[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
In Ray Koopman, Victoria Marie Koopman, Appellant in Pro Se, Erin J. Kennedy, Council for Appellee, Capflow Funding Group Managers, LLC.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:00:15] Speaker 02:
Let's have the appellant come on up.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
Okay, why don't you just tell us who you are first.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
So good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
I am Victoria Marie Koopman.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
Okay, so you're representing yourself today.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
I'm representing myself today.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
Would you like to reserve some time for rebuttal?

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
I would, five minutes rebuttal, please.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
Absolutely, okay.

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
We'll do our best to give you a heads up when you're getting close, okay?

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
Okay, and I'll keep an eye on the clock as well.

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
Okay, so this is an unmistakable constitutional rights appeal case for the violation of due process under the 5th, 14th U.S.

[00:00:53] Speaker 04:
Amendment as well as California Chapter 7.

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
The district court's procedural and legal error of imposing a judgment against the defendant for a matter that was not before the court and had never been the plaintiff's claim of damages.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
You said district court, you mean the bankruptcy court.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
Yeah, we don't reverse district courts very often around here.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
The district court substituted during the trial the actual plaintiff's claim of damages.

[00:01:24] Speaker 04:
The detailed plaintiff's adversary action and in multiple court filings, they substituted for a new claim that didn't exist.

[00:01:33] Speaker 04:
The actual claim the plaintiff had

[00:01:35] Speaker 04:
for corporate debt that was filed for over four years in five different court cases was for $957,000 that included attorney fees, interest, penalties, fines, fees, that sort of thing.

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
Those were the elements of the claim that they had against the corporation and subsequently me.

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
So the heir by the district court for the judgment in a new manner

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
and never before claimed as damages, denied me the legal and constitutional rights of advance notice for due process so I could be prepared for trial.

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
be heard, defend myself, and bring compelling evidence showing that this new claim should be denied and dismissed during that court case in September of 2023.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you a couple of quick ones?

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
Pardon me?

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
A couple of quick questions.

[00:02:25] Speaker 04:
Absolutely.

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
If one were just to look at numbers, one might say, gosh, you're better off.

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
It was $200,000 less than they might have asserted at some point.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
So are you telling us that there was a totally different theory of damages?

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
Why don't you tell us what that was?

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
One was $957,000 that the plaintiff filed against the corporation in their bankruptcy and subsequently me when the company couldn't pay.

[00:02:49] Speaker 04:
And so that included fines, fees, penalties, interest, attorney fees.

[00:02:55] Speaker 04:
957 over five court cases.

[00:02:58] Speaker 04:
Never changed.

[00:02:59] Speaker 04:
They never wavered in their change.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
A little bit.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
Yeah?

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
The $756,000 judgment amount and the $957,000 proof of claim amount.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
Don't they both have, as a portion of that claim, amounts dealing with wrongfully deposited payments on invoices?

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:03:23] Speaker 04:
The 957 does not specifically state anything about deposited misdirected funds.

[00:03:29] Speaker 04:
The 957 thing does not.

[00:03:31] Speaker 01:
How did they get a claim?

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
They didn't get a claim for attorney's fees first.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
They had a claim because something wrong happened, or they alleged that something wrong happened.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
Well, the plaintiff during the trial for the adversary action, it was always 957, very specific elements.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
But I'm not asking about the number, OK?

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
I'm asking about what was the basis of the 957.

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
Wasn't that started because there was wrongfully deposited payments?

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
That's not according to what the claim states, no.

[00:04:04] Speaker 04:
That's not what I've read that the claim states.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
And the 756, where the judgment came from.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
So what was the basis of the 957?

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
What was the basis of the 957?

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
Basis of the 957 is quite detailed.

[00:04:17] Speaker 04:
I'm sure it's in one of their briefings.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
It's factoring exposure, factoring due, unimplied collection that they had received against all of those monies.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
It was factoring revenue that they received for other AR financing that they weren't entitled to because they never lended on it, but they had it and kept it.

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
And attorney fees for the $25,000 and attorney fees.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
Can I ask a little bit differently?

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
Uh-huh.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
You know, the numbers are, you know, that's an additional exercise, which isn't that hard.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
And why it's different, we can talk about it if you want to.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
But the point of their lawsuit was that there was some bad behavior.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
And because of the bad behavior per them, the debt should be non-dischargeable.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
And that's an element of,

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
Under A2, that's either fraud or embezzlement or larceny.

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
And under A6, it's some kind of intentional tort.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
Now, what I think we're trying to ask is, if the theories were the same, even if the number turned out to be a little bit different, where's the due process issue?

[00:05:25] Speaker 04:
OK, so I think that's an important question.

[00:05:28] Speaker 04:
And so according to the transcripts from that September 20 trial, per the court, quote, I don't believe plaintiff has established that the proof of claim amount is appropriate damage award.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
And I don't feel from the record that the defendant has established that there were credits or offsets

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
that were recouped or whatever you want to call the 756.

