Ammon Bundy Runs For Governor

[JamesVincent]

Welp, guess it's hard to state that you were never notified when you send a dumbass reply back.

[Frater I*I]

Well there was a whole host of filings against Ammhole last Friday...

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nmtdoxh5 ... 8iief&dl=0

[wserra]

And it continued yesterday. All of the filings, however, are more of the same: creditors seeking depositions / document production from various Bundy-related entities where Ammon likely stashed money in advance of bankruptcy. For example, yesterday St. Luke's sought discovery relating to "a large brand-new restaurant in St. George, Utah named Bundy’s Brazilian Steakhouse" that Bundy's brother and sister-in-law opened this year. When questioned about it at the creditors' meeting, Bundy took the Fifth. St. Luke's believes - likely with considerable justification - that he dumped money there, in large part because "In early 2024, Debtor Ammon Bundy (“Debtor”) caused approximately $475,000 in cash owned by him to be transferred to a Utah credit union account owned by a related entity, Abish-husbondi Inc. As of today, the St. Luke’s Creditors have been unable to determine where that cash ended up".

The other recent filings are similar. The more these things are substantiated, the more this looks like bankruptcy fraud.

[The Observer]

And the more the BK judge grants these motions, I get the feeling he or she is also thinking it looks like BK fraud. Ammon has to be thinking that the world is falling in on him. But I bet he will keep doubling down until he ends up in prison.

Brazilian steakhouse? You don't suppose that the beef is coming from Cliven Bundy's rogue herd in Bunkerville?

[wserra]

Ammon has to be thinking

Since when?

[JamesVincent]

"In early 2024, Debtor Ammon Bundy (“Debtor”) caused approximately $475,000 in cash owned by him to be transferred to a Utah credit union account owned by a related entity, Abish-husbondi Inc. As of today, the St. Luke’s Creditors have been unable to determine where that cash ended up".

Bankruptcy court allow them to do forensic auditing to find it?

[JamesVincent]

"In early 2024, Debtor Ammon Bundy (“Debtor”) caused approximately $475,000 in cash owned by him to be transferred to a Utah credit union account owned by a related entity, Abish-husbondi Inc. As of today, the St. Luke’s Creditors have been unable to determine where that cash ended up".

Bankruptcy court allow them to do forensic auditing to find it?

https://wyobiz.wyo.gov/Business/FilingD ... 8187144244

[wserra]

We already know that Bundy is a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal. For example, when St. Luke's sued him for defamation, he defaulted, resulting in the $50M judgment against him that St. Luke's is now trying to collect. Then he files for bankruptcy very shortly after transferring everything that wasn't nailed down to friends and family; they'll never figure that out, right? Then he claims exempt for everything still in sight, including some stuff that he doesn't even own any more. Finally, when (as we discuss above) St. Luke's challenges those exempt claims, Bundy has until last Thursday (October 3) to respond. He does nothing.

Well, maybe not exactly nothing. He sent St. Luke's an email that St. Luke's filed. An email to a party instead of answering as the Court requires? Quiet, he's on a roll. The email, moreover, has nothing to do with whether any of his stuff is exempt. Instead, it's a whine about how callous St. Luke's was, and how unfair it is that he was hit with a $50M judgment in a matter he didn't even bother to contest. Moreover, he's offered to give St. Luke's "everything he owns . . . on five different occasions". Of course, he doesn't bother to say what that "everything" is; he'll "produce documentation" once St. Luke's accepts his generous offer. By his account, it's likely to be $18.75.

Still, St. Luke's' needs to watch out, because they "will be held accountable for what you have done in this case. God knows my heart and He knows your heart and He knows the complaint and legal action you have taken against me are unjust." In point of fact, Bundy ought to hope that God does not "know [his] heart". If God did, there would likely be a large, smoking hole in the ground where Bundy used to be.

[The Observer]

This is why I referred to Bundy as thinking/realizing he is in trouble. There was no reason for him to submit this filing or the e-mail unless he had doubts about the outcome of the bankruptcy. Of course, Bundy will not come up with the right way to get out of trouble, thus the reason he submitted a filing based on trickery and pseudolaw. His pride and stubborness will not allow him to admit he is at fault. Instead he pretends to be the "bigger" person by offering a pretend settlement and then blame St. Luke's for refusing to accept his valueless offer.

[The Observer]

Bankruptcy court allow them to do forensic auditing to find it?

I would hope the court would order it done given the strong appearance of fraud being perpetrated in this bankruptcy.

[wserra]

Yesterday St. Luke's filed its legal argument as to why the $50M defamation judgment against Bundy is non-dischargeable. As you would expect, it is thorough and convincing.

It would be a hoot for Bundy to find that he went to all this trouble - not to mention exposing himself to possible prosecution for bankruptcy fraud - only to find that the reason behind it is unattainable. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[The Observer]

Sounds like set, game and match. I would be surprised if the court denies the 523(a)(6).

