As in most cases of activist and advocate organizations, they are manned mostly by volunteers. Unless it is a funded organization with salaried personnel, it is not logical to think that people are sitting at their computers with access to read and reply to email 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

On January 30, 2007, Wells of Justice received three (3) emails from a Leonard Gumport within about three (3) hours. Apparently, some people are not logical. In his first email, Leonard Gumport wrote:

Please be advised that your recent publication "Longest Running Bankruptcy Case" by "Jeff King" is, in my personal opinion, false and defamatory and misleading in omitting, for example, the award of contempt sanctions as set forth in the attached order.

Since Mr. Gumport appears to form his opinion on the basis that the award for contempt sanctions was omitted from Mr. King's article, this matter can be resolved by simply making that court decision available. Evidently, that is not what Gumport wants.

This is a further notice that a person named Jeff King posted what, in my personal opinion, is a defamatory publication on your website and that contains no reference to the contempt findings in the attachment to this email.

Please also provide me with any information you have about whether "Jeff King" is a real person and, if so, where is can be located and what his relationship is with the persons subject to the contempt findings attached to this email.

We did not reply to Leonard Gumport's emails. For one, he didn't have the courtesy to introduce himself. We traced his email address to his law firm, re-read the article in Part 1 and put two and two together to determine that he is with the law firm that represents the trustee in the Spirtos case.

Two, Gumport didn't state how he came across the article on this site. That article, posted in Part 1, has been on various internet sites since 2003. If Gumport didn't know of the article for four years, then apparently, he hasn't suffered any alleged harm from its alleged defamation.

To his credit, Leonard Gumport inspired us to go back and pull communications with a person who is a party in the subject case. We've had that information for over a year, as we also have an abundance of information and communications concerning other bankruptcy cases that we have not yet made available on this site.

We looked up court decisions. This case is a good demonstration of how trustees and their attorneys use the color of official right of bankruptcy courts to abuse the bankruptcy system for their personal enrichment. It is also a good demonstration of how filing bankruptcy transforms American citizens protected by the Constitution, to slaves deprived of Constitutional rights to petition the government for redress.

It appears that the debtor, Ms. Spirtos, filed a RICO suit in the Federal District Court in which the bankruptcy case is pending. Gumport, Reitman, & Montgomery moved the bankruptcy court to issue an injunction against the debtor and her attorney for violating the so-called Barton Doctrine and the automatic stay. Bankruptcy judge Ahart issued the injunction, ordered the case dismissed, and awarded Gumport et. al. almost $50K in "compensatory fees." Those "compensatory fees" are the result of the contempt decision that Leonard Gumport references.

The linked Memorandum supports that the bankruptcy court ordered the debtor to dismiss her RICO suit against the trustee, his attorneys and others, and to pay Gumport, Reitman, & Montgomery fees of approximately $50K. We question how and why Gumport et.al. ran up almost $50K in fees defending the RICO suit that they did not need to defend because of the Barton Doctrine? It appears that a simple motion prepared and filed with the bankruptcy court to have the RICO suit dismissed would have cost about $500.00 rather than $50,000.00 -- but we digress ...

In 1984, Thelma Spirtos filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy due to a messy divorce. In a series of published opinions by the 9th Circuit, Ms. Spirtos became liable for 1/2 of a medical malpractice judgment entered against her ex-husband, Dr. Basil N. Spirtos. The judgment is referred to as the Morena judgment. Dr. Spirtos also filed bankruptcy. Dr. Spirtos died in 1996. Upon information and belief, his case still remains open as of March 2007.

The Morena judgment was capped at $414K per the Chapter 11 confirmed Plan. The Morena judgment was the only claim filed in the Spirtos bankruptcy case. Reportedly, Ms. Spirtos' estate had cash to pay this claim. However, attorney Joseph Shalant moved the bankruptcy court to convert Ms. Spirtos case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 liquidation. Upon information and belief, Joseph Shalant was then representing Ms. Spirtos in the bankruptcy case and has since been disbarred from practicing law.

Bankruptcy trustee Wayne Elgreen, after learning that it was a two party case with no insolvency, agreed to dismiss the case in exchange for the debtor dismissing her appeal regarding the conversion. The debtor agreed to dismiss her appeal, but Wayne Elgreen did not Motion the bankruptcy court to dismiss Ms. Spirtos bankruptcy case as agreed.