[00:05:56] Speaker 04:
So because the 756 was not the claim, it wasn't part of the claim, it wasn't the claim of damages for five court cases, I wasn't prepared to bring in those credits showing repayment.

[00:06:10] Speaker 04:
I didn't know that because I didn't get advance notice that that's what was going to become the claim.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
I wasn't prepared to defend myself.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
You say you didn't get advance notice, but the pre-trial stipulation, before the trial, you signed off on the pre-trial stipulation that $756,000 of receivables were wrongfully deposited in Innovations' account.

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
And repaid.

[00:06:33] Speaker 04:
Is that in the stipulation that they were repaid?

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
Was there a stipulation that they were repaid?

[00:06:44] Speaker 04:
According to their claim, you can see there was a lot of repayments.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
But yes, they were repaid.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
You knew before bankruptcy or before the trial that there was $756,000 wrongfully deposited.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
Yes, two, three years earlier by the corporation.

[00:07:06] Speaker 04:
But I also knew, I also knew,

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
that they had been repaid.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
Well, isn't that then what you should brought up at trial?

[00:07:13] Speaker 04:
No, because that was never their claim.

[00:07:15] Speaker 04:
All of their claims that they ever sent, proof of claim, $957,000 for very specific elements, including interest, fines, fees, all of it.

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
They didn't say.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
Why would any of that have precluded you from telling the court, but I paid it back?

[00:07:34] Speaker 04:
When during the trial, so definitely during the trial, it looked like the judge was kind of grabbing onto that.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
He said, I don't know about that 957.

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
I don't get it.

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
It doesn't make sense to me.

[00:07:45] Speaker 04:
But what's the 756 over here?

[00:07:48] Speaker 04:
So why don't you all do post-trial briefs and give me some more details.

[00:07:52] Speaker 04:
But according to the transcript record,

[00:07:55] Speaker 04:
that the district court said for post trial.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
Again, just for the record, you mean the bankruptcy court, right?

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
Yeah, the bankruptcy court.

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
It's OK.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
The bankruptcy court.

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
I think the bankruptcy court will appreciate the promotion.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
I quote, this is from the judge.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
So to be clear, I'm not opening the record up for any more evidence.

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
The evidence is over.

[00:08:17] Speaker 04:
So when it looked like the 756 was becoming what was going on with that, all of a sudden we switched.

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
He said, no new evidence.

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
And if I had brought in, in my post-trial brief, evidence that that had been repaid, then that would have been new evidence, and I couldn't.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
What was the evidence that you said that you owed nothing?

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
And it is a question of what you owe.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
What would I have brought?

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
I mean, Kate, we know from the stipulation that, from the stipulation, we understand that invoices were paid to the wrong account.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
And now there's a question about damages, and you're saying, well, you've paid it off.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
Well, did you pay off the 756?

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
Did you pay off the 957?

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
Are you saying that you didn't owe any money?

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
The 756 was repaid, and it was repaid over the course of the year with the two corporations doing business together.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
The other thing, the court had to make a determination that there was some sort of misappropriation of funds to enter a judgment.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
But then the court also has to determine the amount of the judgment.

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
There's a stipulation that accounts payable were paid into the wrong account, so there's a stipulation that something was done wrong.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
And then the court had to make a determination as to what the damages were.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
Did you present evidence that you owed nothing?

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
I presented evidence that I did not owe those elements of the 957.

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Did you claim that you owed nothing, that they didn't have a claim?

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
I think that it was all because it was a corporate debt, and they were miscellaneous charges in that 957 of attorney fees and interest and penalties and fines and fees.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
Then yes, that was the court case.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
I didn't personally owe anything.

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
You're closing in on your five.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
So if you want to rest now, that's fine.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
If you have one more point you want to make, have at it.

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
If you want to rest now and reserve the rest for a while.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
Yes, I will.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
Got it.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you so much.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you so much.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
Let's have the appellee.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
Erin Kennedy from Foreman Hall on behalf of CAPLO Funding Group Managers LLC, the appellee.

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
We're here today on this appeal.

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
Appellants building the appeal around the argument that the non-dischargeable amount was $756,000.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
rather than the $957,000, which was originally claimed in plaintiff's complaint.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
The larger amount claimed in the complaint was based on the... The complaint, or is that the proof of claim?

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
Well, it's both.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
It's both.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
The amount was set forth.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
And just to anticipate some of the questions that I heard the court asking the appellant, attached to the proof of claim is a detail.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
of the breakdown of how the $957,000 was arrived at, which includes a component of factoring advances due.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
So the misdirected funds was included as a component of the proof of claim, which had other components in it.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
What was the amount of that component in the detail you're looking at?

