware of, there was an issue there as a state entity.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
Oh, yeah.

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
I'm aware of it.

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
So in that case, when there actually is a discharge injunction violation, yes, there would be jurisdiction.

[00:21:47] Speaker 04:
But here, there is no property at issue.

[00:21:50] Speaker 04:
There is no part of the estate.

[00:21:51] Speaker 04:
So that was our argument under the specific facts of this unique case.

[00:21:54] Speaker 01:
I would come back and say, then you're saying that the merits of the case affect the court's jurisdiction to decide it.

[00:22:01] Speaker 01:
And I think that gets it backwards.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
Jurisdiction comes before merits.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
The question is, if there's an allegation that 525 is violated, does the Federal Bankruptcy Court have the right to adjudicate that allocation, even if there's pending state court proceedings?

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
I think, I think then, I think then that would be correct and I do believe there's many other arguments here as I as I stated before about why this why the bankruptcy court should be we may agree with you about the proper construction 525 but that's exactly judge Ferris point, right, right.

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
I guess I took you off the track.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
I think I was just about finished.

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
I did want to note that Ms.

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
Lasher did raise many of these arguments before the California Supreme Court, and that is pending.

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
So she does have that opportunity.

[00:22:53] Speaker 04:
I know she mentioned that she didn't, but she has had that opportunity to raise these issues and litigate.

[00:22:58] Speaker 04:
why or why not, um, you know, she has not engaged in misconduct or she or why, you know, perhaps the court may agree that, that some of these facts are outdated as, as the Bakers Court noted, but that's a proper inquiry to the Supreme Court, not to this court.

[00:23:11] Speaker 03:
Council simplified that for me.

[00:23:13] Speaker 03:
It basically, um, Ms.

[00:23:16] Speaker 03:
Lasher could lose here, but eventually win before the Supreme Court.

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
Well, I think the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to address violations of bankruptcy law, but they are the correct forum to address how her discipline may have been impacted by whether the debt goes away.

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
So even if we affirm the bankruptcy court, Ms.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
Lasher could convince the Supreme Court of California that her license shouldn't be terminated.

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:23:46] Speaker 03:
I guess it's been terminated, I guess.

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
Well, it's been, she's been involuntarily and actively enrolled.

[00:23:52] Speaker 04:
So right now, I'm pending a decision by the California Supreme Court.

[00:23:56] Speaker 04:
So they haven't yet imposed discipline yet, in this case.

[00:24:02] Speaker 04:
So if there's any other questions, I respectfully ask that this court affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy court.

[00:24:10] Speaker 01:
Okay, any questions?

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
All set.

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
Okay, great.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
Okay, Ms.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
Lasher, you've got, let's see the,

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
Clock will say two minutes and 10 seconds.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
Please go ahead.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
First of all, I think it's important just because I didn't address the immunity and abstention issue.

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
It begs the question that this court is considering the facts that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on to determine whether or not discrimination took place.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
That puts the car before the horse in the jurisdiction issue that we've been talking about.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
But I think Gruntz and Lentz and some of the other cases say that

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
whether I get the right to litigate it up in the Supreme Court or not, if I disagree and say that that interpretation is wrong, it comes back here, because here is the right place to litigate that issue, because here the Supremacy Clause says that bankruptcy courts and federal courts with federal issues have the right to litigate, to have the final say on those issues.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
So I think we're kind of going full circle.

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
And I think also what's getting mixed up is, again, one, my being a debtor and not an attorney, two,

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
While we're talking about the idea that my misconduct, and for this argument's sake, let's just assume everything I did that they say, everything they allege I say.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
They say, I did, I did.

[00:25:23] Speaker 00:
Even if I did all of that and I was really bad and engaged in misconduct that caused the contempt, two things are important here.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
Number one is the discharge avoids all these orders that form the basis of contempt.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
Under California law, a contempt proceeding cannot be based on void orders.

[00:25:38] Speaker 00:
So, regardless, the contempt would have to be voided.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
As I've never argued that, one, the state bar violated the discharge.

[00:25:45] Speaker 00:
I never argued they violated

[00:25:47] Speaker 00:
The issue before the court and the bankruptcy and the issue here is whether or not I've gotten a determination as to the reach of the discharge.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
The reach of the discharge is dependent upon 525A, and it can't be escaped that the two are together.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
525A, and I still want to go back to the 523A7 issue, there is no adversary proceeding on the A7.

[00:26:09] Speaker 00:
relating to what the court asked about the contempt issue.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
There is not one.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
And that contempt under, I think it's Yellow Cab, which I didn't talk about, this Yellow Cab v. Dingley talks about the idea that when a contempt proceeding is based on the underlying debt and enforcement of the underlying debt, if this were automatic stay, that automatic stay would not allow it to go forward.

[00:26:29] Speaker 00:
And the issue here is, in the automatic stay, although they were allowed to continue, there's a police power deal there, an exception.

[00:26:35] Speaker 00:
There is no police power exception to discharge.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
And we are focusing on all my alleged misconduct.

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
Assuming it took place, that regulatory motive does not exist here.

[00:26:44] Speaker 00:
It cannot exist here.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
FCC, the U.S.

[00:26:49] Speaker 00:
Supreme Court already said, take that out of the picture.

[00:26:51] Speaker 00:
If you take out the motive and how bad I was and I was disrespectful to the court, even if I disagree and that's going to be litigated in the Supreme Court, even if I did all of that, when you're left standing at the end of the day, the discharge applies.

[00:27:04] Speaker 01:
It is... Okay, I'm going to stop you.

[00:27:05] Speaker 01:
You've, you're a little past your time.

[00:27:07] Speaker 01:
So, but thank you very much for your arguments to both sides.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
The matter is submitted and you'll be receiving our written decision shortly.

[00:27:14] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:27:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:16] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.