[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
All right. Good morning. So we have both of you on Zoom here today. Mr. Gossage, you will speak first. And I would like to know if you would like to reserve any time for rebuttal.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
Probably less than five minutes, but I don't even think I'm going to get that far. Because everything is you had mentioned earlier, Your Honor's that you've already read the briefs and went over all the documents. So I'm just going to regurgitate a little bit. But most important, the statutes, and I just sort of picked this up, that if the debtor is required to file a tax return under the applicable bankruptcy law, in my particular case, I wasn't required to file a a tax return for the last 20 years.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
So the question comes up is why did I have to file one to begin with?

[00:01:04] Speaker 02:
And then to go further, the trustee said that I owed $700,000 in back taxes.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
The old saying goes to trust but verify, trust but verify. So with that, if the trustee did their due diligence, And again, there's a conflict. We have me saying I owe no taxes. I've never owed any taxes because my income is solely based on Social Security. And the trustee says I owe over half a million dollars in back taxes. Well, we clearly have a conflict.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
Mr. Gossage?

[00:01:48] Speaker 02:
Yes, sir.

[00:01:49] Speaker 01:
I'd like to get you pointed to the issue that's before us.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
The issue here is whether or not the bankruptcy judge was correct in denying a motion to vacate, correct?

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
Correct. Okay. And the bankruptcy court looked to Civil Rule 60B in connection with reviewing your motion to vacate.

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
And I don't have to ask you whether that's the case. I've looked at the record. I know that's the case, that the judge was looking at 60B.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
Do you believe the bankruptcy court was correct in relying on Civil Rule 60B?

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
Partially. I think 60B addresses mistakes, misrepresentation. When the trustee misrepresented themselves before the court, that's the first point.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
The second point is...

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
Under the statute, I wasn't permitted to amend any of the forms. I mean, as I've reviewed other cases, Chapter 13 cases have been amended mega times, and in the statute, it allows the debtor to amend

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
Well, any forms.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
Go ahead.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
Didn't the judge give you an opportunity? I mean, we've been referring to the sort of the last chance order. The judge gave you multiple chances to cure the defects.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
And, Your Honor, I thought I did. That was that was the point.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
I know that.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
A good example is when they put in the first motion to dismiss based on failing to file a tax return the last four years. When I presented that information, they dropped that motion to dismiss and moved on to another motion to dismiss. So if I knew what to correct, I would correct it.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
But the issue before us, again, is whether or not we should vacate the other ruling. We're not looking at that ruling. This is not an appeal of the dismissal hearing. This is an appeal of the order.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
where you asked for that other order to be vacated, and we have to look at 60B. And so maybe you should elaborate on what mistakes the trial court actually made that you couldn't have brought up earlier.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
I think that that would be the misrepresentation of...

[00:04:51] Speaker 02:
of the requirement of the filing of documents. That's the first point for the income tax. Number two, in my filing on my, I can't think of the word.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
Well, there was also a concern about whether you were current on your plan payments.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
That would have been enough to dismiss your case.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
And at the time, I thought I was, because if we look back in the record, when I filed, I paid everything until I went to the Chapter 13 trustee. And so my last payment was to Loan Depot, and then the next payment went to the trustee. So for all intents and purposes, I thought I was current.

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
And And the trustee said, well, you owe $500. Well, if the trustee would have said, I owed you $500, I could have easily fixed that issue on the spot. But I didn't know that until after the fact. But according to my records, I was current with the Loan Depot. The only thing that wasn't current with Loan Depot was the trustee's payments to Loan Depot.

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
The other issue brings up that the trustee raised the valuation of my property at $400,000-something.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
Again, I brought this up in the brief.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
The regional area valuation was $370,000. In fact, my neighbor's home is currently on sale for $370,000. So my estimate was...

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
right on, on the, on the money, not, and the trustees was not.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
So what else would you like to tell us about what the bankruptcy court did wrong and why we should reverse?

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
Um, I don't think that I was given an opportunity really to amend any issues that needed to be, uh, I think the trustee made a comment about one statute wasn't applicable, but having the wrong statute shouldn't kill the entire petition. It's more of a due process issue.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
that I've given the equal opportunity to address all these issues.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
I understand this is a business for the trustee. And in my particular case, there is no financial benefit to the trustee to handle this case.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
Would you like to reserve the rest of your time?

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, ma'am.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's hear from Appelli.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you. Amanda Douglas for the Chapter 13 trustee. The trustee was not an adverse party to the motion underlying the appeal. However, he was named in this appeal, and so the trustee's office is at the convenience of the court.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
Judge Corbett took my very first point and sort of narrowed the issue.

