[00:00:02] Speaker 03:
the next matters in ray johnson is miss brenda johnson president okay approach the uh... uh... if the parties to the johnson case could please come up and

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
be seated at the tables behind me while I call the case.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
It's three related appeals in Ray Johnson, Brenda M. Johnson.

[00:00:25] Speaker 03:
Appellant is appearing pro se.

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
We have counsel present for four of the appellees.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
I believe they have agreed amongst themselves that two of them are going to argue.

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
Mr. Alan Smith is present for Albertson Companies, Inc.

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:00:41] Speaker 03:
Jane Pearson is present for Equifax Information Services.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
Tara Schleicher is present for Appley Pyleup Tribal Gaming Enterprises, Inc.

[00:00:53] Speaker 03:
And Dina Yunker is present for the State of Washington Appleys.

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
And I believe Jane Pearson and Dina Yunker are the two who are going to argue today on behalf of all the Appleys.

[00:01:05] Speaker 06:
Thank you very much.

[00:01:07] Speaker 06:
Before I ask the appellant, Ms.

[00:01:10] Speaker 06:
Johnson, to begin her remarks, let's just confirm that so we know how the parties, the police, wish to spit their time.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
I would request seven minutes to discuss the final dismissal order and would then like to turn the floor over to my colleague, Jane Pearson, to discuss the vexatious litigant order.

[00:01:30] Speaker 06:
Thank you very much.

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
Jane Pearson and Paul Cinelli for Equifax Information Services.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
I'd like five minutes.

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
I'll be addressing the question of whether the bankruptcy court cared by entering the vexatious litigant order.

[00:01:45] Speaker 06:
Thank you very much.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
I just want to say that this is Ruby Nagamine and I'm here on behalf of the Amazon

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Judge Breaker, I could not hear any of what was just said, because they weren't at a microphone.

[00:01:58] Speaker 06:
No problem.

[00:01:59] Speaker 06:
I think you need to be by the mic, and I'm happy to repeat it and make sure I got it right.

[00:02:02] Speaker 06:
But from what I am told, Ms.

[00:02:04] Speaker 06:
Juncker will go first and argue for seven minutes regarding the final dismissal order, and then yield to Ms.

[00:02:10] Speaker 06:
Pearson to discuss the vexatious litigant order, which she estimates is about five minutes.

[00:02:17] Speaker 06:
Then we'll see where it goes from there.

[00:02:19] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:02:20] Speaker 06:
Thank you.

[00:02:21] Speaker 06:
Miss Johnson, then you're invited to approach the podium and begin.

[00:02:24] Speaker 06:
And when you do, I'll ask you if you want to reserve any time to make a reply.

[00:02:29] Speaker 06:
You can reserve as much as you want or none at all.

[00:02:34] Speaker 06:
Would you like to reserve any time?

[00:02:39] Speaker 06:
Well, you have 15 minutes.

[00:02:41] Speaker 06:
And I should say that there are three appeals.

[00:02:42] Speaker 06:
The panel has discussed, and they overlap substantially.

[00:02:45] Speaker 06:
So you have 15 minutes to make your argument.

[00:02:50] Speaker 06:
If you want to reserve any time for reply after they proceed to reply to what they have said, you can reserve as much or as little time as you want.

[00:02:58] Speaker 06:
Please approach the podium.

[00:03:00] Speaker 06:
Yeah, you need to be by the mic at this point, sorry.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
So are you asking me to tell you like seven or ten minutes?

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
Yes, yes, exactly.

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
Well, it's three of them, correct?

[00:03:12] Speaker 04:
So that's five each.

[00:03:14] Speaker 05:
But you're getting a total of 15 minutes.

[00:03:17] Speaker 05:
So from that, you have to subtract whatever time you want for reply.

[00:03:20] Speaker 04:
Three, five.

[00:03:21] Speaker 05:
And then a light will come on as yellow at that time to tell you you're running into your rebuttal time if you go beyond it.

[00:03:30] Speaker 05:
So we're just trying to get the parameters worked out.

[00:03:35] Speaker 06:
Would you like any time?

[00:03:39] Speaker 04:
Five minutes.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:03:41] Speaker 06:
OK.

