Gary Anders - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         

               rules this Court finds that the Debtor is engaged in a                 
               scheme of abuse of the bankruptcy process.  * * * [In                  
               re Anders, No. 98-22461-13, slip op. at 4 (Bankr. Mont.                
               1998).]                                                                
          The Bankruptcy Court also stated:                                           
               This Debtor has abused the bankruptcy process for his                  
               own benefit without accepting any of the burdens                       
               imposed by the Bankruptcy Code and Rules except those                  
               he deems advantageous.  He has burdened the Court, the                 
               Trustee, and his creditors with sham objections and                    
               adversary proceedings, which waste their resources                     
               while he enjoys the protections of the automatic stay                  
               and proceeds as he deems fit.  Debtor sued the                         
               Bankruptcy Court itself simply for purposes of forum                   
               shopping.  For Debtor's abuse of the bankruptcy                        
               process, he shall not be permitted to enjoy its                        
               benefits.  * * * [Id. at 11.]                                          
               On January 15, 1999, this case was scheduled for trial in              
          Helena, Montana, on June 21, 1999.                                          
               On March 21, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a letter                 
          suggesting a telephone conference be held on April 1, 1999, at              
          9 a.m. to discuss his rescheduled case.  On April 1, 1999,                  
          petitioner stated that he had retained Attorney Clifton Caughron            
          (Caughron) and that a power of attorney would be provided.                  
               On April 6, 1999, respondent sent a second letter to                   
          petitioner regarding the need to discuss his rescheduled case.              
          Respondent received the power of attorney for Caughron on April             
          13, 1999.                                                                   
               On April 15, 1999, respondent filed a Motion to Impose                 
          Sanctions.  On April 19, 1999, the Court issued an order granting           
          respondent's Motion to Impose Sanctions in that petitioner could            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011