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
Really, abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard, and the debtor has failed to demonstrate that the bankruptcy court applied the wrong law or that its factual findings were illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. It is very clear he disagrees with the determination of the court, but that does not constitute an abuse of discretion. And so the trustee requests this panel affirm the bankruptcy court's decision.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
Something that the trustee wanted to highlight was during the pendency of his bankruptcy case, and then again on this appeal, rather than meeting his burdens, the debtor resorts to a litany of unsubstantiated allegations, plainly designed to distract from the merits.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
Some of the allegations he's leveled against the trustee are discrimination, violation of the Haven Act, malicious and willful disregard of fraud with the intent to deceive, perjury, making false statements. He accused the trustee of falsifying a proof of claim, impersonating the IRS, falsifying a proof of claim, and then filing it to substantiate our 109 argument.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
These are not minor complaints. Indeed, most of these are Shalini's under Title 18.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
Accusations of fraud, perjury, impersonation, discrimination, they are serious. They carry real consequences. They're damaging to the legal standing and reputation of the trustee. They undermine the integrity of the trustee's office and by extension, the credibility of the bankruptcy court.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
Whatever other determinations this court may make, the trustee does request that the excuse me, that this panel explicitly and unequivocally refute these serious allegations lodged by the debtor and make clear on the record that weaponization of serious unsubstantiated legal allegations as a litigation tactic is wholly improper and should not be tolerated by any party, whether represented or a pro se debtor.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
I'm happy to answer any questions the panel may have with me.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
Ms. Douglas, on your last request that we make certain things clear, what is our mandate? Isn't our mandate just to look at whether or not the motion to vacate was properly denied?

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
It is, Your Honor. You are correct.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
But I think we set a dangerous precedent when when we allow these sort of allegations to continue without any sort of penalty to to stop them as a litigation tactic. It's problematic to the bankruptcy system as a whole. And these case records, these files, they're not tucked away in dark corners anymore. Anyone with the internet can access these files, which is great.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
Access to justice is really, really important. But when we sweep these serious allegations under the rug, I think it becomes problematic and it encourages repeat behavior. And these allegations were tied to his appeal. And so, yes, I think it is your mandate to look and see whether the order vacating... The order denying the motion to vacate was an abuse of discretion. But I don't think it's beyond this court's mandate to determine that and also...

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
express the improperness of lodging these kinds of legal allegations.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
Normally, wouldn't this come up in like a Civil Rule 11 motion before Judge Heston or maybe a request for a filing bar before Judge Heston or maybe a vexatious litigant order to prevent abuse?

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
of the trustees office and other creditors and everything else. But I just don't, I don't see those before us. We're not reviewing those, any such rulings or motions today.

[00:13:05] Speaker 03:
And I, and I won't, I won't dispute that your honor.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
The debtor was reprimanded several times by Judge Heston for this conduct. The reason I raise it now is this appeal escalated the nature of the allegations, and I would be remiss if I didn't at least attempt to address them.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any questions? No questions. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Mr. Gossage, you may.

[00:13:37] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
I'll go back to one of your Ninth Circuit cases on Warford v. Nance, where the court retains the independent power to identify and apply the property construction governing laws. That's the first point. Then I I go back, you know, going way back in the beginning when I initially filed for Chapter 13 protection. The timeline is self-evident. Everything was filed timely, accordingly.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
Now, I'm going to go back and I'm referring Cushman v. Chesensky, which cites Brady v. Maryland. And it goes back to U.S. Supreme Court.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
It's fundamentally fair adjudication within the framework. However, it is constitutionally required to all cases. And that's the bigger issue. Was I afforded all my constitutionally protected rights in this Chapter 13 bankruptcy? And I say that it was not. Because in the beginning, the Chapter 13 trustee went for dismissal on one issue. And then when that happened, they moved to the next issue of dismissal.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
So to me, being pro se, and that doesn't have any bearing, it seems like I wasn't given the fair adjudication, that's all.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
And finally, I'll close with that. This is a very important veterans case. I mean, this is the Havens Act, the veterans case, and this is something recent that the last 10 years that the courts have discussed.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
because of the protection of veterans in the bankruptcy form. So with that said, I just would like the court to remand back and take a second look at this Chapter 13 bankruptcy because it's really clear. There's not very many creditors involved.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
So it's very simple, but I try to do my best, but we're good. Thank you.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
All right. Thank you both very much for your arguments. This matter will be submitted and we will issue a decision promptly. Thank you. Thank you.