[00:03:41] Speaker 06:
And you're responsible, but we will try and let you know if you get to the five minutes.

[00:03:46] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:03:46] Speaker 06:
Thank you, sir.

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
You may proceed.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
First off, it is my understanding by law that a dismissal is by the plaintiff.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
I am the plaintiff.

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
I did not agree, settle any disputes.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
I call it fraudulent.

[00:04:09] Speaker 04:
for the representatives to present this information.

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
Evidence has been supplied.

[00:04:16] Speaker 04:
The defendants have not answered the complaint timely.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
If you look at 1 through 2, the summons and complaint, and then you have 6 through 7.

[00:04:31] Speaker 04:
And it has several plaintiffs, I mean, defendants.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
Exhibit form 41, there was not a trustee refusal for my case.

[00:04:50] Speaker 04:
Exhibit two, motion to voluntary dismiss an appeal.

[00:04:54] Speaker 04:
There was none for that, and they have the same in district court.

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
where the plaintiffs were supposed to, I mean, me voluntarily dismissing a case because of some type of different settlement.

[00:05:10] Speaker 04:
Well, there's no payments.

[00:05:11] Speaker 04:
There were injuries in Title V under 90, what do you call it, docket number 98.

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
which shows Title V that there was some incidents in my complaint that caused harm by withholding pay as a protected employee, which the state of Washington secretary gave me clemency saying that I am a whistleblower and that under the definition under law, I can

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
I'm still employed.

[00:05:56] Speaker 04:
The plaintiffs never objected to that.

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
The plaintiffs never denied, admitted, or I have no knowledge of this.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
They are no different than you, me, or anyone else in this room.

[00:06:10] Speaker 04:
They have to abide by the laws.

[00:06:13] Speaker 04:
Being that they do this on a daily basis, it would be injustice

[00:06:21] Speaker 04:
If everyone in this room gets paid, I deserve to get paid.

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
So basically, it's withholding funds from a person that has worked and not received.

[00:06:38] Speaker 04:
I have went to the national labor.

[00:06:41] Speaker 04:
So Albertsons, for example, they were a defendant.

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
They had an attorney.

[00:06:46] Speaker 04:
The attorney did not answer.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
trial, saying you want to go to trial.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
And the incident from Jesse, I have a showing with Watchtot as an employee.

[00:07:15] Speaker 04:
It shows no one made at Pierce County.

[00:07:19] Speaker 04:
made any objections.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
I had two witnesses.

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
So they held those funds.

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
I got an offer to sue, in which I did.

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
They are not here to defend themselves, but they didn't object.

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
But the state of Washington was there.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
Bob Robertson, he gave me a notice of appearance.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
A joint order and joint notice participant and order was not never It's not on the docket saying that the parties are joint and can follow together.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
There's none These are fraudulent and they're basically calling themselves Pulling the wool over my eyes is what I can say The

[00:08:17] Speaker 04:
Defendants have not answered the complaint.

[00:08:20] Speaker 04:
So when I amended it trying to appease the court, each time they asked me, I just went ahead and did it, instead of arguing with the judge.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
But those were requested of me.

[00:08:36] Speaker 04:
And therefore, I went ahead and amended the complaint.

[00:08:40] Speaker 04:
Because there's always, there's correct, there are people that

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
have done some things, and I can call that as an assistant in trying to almost like a soap on a protected employee.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
You may not dismiss, you may not cut hours, you may not

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
take adverse actions.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
These are all things that I was protected under, and each litigant chose willingly to do the opposite.

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
They gave you a transcript.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
The judge on here says, Brenda, you can't amend.

[00:09:31] Speaker 04:
So they keep wanting me to change to give the defendants more time.

[00:09:38] Speaker 04:
If you look from when this first opened, document one, from the current time, there's no answer to the complaint.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
No, not one.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
They just waved their hands.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
Also, a victim has a right to see, just like we are in this court, to see their

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
the person that is causing them harm.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
With this, it shows there was only telegraph, meaning that there was only auto.

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
So they didn't even actually appear.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
They haven't actually appeared by law, a default judgment.

