• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHEELEVENTHCIRCUITAppealNo.07-10295-IIALANL.GOLDBERGasChapter7TrusteefortheEstateofStephanJ.LawrenceAppellant,vs.STEPHANJAYLAWRENCEAppellee.APPEALANDCROSS-APPEALFROMANORDEROFTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHESOUTHERNDISTRICTOFFLORIDACaseNo.05-20485-CV-GOLD
APPELLEEREPLYBRIEF
Stephan J. Lawrence,
pro se
19500 Turnberry Way # 23AAventura, FL33180
 
Lawrence v. Goldberg, Case No. 07-10295-11.
 
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONSAND CORPORATE DISCLOSURESTATEMENT
1. Avron, Paul A., counsel for Alan L. Goldberg, Cross-Appellee.2. Berger Singerman, P.A., counsel for Alan L. Goldberg, Cross-Appellee.3. Cohen, Mark, counsel for Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., active creditor.4. Cristol, Hon. A. Jay, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida.5. Fierberg, James H., counsel for Alan L. Goldberg, Cross-Appellee.6. Gold, Alan, S., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.7. Goldberg, Alan L., Bankruptcy Trustee, Cross-Appellee.8. Lawrence, Stephan Jay, Cross-Appellant (
Pro se
).9. Office of the U.S. Trustee.10. Singerman, Paul Steven, counsel for Alan L. Goldberg, Cross-Appellee.11. Turnoff, William C, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida(Magistrate Judge).12. There is no creditors' committee.C-1 of 1
 
-3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................... 3TABLEOFAUTHORITIES................................................................................... 4Summary ............................................................................................................... 6Argument............................................................................................................... 7A. The Trustee ignores the impossibility defense to contempt; andmisstates the standards concerning the coercive effect of incarceration.......................................................................................... 8B.When the district court ruled further imprisonment was punitive thecontempt proceedings were deemed criminal; the bankruptcy courtlacks authority to impose “post-release obligations” on Lawrence....... 14C.The Trustee does not adequately explain how Lawrence came to beliable for an indeterminate liability (in the tens of millions of dollars)and an indefinite (possibly life) sentence where he was providedwith none of the rights, including notice, associated with suchexcessive penalties............................................................................... 16D.The Trustee misrepresents the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 521(4); it doesnot impose liability against debtor/transferors...................................... 17E.The Trustee offers no cognizable challenge to the application of 28U.S.C. § 1826 to this case.................................................................... 19F.The Trustee’s attorneys flagrantly violated Title III andunconstitutionally intruded into Lawrence’s attorney-clientrelationships through illegal wiretapping; they opened an appellatePandora’s box...................................................................................... 20G.The Trustee incorrectly alleges that Lawrence’s claims had all beenpreviously heard; later obtained information and decisions showotherwise ............................................................................................. 23H.The Trustee fails to address Lawrence’s claims concerning wellsettled defenses to enforcement of prior orders entered without dueprocess or jurisdiction; the discharge order was misused as a moneyjudgment.............................................................................................. 24CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.A.P. 32(a)(7)............................ 33CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................................................. 33
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...