- 13 -
which he interposed the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code,
that no such proceeding had been instituted. Petitioner offered
no document to show that bankruptcy 1 had been dismissed.
Even if we were able to believe that petitioner had been
deceived by another person as to the forged bankruptcy petition,
on several occasions he interposed the automatic stay at critical
stages of this proceeding: To avoid compliance with this Court’s
orders, to avoid long-scheduled trial dates on the eve of trial,
and otherwise to elude this Court’s orders, Rules, procedures,
and process. Although petitioner purported to file three
separate bankruptcy actions, none were pursued. In the two
instances where petitions in bankruptcy were actually filed, it
was no coincidence that petitioner withdrew the petitions and
caused the dismissal of the bankruptcy proceedings each time the
automatic stay had served his purpose of avoiding and obstructing
the proceedings in this Court. Such conduct was clearly
intentional and constitutes “disobedience or resistance to * * *
[this Court’s] lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or
command.” See sec. 7456(c).
Respondent moved that the Court impose a $5,000 sanction for
petitioner’s conduct in this proceeding. The purpose of
penalizing petitioner in these circumstances is to impress upon
him that his misbehavior will not be tolerated and that he must
respect the process and obey the lawful orders of this Court. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011