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
I put in a request for a entry judgment, and that was the reason why.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
And then I put in the entry for default.

[00:10:37] Speaker 04:
being that they did not address the question.

[00:10:41] Speaker 04:
So being vexes, if you look at 98, I'm the one that put that they're vexing because they have not answered the question.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
The questions, even Mr. Zebb from the attorney's general office, he, I had a case with him, he even answered.

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
It wasn't all correct, but he even answered, yes, I have knowledge.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
No, I deny.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
So can you please, court, I ask you, can you tell me what is the difference without telling me the law?

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
Because the law says they're supposed to answer those questions.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
Either they're truthful or they're not.

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
I have evidence to negate what they're saying and to try to dismiss.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
And what that is is obstruction of justice, a waste of taxpayers' money.

[00:11:45] Speaker 04:
Because they've been knowing this for some time.

[00:11:48] Speaker 04:
I've been asking for a trial.

[00:11:50] Speaker 04:
They have denied me a trial because of the fraud.

[00:11:56] Speaker 04:
Under the Title V, I

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
can have a jury.

[00:12:02] Speaker 04:
But they haven't answered.

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
So they've denied me that right.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
Because that would come before the people of the United States.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
Even our former presidents, even they are being held at a standard.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
Are they better than our presidents of the United States?

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
If they're accountable for all the things, I'm telling you, it's like someone trying to, they called it an assault.

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
I said it was more of an attempt of murder.

[00:12:43] Speaker 04:
And the reason I put unemployment is because I have a fact sheet to show.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
And when I went under bankruptcy, it shows you are not supposed to, especially if you are qualified,

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
to negate, do those duties.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
Albertsons, in the interim, while I'm taking care of legal actions, I worked for Albertsons and I told them about safety and health issues.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
They tried to force me to do it.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
I ended up getting injured.

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
I went to Olympic sports.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
So as I put in a statement saying what actually happened, they didn't deny what you're trying to dismiss.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
And that's supposed to be a right for the plaintiff.

[00:13:44] Speaker 06:
While you're pausing there, I'll just let you know you're right at that five-minute mark.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
Thank you, sir.

[00:13:49] Speaker 06:
You can continue, or you can wait until the reply adds your choice.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
The second one, the issues at hand, they were the default.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
They were a dismissal, and they were vexation.

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
The vexation was put in a complaint that I did.

[00:14:05] Speaker 04:
Then after that, then they, I guess, countered and said vexation.

[00:14:13] Speaker 04:
a verbal attack or a strategy, a motion or interim for final relief until this issue is resolved or goes to trial, in which I'm happy to do if there's some special litigations.

[00:14:28] Speaker 04:
But I am a federal employee as well.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
And under those federal laws, they've all been broken because I'm being treated differently.

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
I'm being treated as a person without rights, my First Amendment, freedom of speech, which I put in my complaint.

[00:14:55] Speaker 04:
And then if they are objecting to that, where's your evidence to show that my evidence is false?

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
Because my evidence would have to be false and prejudice.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
If you look at the docket, you will see all the way down.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
Exhibits, exhibits, exhibits, exhibits 10.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
If you look at my case load, my, for defendants, it goes all the way more than one to two.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
It goes from two to six for each incident.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
I mean, yeah, all the way to six.

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
Then if you go to eight,

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
You all will see that I wanted them to make sure, because the court was saying, the clerks were saying, we sent it to them.

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
But I've never received it in a mail, and I have.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
Even though I'm working to assist my veterans, I have it where the United States Postal Mail sends me every time I get mail.

[00:16:08] Speaker 04:
every time I get mail.

[00:16:09] Speaker 04:
So I have their mail in that folder right there.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
So I'll let them go ahead.

[00:16:17] Speaker 04:
But none of it is saying I deny, I admit, or I have no knowledge.

[00:16:24] Speaker 06:
I'll just remind you again, you have about two and a half.

[00:16:27] Speaker 04:
I'll let them go ahead.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
Thank you, sir.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
Certainly.

[00:16:34] Speaker 06:
Ms.

[00:16:34] Speaker 06:
Schoenker?