[wserra]

St. Luke's has filed proof that they served Bundy with the subpoenas for production of documents and for him to attend a deposition. In fact, he returned the witness fee check with the handwritten note "You can keep your dirty money - AB". Thanks, Ammon, for confirming that you were in fact served. He produced nothing and did not appear. I'm shocked.

We are long past the point where Bundy should have tried to cut his losses by voluntarily dismissing the bankruptcy. However, if Bundy had a room-temperature IQ, he wouldn't be in this position in the first place.

[The Observer]

In fact, he returned the witness fee check with the handwritten note "You can keep your dirty money - AB". Thanks, Ammon, for confirming that you were in fact served.

Another stupid - and it was a big stupid - decision by Ammon. Up to that moment, Ammon would have had some kind of defense in claiming he never was properly served the subpoena. Since he was aware (or should have been aware) that a subpoena was heading his way, he could have moved out of his residence, close his PO Box, and shut down his e-mail addresses. Instead he leaves all of those routes open for the creditors to pursue him. And when they do, he puts the last nail in his fraud coffin by returning the actual documents sent to him along with a note in his own handwriting. See, this is about Ammon's pride and his need to show that he got the last blow in. He can't see that he has double and tripled down in fashioning this disaster.

What happens next? Creditors' attorneys are going to ask that the court issue a warrant for Bundy to appear for testimony and for it to be enforced if Bundy fails to appear. And I think we will see Bundy do another disappearing act and go on the lam to another state. Hopefully, the St. Luke's team is several steps ahead of him.

We are long past the point where Bundy should have tried to cut his losses by voluntarily dismissing the bankruptcy.

And at what point was the last time he could have done that? My layman guess is that he should have done it before the FMOC. But what does the law say when we are dealing with badges of bankruptcy fraud?

[wserra]

As we discuss above, over a month ago St. Luke's filed a motion seeking documents and a deposition from Bundy's wife Lisa. The basis for that motion was that she, along with Bundy, conveyed a good deal of joint/community property just in advance of the bankruptcy filing at a fraction of its actual market value - potential bankruptcy fraud. Before their (ahem) move to Utah, they had lived for twenty years in two community property states, Arizona and Idaho - meaning that all or nearly all of what came to either during that time was community property. Since Bundy in his schedules did not identify things that had to exist - a single bank account, for example - which things would have been community property, Lisa Bundy would have considerable relevant information. She did not oppose the motion - or, in fact, respond at all - and the court granted it.

So now she responds with a motion to quash the resulting subpoena in which she does nothing to contradict anything St. Luke's alleges. Nothing about the conveyances, nothing about bank accounts, nothing about twenty years of community property, nothing about why the court should excuse blowing the deadline to respond to St. Luke's motion. Instead, she files seven pages of typed whine. St. Luke's is a big meanie. St. Luke's has already ruined their lives - not addressing, of course, how Bundy not only viciously defamed innocent hospital workers but placed them in very real physical danger. St. Luke's is attacking her and her children, and "(a)ttacking women and children during conflict is something only dishonorable men do". How many of your husband's victims were women, Lisa, and how many of them had children?

What a crew.

[wserra]

We are long past the point where Bundy should have tried to cut his losses by voluntarily dismissing the bankruptcy.

And at what point was the last time he could have done that? My layman guess is that he should have done it before the FMOC. But what does the law say when we are dealing with badges of bankruptcy fraud?

As I've said before, I have very limited knowledge of bankruptcy, but this is (I think) black-letter. A Chapter 7 filer (like Bundy) has no right to a voluntary dismissal at any time, and both the trustee and creditors can object on the basis that a dismissal would prejudice creditors. The court typically then holds a hearing to decide whether to permit it. That said, AFAIK there is no time limit for the debtor to seek to voluntarily dismiss. Of course, the more the evidence of potential fraud piles up in the record, the less likely it is that the court will permit it over objection.

Someone who knows better should feel free to correct me.

[wserra]

The Court set a hearing on Lisa's motion to quash for Dec 4 at 2 PM. Via Zoom. Public.

Could be fun.

[The Observer]

is there a link? And is that time local time for Utah/Idaho?

[wserra]

There should be a link in the future - maybe a few days before the hearing - and yes, Utah time. I'll keep an eye on it.

[wserra]

Hearing scheduled for 12/4/2024 at 02:00 PM at ZoomGov.com/join - WTT: Meeting ID: 160 7523 8590, Passcode: 9626637, Phone 1-669-254-5252.

Needless to say, the court can "see" who's on the Zoom, and may ask who "Wesley Serra" is and if he has any connection to the case. "No, Your Honor, just an observer" is a perfectly fine response. Especially for a certain Q regular.