1, $50 for interpreting because limited English proficient client need to get a check
2, Prior warning that check payor's absence and prevention is notice in advance but principle denied 3, Friday, as anticipated, did result negatively and based on good faith, $50 fee is not collected by interpreter 4, Monday, interpreter left note to check payor. Check payor called back but interpreter didn't pick up because of transparency and impartiality. 5, Payee trapped by scoring :"why not?" Still holding and three way conference call did succeed and finally appointment to collect check on the following day Tuesday at 11 am. 6, Payee was late. Payee mention:"Wait" 7, The task is assigned as collecting the check. 8, The unchangable fact is payor put into an enveloppe and invoice stating service fee are deducted $1400 and check total $1000. 9, Upon receipt, payee was asked by interpreter:"If u need to go up, do u?" payee constructive denied. Payee even asked where is the bank and how to cash right away. 10, Interpreter didn't mention any fee because of mutual trust and lack of time due to the second interpretation. 11, Tuesday phone call still mention that payee will come to pay in the evening (payee lack creditability) 12, Wednesday payee didn't call back. Interpreter call because of an invitation to dinner only (from the mutual friend and without intent to get paid, interpreter gain creditability) 13, Wednesday payee spread rumor to third party. Insisted to pay partially. 14, Interpreter request back items previously kept by payee but payee denied first and returned on Sat. After insisting, payee returned home to give back items. (Payee only followed by legal obligation, by force and not by heart simply) 15, Similar behavior can be proved by substantially situation including but not limited to setttlement failed, signed contract Ru was refunded 16, Payee side of story:" Judge order Ru to back out!" vs the fact is Ruth wrote to back out in motion, initiatate by Ru, Ru surely reckoned the partial amount is kept in retainer fee and luckily Ru didn't run it out completely so as to avoid tragedy. 17, Payee:"Okay I can pay. But finally let us see who is the suffered !" (Intent is malicous) 18, Int:"No creditability client should not be contacted", "unilaterally amend wishy-washy should result unexpectedly bad faith and result" "Unlike Du, he gifted to Dubois" "Unlike Du, he appreciated" 19: lesson: LOSS TWO THOUSAND IN XAVIER == NEVER PAY OUT 20: LESSON: LOSS TWENTY == NEVER DO THE OTHERWISE 1, Six visits of PT can be split into frequency of twice per week x three or once per week times six.
2, Patient having aucupuncture may prefer least disturbance to work schedule and so once per week times six 3, 1, will defendant pay all deposit prior to court in exchange of keys?
2, will defendant accept rental original payment and cash what check is mailed with original amount without further pusing to the new rental amount? 3, if these 1, how to select courthouse in your best interest?
1, Monday after visiting the office, interpreter left written note and immediately message is delivered and attorney Ruth got it and called back
2, Client Tran missed:" Why conference call?" Interpreter: transparency and also client has never signed ESTOPPEL and Client Chan has limited credit by viewing how other professionals are litigated 3,Client Tran missed:"Angrily I don't get the check. you can cancel and I come to pick it up" His firm intonation always repeated. His repetititon in fact demeanor himself more to intelligent listener (hopefully). Alway, at the last moment, break up! Angry! Emotion! forcing other party incooperate. 4,Client Tran:"See how she lied about mailing!" "See how ..(in the legal system, if a client lied, then what happened under the penalty of perjury?) 5, unwilling to APPRECIATE altitude result unwilling to REPENT before God, unwilling to baptised with further excuse Christmas Carolling is an event for the sick
Main theme is you offer to the poor and the sick God see and you benefit in heaven you understand better that you are blessed Songs are spread God words are listened PLEASE DO MORE 0, THE MARKRAMS RECOGNIZED the significance of their results. Hyper-responsive sensory, memory and emotional systems might explain both autistic talents and autistic handicaps, they realized. After all, the problem with VPA rats isn’t that they can’t learn—it’s that they learn too quickly, with too much fear, and irreversibly.
1, Consequently, the brain architecture of autism is not just defined by its weaknesses, but also by its inherent strengths. 2, The more he investigated the idea of autism not as a deficit of memory, emotion and sensation, but an excess, the more he realized how much he himself had in common with his seemingly alien son. 3,HENRY MARKRAM IS TALL, with intense blue eyes, sandy hair and the air of unmistakable authority that goes with the job of running a large, ambitious, well-funded research project. It’s hard to see what he might have in common with a troubled, autistic child. He rises most days at 4 a.m. and works for a few hours in his family’s spacious apartment in Lausanne before heading to the institute, where the Human Brain Project is based. “He sleeps about four or five hours,” says Kamila. “That’s perfect for him.” 1, civ-110 may accept but nothing happen
2, es and ud110 result clerk judgement where u pay $125 in martinex office and schedule for soonest dec 23 monday for restoration 3, be aware sherriff post this week and sherriff suggest irresponsive and malicious without mutual reasons but biased with no consequencce 4, dont underestimate 5, address === description same 6, clerk judgement = no money 7, did u fie preclaim judgement? 8, tell sherriff dogs and never believe "irresponsible dis-expert" saying "u can cut utility!" "u can call police" because irresponsible tips are assumed listener's filtering skills 9, pay what it deserved like gas, time to drive, urgency, immediate help, lunch 10, study daily wisdom encourage more directional mindset daily coporate IS DIFFERENT Fraud http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO436.pdf In re Tobin, 258 B.R. 199 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2001) Fraudulent representation imputed to debtor as corporate alter ego not proper basis for nondischargeability determination absent evidence of debtor's personal, knowing involvement in fraudulent scheme. In re Fischer, 116 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997) Express novation extinguishes bankruptcy creditor’s fraud claim against debtor based on original contract In re Saylor, 178 B.R. 209 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995), aff’d, 108 F.3d 219 (9th Cir. 1997) Fraudulent transfer action created no debt against debtor, thus no dischargeability action. In re Aubrey, 111 B.R. 268 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1990) State court judgment for fraud and willfulness nondischargeable in bankrupt’s estate. More u know, More wisdom Trustee CAN HELP In re Hansen, 368 B.R. 868, 879-80 (9th Cir. BAP 2007) Claim preclusion did not apply to creditor’s lawsuit objecting to discharge, where the trustee, who settled a separate lawsuit objecting to discharge, was not in privity with the creditor. IF settlement is not court approved yet.. Rein v. Providian Financial Corp., 270 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001) Where no court approval was obtained of either a settlement of an adversary proceeding nor a reaffirmation agreement, there was no final order and thus no claim preclusion. Regarding how to discharge debt...CONSUMER DEBT In re Kullgren, 109 B.R. 949, 953 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1990) In order to prevail on a motion for attorney’s fees under § 523(d), a debtor must prove that: (1) the creditor requested a determination of the dischargeability of the debt, (2) the debt is a consumer debt, and (3) the debt was discharged. Settlement need to be FRAUDULENT Archer v. Warner, 123 S.Ct. 1462 (2003) “We conclude that the Archers’ settlement agreement and releases may have worked a kind of novation, but that fact does not bar the Archers from showing that the settlement debt arose out of [fraud], and consequently is nondischargeable...” Regarding settlement
In re Huang, 275 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2002) Waiver of discharge in settlement agreement was ineffective. The settlement agreement had no collateral estoppel effect under § 523(a)(2), where the settlement agreement omitted any mention of fraud or facts supporting fraud. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Categories
All
|