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
This panel should affirm the bankruptcy court's orders of December 15, 2023, which are the final dismissal order and the vexatious litigant order.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
The standard of review for the final dismissal order is denoble.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
I will be talking about the final dismissal order during my time.

[00:17:02] Speaker 01:
Procedurally, the defendants moved for dismissal prior to attempting to answer Ms.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
Johnson's complaints.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
This was appropriate.

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12b6, made applicable by Federal Bankruptcy Rule, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012, requires that motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim must be brought before a party files a responsive pleading.

[00:17:28] Speaker 01:
Judge Lynch had before him five motions to dismiss under Rule 12B6 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
This means that the sufficiency of Ms.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
Johnson's complaint had to be examined before deciding whether or not she is entitled to judgment.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
Subsequently, dismissal under Rule 12b6 can be based on either one, the lack of cognizable legal theory, or two, insufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
All of Ms.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
Johnson's complaints are deficient on both counts.

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
First, the cognizable legal theory.

[00:18:08] Speaker 01:
Where the challenge lies for Ms.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
Johnson is that after the bankruptcy case has concluded, the only two cognizable legal theories of bankruptcy court can adjudicate are one, under USC Section 727, whether specific acts serve to deprive her of property for which her liability had been forgiven.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
or two under 11 USC section 525, whether a specific person discriminated against her solely because she had filed bankruptcy.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
As you review the record, the legal standard on dismissal is that Rule 12b6 is designed to test the legal sufficiency of a claim.

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
In doing so, allegations of material fact must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
However, mere conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
And even though we construe pro se pleadings liberally, even pro se pleadings must meet a minimum threshold of providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
Here, the complaint Miss Johnson filed, even after numerous amendments, consists largely of an ever-expanding list of defendants and reproductions of some excerpts from some legal encyclopedias.

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
Miss Johnson quoted liberally from various statutes, including the Equal Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Fair Housing Act.

[00:19:46] Speaker 01:
She bandied about phrases such as whistleblower, freedom of speech, and labor standards.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
In doing so, she may have made some inferences, but she hasn't connected the dots between what the defendants did and how the discharge order was violated.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
And there is a significant difference between concluding or inferring that she was wrong and articulating facts that demonstrate what specific actions were taken.

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
And that brings me to the second basis for dismissal, insufficient facts.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
While Ms.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
Johnson has certainly told us who she thinks wronged her, she hasn't articulated coherently what each actor did, how the actions adversely impacted her, and why those actions either A, contravene the release from liability she was granted, or B, were taken simply because she filed bankruptcy.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
For example, with respect to the estate,

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
The various, with respect to the state of Washington, the various complaints suggest Ms.

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
Johnson's indignation over a wage deduction for her liability under a valid child support order.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
She submitted in her own pleadings, and we've cited to the record in the state's excerpts of record at 482 through 88, a child support order directing that she be responsible for paying child support for her three minor children.

[00:21:14] Speaker 01:
But under 11 USC Section 727B and 523A5, child support obligations cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
Therefore, any child support Ms.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
Johnson owed was not discharged, and any grievance she has about wage deductions for child support did not violate the discharge order.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
And failure to collect child support from her ex-husband is also not a violation of the discharge order.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
As to Albertson's Equifax and Amazon, Ms.

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
Johnson brandishes suggestions of unfair practices, adverse actions, and discrimination.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
But suggestions alone, without stating facts that describe particular acts, do not give rise to any actionable claim in the bankruptcy court.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
As to Emerald Queen, Ms.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
Johnson references a 2019 accident in the parking lot.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
But an automobile accident four years after the bankruptcy closed has nothing to do with whether the discharge injunction was violated or whether someone discriminated against her because she filed bankruptcy.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
And the same holds true for the other 50 or so defendants.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
While she might have included some language about specific disputes she had with certain of the defendants, Ms.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
Johnson has only concluded that the defendants have violated laws.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
She has not described how they violated the laws.

[00:22:36] Speaker 01:
And to wrap up here, for what it is worth, I am not without sympathy for Ms.

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
Johnson's situation.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
Unfortunately, however, the bankruptcy court does not have the jurisdiction to offer the relief she seeks.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
Johnson has had multiple opportunities to draw a straight line from a defendant to that defendant's act, and then to one of the two causes of action the bankruptcy court had the authority to adjudicate.

