Slip Copy, 2009 WL 981046, Bkrtcy.D.Mont., April 13, 2009 (NO.

08-61317-7) The third area of egregious behavior by Theresa is her tender of Hardin's bogus bonded promissory notes in full payment of the mortgage. That tender is not ameliorated by her later withdrawal of the note prior to the hearing. Theresa is grasping at straws in her efforts to deprive the secured creditor of its rights against her home under the deed of trust, and her participation with Hardin in peddling bogus instruments demonstrates desperation, and egregious behavior, which the Court is obligated to stop. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Abbott v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., Slip Copy, 2009 WL 971267, E.D.Va., April 08, 2009 (NO. CIV.A. 3:08CV665) The Abbotts also filed a document, referenced in Ex. F. above, that purported to establish them as Absolute Sovereign Neutral*s+ in intinere who supposedly are not subject to various laws of the United States, including any that would render them a debtor. The document further asserts that any violation of its terms should result in an award of $10 million to the Abbotts (Pl. Motion for Leave of Court to Compel Production of Answers to Writ of Mandamus and All Virginia Codes at Ex.) FN1 The assertion of sovereignty is plainly frivolous. FN1. It is worth noting that this is essentially the same claim upon which the Abbotts previously relied in the Bankruptcy Court and which was denied both by the Bankruptcy Court and by Judge Hudson on appeal. See Abbott, 2008 WL 782859, *1. The frivolous filings and bad faith conduct detailed above are not the full extent of the Abbotts' actions. In this action alone, the Abbotts have made various post-complaint filings frivolously and baselessly accusing SunTrust of, inter alia, perjury, criminal securities fraud, violations of the Virginia state bonding code, and high treason. ( See Pl. Motion for Leave of Court to Compel Production of Answers to Writ of Mandamus and All Virginia Codes at 1-2 (Docket Number 10); Pl. Motion for Order to Show Cause at 1-2 (Docket Number 22).) Additionally, demonstrating a lack of regard for the orders of the Court, the Abbotts filed nine so-called Motions after the Court's order staying this action, including duplicative motions inappropriately seeking a default judgment and a motion seeking $20,000,000 in damages for alleged bad faith and criminal conduct on the part of SunTrust. (Docket Numbers 19, 20, 22-26, 29.) Those motions were filed with no factual support, and contained innumerable inappropriate, inapposite, and incorrect citations to various sections of the United States and Virginia Codes.FN2 FN2. The Abbotts also have filed at least two other entirely frivolous actions in this Court, including one, dismissed by Judge Hudson, seeking damages against two Secret Service agents for failing to accept one of Norman Abbott's self-concocted Treasury documents. ( See Civil Action Nos. 3:07-cv-381, 3:08-cv583.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. v. Neal, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 5516514, W.D.Ark., June 03, 2008 (NO. CIV. 07-3061)

On May 14, 2008, defendants Fred Neal and Doris Neal each filed a document entitled DUE PRESENTMENT UNDER NOTARY SEAL DEMAND FOR PAYMENT. Each such filing has several attachments, two of which are relevant to the Court's recusal analysis: * One such attachment is a document entitled BONDED PROMISSORY NOTE which purports to evidence a loan to the Court, as well as Stephanie Page (attorney for the government in this case) and Christopher Johnson (Clerk of the United States District Court of the Western District of Arkansas) in the sum of $50,000,000.00. * The other is a 2008 IRS Form 1099-OID, which purports to document Federal income tax withheld in the sum of $50,000,000.00, the Payer being Fred Neal, Jr., and the Court being shown as a recipient of the funds along with Page and Johnson. In addition to these filings, the Court has received by direct mail certain documents from one Mary Coulter-Croswhite, a Notary Public in Marion County, Arkansas, purporting to evidence nonperformance of the Court, Page, and Johnson on the bogus promissory note described above. The Court has caused these documents to be filed as document # 20 in this case. 3. The Court knows, of its own knowledge, that the above-described documents are patently false with respect to him personally and has no doubt that they are also patently false with respect to Page and Johnson. It would thus appear to the Court that the uses being made of these false documents by defendants, Fred Neal and Doris Neal, may well be acts taken in furtherance of the crimes of mail fraud, tax fraud, obstruction of justice, and perhaps other criminal conduct as well. By copy of this Order, therefore, the Court is referring the matter to the United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas and requesting that an appropriate investigation of the matter be undertaken. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tag to Print 9 9. In re Wrubleski, 380 B.R. 635, Bkrtcy.S.D.Fla., January 11, 2008 (NO. 06-15867-BKC-JKO) ...as to whether the plan is feasible. In response to the IRS's filing of a proof of claim, Debtor sent Bonded Promissory Note # PFW021907 (the Bonded Promissory Note) in the sum of $10,000,000 to Henry M. Paulsen, Jr. [sic] FN 1 , the Secretary of the United States Treasury and to Robin R. Weiner, the standing Chapter 13 Trustee (the Trustee). See Exhibit A in *DE 59+. The Bonded Promissory Note purports to appoint the Trustee as the fiduciary trustee on this note and pursuant to a letter of instructions sent... ...Trustee, the Debtor instructed the Trustee to settle all claims held by the IRS, apparently using funds covered by the Bonded Promissory Note. In addition the Debtor directed the Trustee to file all requisite tax returns on his behalf and provide him copies... The Debtor alleges in the Motion that he in essence has satisfied his debt to the IRS and for that reason the Court's dismissal of his case was a mistake. The mere assertion that the Debtor, through the use of a

facially frivolous and legally unsupported claim, has satisfied his tax liabilities through alleged debt owed to him by the Federal Government, does not provide a legal basis for ignoring his federal income tax obligations. Instead, based on the record I must recognize the IRS's claim against the Debtor. Further, nothing on the record demonstrates that the Debtor has established a valid claim against the United States or any of its agencies. Since I have already considered and rejected Debtor's arguments and have now further explained in this Order why the Debtor's position with regard to alleged debt owed to him by the federal government is not supported by equity or law, it is ORDERED that the Debtor's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate Order Dismissing Case [DE 59] is DENIED. Let the Fallout Begin. 12-1-09 I will not be responding to any comments in this thread. Dig up another old thread from someone who is interested in going over Patriot Youthanasia with you. Chew on this link for a while before you try getting me to pay you $995 to file a worthless paper I could file on my own for very little money.