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
The factor advances due?

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
uh... eight hundred ninety thousand eight hundred fifteen dollars and forty cents that doesn't match either no it doesn't but what happened was the the actual we we didn't uh... we didn't go into the detail of this on appeal because uh... after and on our post trial briefing when the judge indicated uh... the actual damages because

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
At that point, when I took a look at the case law in the statutory language, I thought the judge was right.

[00:12:05] Speaker 03:
So we didn't go back to revisit the components of the .

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
In any event, you say the component dealing with the misapplied payments, that amount in the proof of claim was in excess of the ultimate judgment of $756,000?

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
In addition to address an issue that came up before in the trial transcript at pages 47 to 49 on my direct examination of Ms.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
Koopman, I asked her in detail about the repayment of the amounts due.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
The language, it starts at line six and says, so you contend that cap flow is overpaid for the amount innovation pet owed to it?

[00:13:03] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
What did you base that conclusion on?

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
It would be the accounting records set out of QuickBooks.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
Did you ever produce those records?

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
I did.

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
There were several different general ledger accounts that were provided to CAPLO.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
I think in this bankruptcy, as well as mine, that I produced general ledger codes that showed all of the ins and outs of all the payments that came in and out.

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
And that's where I would have pulled the number and the aggregate.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
Question, have you provided that document to, as part of your discovery responses, to us in connection with this case?

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
answer.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
I believe so.

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
I said okay, which I do too often.

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
There was a further answer

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
that said, I believe that I sent it to my attorney, and I would have assumed he would have sent it on to cap flow.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
Question, is that one of the documents that you have submitted as defendant's exhibits in this case?

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
No, I don't believe so.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
And you can't provide a better explanation of that document or produce it as we sit here today?

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
No, I don't have that document as we sit here today, but it was.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
I remember having to provide it for Innovation Pet, and I'm pretty sure I did it for my own too.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
and it was several documents it was like four different gl codes and all of the detail of every transaction between cap flow funding pmw and payments coming in and out and you recall that we requested after your deposition that you produce that document to us do you recall that i believe so and your lawyer said he didn't actually have any such document even though we had asked for it and it was not produced to us say i'm sorry what

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
We asked for the document after your deposition and it was never produced to us.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
Do you recall that?

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
I don't recall that was or was not sent to you guys.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
I know that I believe I produced it, but I know for sure I produced it for InnovationPet that it went to the attorneys representing CAPFLOW for InnovationPet bankruptcy.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
But you can't produce it.

[00:14:52] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
So we did try to request the repayment information at multiple intervals, starting with the actual innovation pet bankruptcy case and continuing through Ms.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
Koopman's individual bankruptcy case.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
And the document was never produced, nor has been produced here today.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
So what we have here with the argument being presented by the appellant

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
is that she is trying to get a retrial so that she can go back to bankruptcy court and do a better job because she supposedly has information that wasn't presented to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
In our brief, just to point out,

[00:15:39] Speaker 03:
misrepresentations by the defendant.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
This is our trial brief at page 9 to 10.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
We list the amounts of the misdirected payments and indicate that that was a cause for the financial harm that was suffered by cap flow.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
In page 10 to 11, we indicate that the active and continued deceit

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
caused cap flow to advance funds it would not have.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
And the misdirection of the tractor supply payments prevented cap flow from collecting the payments it was entitled to.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
And we indicate in our brief that we had requested records and they had not been produced.

[00:16:23] Speaker 03:
So she was before trial well put on notice that we were requesting this document.

[00:16:28] Speaker 03:
She never produced them.

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
She doesn't have them because they don't exist.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
This is all a story that

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
The appellee is trying to continue to present to the court so that she isn't found responsible for the fraud that she committed while she was the CEO of Innovation PAC.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
Well, and all of this begins with the premise that the bankruptcy court, among other things, has the ability to liquidate a claim.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
And that's what you did at the trial court, right?

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
I mean, there was a number of the proof of claim.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
There was another number that ended up being the proved up number.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
And element one of a 523 action is, what's the claim?

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
And element two is, is it non-dischargeable?

[00:17:12] Speaker 02:
And your position would be that was fully litigated in front of the bankruptcy court.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
Everybody had the chance to come in and argue for deductions, set-offs, reductions, whatever you want to call it.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
And that happened.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
And that's, in your mind, there's no factual errors to that.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:17:27] Speaker 01:
I think Judge Lafferty's point was the same as mine.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
Yeah, sorry.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
No, I just flipped the two.

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
He's right in the order.

[00:17:36] Speaker 01:
I had the damages issue and the non-dischargeability issue and I put them in the other order, but they both have to be determined.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:17:43] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
And as I said earlier, we, after the trial, before submitting our post trial briefs, made a review of the law and the statute as to the issue of what damages had been proven by the facts of the case.