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
And to date, she's failed to do this.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
Her conclusory statements are not, by themselves, sufficient to support a legal theory the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce.

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
Judge Lynch properly dismissed Ms.

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
Johnson's complaints and this panel should affirm his final dismissal order.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
Do you have any questions for me?

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
I'd like to turn the floor over to my colleague.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
Morning, Your Honors.

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
Jane Pearson and Polsonelli for Equifax Information Services.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
I'll be addressing the question of whether the bankruptcy court erred by declaring the appellant to be a vexatious litigant.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
And rather than recite those standards to Your Honors, who I know are quite familiar with them, I'm going to go straight to a discussion of the four considerations, the four requirements in order for a court to declare

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
litigant to be a litigious or a vexatious litigant.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
The first requirement merely requires notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
Johnson had adequate notice and opportunity to oppose the entry of the pre-filing order.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
In the bankruptcy court, the show cause order entered November 16th, 2023, detailed Ms.

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
Johnson's litigation history in the Western District of Washington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States Supreme Court.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
The bankruptcy court scheduled a hearing date and provided Ms.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
Johnson with 27 days within which to file a response.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
A live hearing was held in which Ms.

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
Johnson appeared in person in the courtroom and argued her opposition to the proposed pre-filing order.

[00:24:49] Speaker 02:
The second requirement to entry of a pre-filing order is an adequate record for appellate review, which should include a list of all the cases and motions that led the Court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
Here, the Bankruptcy Court clearly detailed the findings it relied on in making its decision.

[00:25:08] Speaker 02:
The show cause order listed 48 of Ms.

[00:25:11] Speaker 02:
Johnson's filings by docket entry as of that date, and then proceeded to list by case name and number nine additional litigation matters commenced by Ms.

[00:25:21] Speaker 02:
Johnson against several, if not all, of the defendants in the adversary proceeding.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
Third, before entering a pre-filing order, it is incumbent on the court to make substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigants' actions.

[00:25:37] Speaker 02:
Frivolous filings must be inordinate in number.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
The courts must look at both the number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigants' claims.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
As I discussed previously and set forth in the show cause order, Judge Lynch entered detailed findings that Ms.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
Johnson made numerous frivolous filings, including

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
Johnson used her filings to rehash and attempt to relitigate the same arguments.

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
The number of Ms.

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
Johnson's frivolous and harassing filings within the adversary proceeding was inordinate.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
By the time of the December 13 hearing, Ms.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
Johnson had made over 80 filings in the adversary proceeding, none of which provided sufficient factual detail or stated a plausible claim.

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
Johnson's claims are repetitive and not broad in good faith.

[00:26:27] Speaker 02:
The defendants have been faced with unnecessary burden, as has the clerk's office.

[00:26:33] Speaker 02:
The documents she has filed constitute improper harassment.

[00:26:37] Speaker 02:
Judge Lynch examined relevant circumstances as they appeared in the adversary proceeding, including Ms.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
Johnson's litigation history, her patterns of frivolous and harassing filings, and the ineffectiveness of alternative remedies to control her behavior.

[00:26:51] Speaker 02:
There was no need to consider avoiding depletion of her bankruptcy estate because her Chapter 7 case, which was a non-asset case, was closed eight years ago.

[00:27:00] Speaker 02:
And the only creditor that's a defendant in the adversary proceeding is her ex-spouse.

[00:27:05] Speaker 02:
And fourth, finally, pre-filing restrictions must be narrowly tailored to the vexatious litigants' wrongful behavior.

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
This court must consider whether the bankruptcy court's pre-filing order was necessary to prevent continuing vexatious conduct and whether the specific same restrictions were narrowly tailored.

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
As the bankruptcy court noted at the December 13 hearing, dismissals with prejudice have not been effective in deterring Ms.

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
Johnson's behavior.

[00:27:31] Speaker 02:
Assessing monetary sanctions will not be effective because she lacks financial resources.

[00:27:36] Speaker 02:
Judge Lynch narrowly tailored the pre-filing restrictions.