Reportedly, bankruptcy trustee Todd Nielson refused to honor Wayne Elgreen's agreement to dismiss the case, and commenced a tirade of litigation under the pretense that there were a slew of creditors to be paid. Despite repeatedly providing Gumport, et. al. with the Plan and a Court Order confirming that all claims, save the Moreno Judgment were paid, the law firm continued their tirade of litigation.

In 2005, the California State Bar permanently disbarred Joseph Shalant for routinely violating MICRA limits on attorney compensation by using an illegal, hybrid fee agreement that his clients agree to give him a disproportionate amount of the judgment in fees. In other words, Joseph Shalant's normal course of operation was to purchase medical malpractice claims and then pretend to hide behind the alleged victims when he was really pursuing his own fees.

Bankruptcy trustee Todd Nielson holds almost $500K to pay a claim that is no more than $300K due to offsets received from Dr. Spirtos' bankruptcy estate. Yet now, they are telling the debtor that their ransom is $400K in trustee's attorneys' fees that they want before they will close this case.

Because there are not sufficient assets to pay the one claim in the bankruptcy case AND Gumport, Reitman, & Montgomery, fees, the trustee will not close this case. It appears that this case is NOT administered for the benefit of the creditor who has been waiting since 1984. Between that time and now, Gumport, Reitman, & Montgomery have accumulated about $400K in attorney fees. This case presents and demonstrates an argument that has been raised by numerous debtors and creditors. That argument concerns the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court that goes beyond debtor-creditor relationships as courts of equity, and trustees who do not follow the instructions of the U.S. Trustee Program. That instruction which appears in the Handbook for Chapter 7 Trustees, says in so many words that trustees are not to administer cases in such a way where the cost of administration exceeds assets in the case.

The Bankruptcy Code provides for trustees and their hired professionals to be paid from assets of the bankruptcy estate. When debtors are individually held responsible for paying the trustee's attorney's fees, something is very, very wrong with the judicial system that allows this.

The foundational problem is with Regional U.S. Trustees who do not supervise chapter 7 trustees in the administration of cases. The Regional U.S. Trustee can instruct the trustee in this case to distribute assets and close the case on the basis that the costs exceed the assets. Requiring debtors to acquire assets after bankruptcy to pay trustees and their hired professionals is keeping debtors forever in the state of slavery for the benefit of their masters.

The U.S. Trustee Program generally has more money than they need for operating expenses. In March of each year, the Director or Acting Director for the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees goes before Congress and requests reauthorization of the Progam and funding. The U.S. Trustee Program is mainly funded by fees paid by debtors. Quarterly fees paid by chapter 11 debtors are a significant amount of money that supports the Program. Fines and sanctions collected from bankruptcy petition preparers also find their way into the General Fund.

Let the Director for the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees request Congress to establish a fund to pay trustees' attorneys' when their fees exceed assets in cases. But then, how will the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees explain to Congress that contrary to the Handbook for Chapter 7 Trustees, and contrary to the intent of the Bankruptcy Code, trustees do administer cases where their attorney's fees exceed assets in cases?

Well, maybe if the Director for the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees was asked by Congress, he will explain that theU.S. Trustee Program is designed to pass the proverbial buck. When a bankruptcy judge signs an order, personnel of the U.S. Trustee Program deem it as a judicial matter rather than an issue of a trustee unethically administering a case. In other words, trustees can unethically administer cases as long as judges sign orders giving color of official right to their unethical case administration.

Litigants are advised by U.S. Trustee Program personnel, and even their elected members of Congress, to pursue the appellant process. However, let the Director fully inform members of Congress and tell them that debtors lack standing to appeal some bankruptcy court orders, and as in this case, judges have legislated law from the bench what is known as the "Barton Doctrine" that requires litigants to get approval from the bankruptcy court to sue chapter 7 trustees, who are private parties and not government employees. If the case is closed where litigants do not need approval from the bankruptcy court to sue a chapter 7 trustee, the litigant then has to deal with courts granting chapter 7 trustees immunity from suits.

Either way, trustees and their attorneys are served a greater benefit if litigants do not know of these well-kept secrets, such as the Barton Doctrine and immunity, because they are sanctioned the cost of trustees' attorney fees for not knowing, as in the Spirtos case. Not having assets in the bankruptcy estate sufficient to pay those fees, keeps debtors as slaves -- deprived of liberty and deprived of standing to petition the courts for their freedom.