[00:17:59] Speaker 03:
And we didn't dispute the judge's conclusion that the $756,000 number was the appropriate amount of damages.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
I have no further questions.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
I don't either.

[00:18:14] Speaker 01:
There you are.

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
Come on up.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
You've got a little over five minutes.

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
OK, so the statement made that there was $898, $815.40 balance due of the $756 is very misleading.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
That doesn't take into account all of the credits on their own proof of claim that payments were made to them.

[00:18:51] Speaker 04:
And they are all substantiated here.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
They had an additional $481,000 in unapplied collections.

[00:18:59] Speaker 04:
So they had collected the money, but they weren't sure where to apply it.

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
So they didn't apply it against the 898.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
Then it also has factoring reserves of $216,804.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
Those were unfactored cash receipts that they collected after

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
their initial claim, I guess, of the 957.

[00:19:21] Speaker 04:
But they collected more money over a period of time and continue to collect money.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
They collected money all the way into the beginning of the bankruptcy court.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
So I just want to be clear.

[00:19:33] Speaker 01:
What I hear you arguing here or arguing now is that

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
the plaintiff didn't prove the amount of their claim.

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
But that's different than what I see as the major argument in your brief to us, is that you didn't have notice of what the claim against you was going to be.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
I did have notice, and that claim, that notice, and I said over four years, was $957,000 for fines, fees, penalties, interest,

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
not misdirected funds.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
That's why you had a trial, right?

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
I mean, unless you're going to tell us I was suppressed, no one listened to my evidence and they should.

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
This is not a do-over.

[00:20:21] Speaker 02:
You have to tell us what the mistake was at the trial level, and that's not what I'm hearing.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
You have a trial to figure out the number.

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
Judge Hull figured out a number.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
He just went with what the gross amount of the misdirected funds were.

[00:20:35] Speaker 04:
There was no calculation provided to him of, hey, this was the misdirected funds.

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
Here's all the cash receipts they got against those.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
I understand what you're saying.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
believed that their proof of claim that they had presented of fines, fees, penalties, interest, that was their claim.

[00:20:54] Speaker 04:
The only reason they brought up the 756 was an example of it misappropriate that I did something wrong.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
Therefore, this claim for 957 should not be dismissed in my bankruptcy.

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
Two separate claims, this was only used an example against me, not

[00:21:11] Speaker 04:
Ever.

[00:21:11] Speaker 04:
Even in their post-trial brief, they didn't claim the $756,000.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
They stayed with the $957,000 step of the way.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
So what was it that you presented to the trial court, to the bankruptcy court, to show that you owed less than what they were claiming?

[00:21:25] Speaker 04:
Actually, during the bankruptcy for Innovation Pet, I had provided the trustees.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
There was two bankruptcies, Chapter 11 and Chapter 7.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
I provided the trustees with everything, all of the bank statements.

[00:21:37] Speaker 04:
And actually, on the very first, when you file for bankruptcy, you list all of the debtors.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
And they were not listed as a debtor.

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
They were actually listed for, I want to say, $400-some-thousand dollars that they'd owed Innovation Pet that had been overcollected.

[00:21:54] Speaker 04:
And even in the trial by the bankruptcy court, they said that I did not perjure myself when I filled out that form.

[00:22:03] Speaker 04:
That was the records that were available for Innovation Pet.

[00:22:07] Speaker 04:
I provided it to the trustee.

[00:22:08] Speaker 04:
The trustee reviewed everything and never said, no, that's not true.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
And they never said, oh, but you owe capital funding 756.

[00:22:17] Speaker 04:
The trustees went into huge detail.

[00:22:20] Speaker 04:
They went back three or four years for that company and went through everything.

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
And even in the court case for the bankruptcy, the judge said I did nothing wrong when I completed that form, saying the plaintiff kept the funding owed.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
What confuses me, you say you've done that, but then you say also that you were surprised by, and you didn't have an opportunity to do that.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
I did it during the bankruptcy court for Innovation Pet.

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
And then the claim that they had, again, was 957 fines, fees, penalties, and interest.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
It was never the 756.

[00:22:53] Speaker 04:
So I understand what you're saying, in hindsight, it's 2020, but I never assumed that 756 was ever going to be other than used as an example on why the 957 shouldn't be dismissed.

[00:23:07] Speaker 04:
I had already proven in the bankruptcy court for Innovation Pet that 756 had been repaid, and that actually the plaintiff owed the corporation $400-some-thousand, and the judge did not

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
in the bankruptcy trial say I was wrong.

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
He said that I honestly did have the information available to present it.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
Well, you're just about at your time.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
Judge Ferris, any questions?

[00:23:38] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
I appreciate the time very much.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
We have no further questions.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:44] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:23:44] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:23:44] Speaker 02:
The matter is submitted and we'll get you a written decision as soon as we can.

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
Thank you.