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
The pre-filing restrictions only apply to cases that have been dismissed with prejudice in the Western District of Washington Bankruptcy Court or to any new case that includes any in that court that includes any of the defendants listed in the adversary proceeding and relates to the same claims or issues already litigated.

[00:27:59] Speaker 02:
The order does not apply to any effort to move for reconsideration or appeal.

[00:28:05] Speaker 02:
The order does not apply to a complaint that the court determines makes new claims not previously dismissed.

[00:28:11] Speaker 02:
There is not a merits review involved in the pre-filing order.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
And Ms.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
Johnson may petition the court to lift the order.

[00:28:19] Speaker 02:
In conclusion, this court should affirm the pre-filing order entered December 15th, 2023, because the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by entering it.

[00:28:32] Speaker 06:
Thank you very much.

[00:28:32] Speaker 06:
Thank you.

[00:28:33] Speaker 06:
Any questions, Mr. Graham?

[00:28:36] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:28:38] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:28:38] Speaker 06:
Ms.

[00:28:39] Speaker 06:
Johnson, you have roughly slightly under two and a half minutes if you want to apply to the arguments.

[00:28:49] Speaker 04:
As a court record, my name is Brenda Rembert.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
And I've given a letter stating that there was an error within the court dockets.

[00:28:58] Speaker 04:
And I made that in the United States District Court.

[00:29:04] Speaker 04:
I also have Pierce County, who I was a former employee with, but I terminated my employment with them, that states my name is Rembert.

[00:29:15] Speaker 04:
And that was in 2018.

[00:29:18] Speaker 04:
The allegations of timely response, the court gave them certain dates to respond.

[00:29:31] Speaker 04:
All defendants did not respond.

[00:29:34] Speaker 04:
They cannot, I mean, in a timely manner.

[00:29:40] Speaker 04:
If I was supposed to do that, if I were to do that, I would be thrown, my case would have been thrown out.

[00:29:48] Speaker 04:
for statute, I mean, for not responding timely, as the other, I forget her name, I do apologize, was stating.

[00:29:57] Speaker 04:
Also, the false answers for defamation.

[00:30:07] Speaker 04:
The defamation is not the grievances, she said,

[00:30:15] Speaker 04:
The plaintiffs weren't on there.

[00:30:18] Speaker 04:
It says in an adversary proceeding, if you are being prevented from employment, this stopped me from being employed.

[00:30:35] Speaker 04:
And that's the only reason I actually put the unemployment on there.

[00:30:41] Speaker 04:
If you look at the cases, and I can bring that for trial, any case proceeding, when you're going to trial, you only put the minimum facts so you can bring the conclusion before a jury.

[00:30:55] Speaker 04:
I put in DK 9, I mean, DK 98, each incident that occurred.

[00:31:05] Speaker 04:
which was fraudulent, because I worked, but I didn't get compensation.

[00:31:11] Speaker 04:
I got injured, I didn't get compensation.

[00:31:14] Speaker 04:
These are happening to do with employment issues, pinage, a form of slavery.

[00:31:27] Speaker 04:
These discriminatory actions, I got 19 seconds.

[00:31:31] Speaker 06:
You're actually over, so I'll give you just a moment to make a final sentence.

[00:31:37] Speaker 04:
I put that they did not, it's in writing, it would be against the court rules to give them more time.

[00:31:46] Speaker 04:
They went ahead and put in dismissals when they arrived.

[00:31:50] Speaker 04:
Their statements are unfounded.

[00:31:53] Speaker 04:
They refused to answer the complaints, and that is hostile.

[00:32:01] Speaker 04:
They are under the same... It says 52.

[00:32:05] Speaker 06:
It's counting up.

[00:32:06] Speaker 06:
You're going over.

[00:32:06] Speaker 04:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:32:08] Speaker 06:
We're in overtime.

[00:32:09] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:32:09] Speaker 06:
Thank you very much.

[00:32:11] Speaker 06:
Thank you both for your arguments.

[00:32:13] Speaker 06:
The matter will be submitted and we will endeavor to get a decision out as quickly as possible.

[00:32:18] Speaker 06:
Thank you.