Some of these files are in "PDF" format and require an Adobe Reader. Right at the deadline for filing bankruptcy under the old rules, Barbara Robbins got hers filed. In her voluntary petition (in PDF format) for Chapter 7, Barbara Robbins was to list all of her assets and liabilities, income, etc. We firmly believe she is lying about being broke. As we pointed out to the Bankruptcy Trustee and the Court, we cite documents, many with her signature on them, to back our claim she has plenty of money, or should have, while all she can do is whine how much people don't like her and say, "Honest Judge, I'm broke". Barbie, have you ever seriously wondered why so many people don't like you? Because you lie and cheat everyone you possibly can! We filed our Adversarial Complaint to the Bankruptcy Court, Adv Pro. 06-1225-EEB filed against Case No. 05-40334-EEB. It was also filed with an Adversarial Memorandum which goes into detail and includes most of the evidence attachments. Barbara Robbins, whom we describe as having "foot-in-mouth disease" submitted one of her not-too-bright rambling responses (in PDF format) wherein she denied everything while lying about more things, and never giving a shred of proof to back up anything. We filed a Motion To Strike portions of her response citing the lack of jurisdiction by the Bankruptcy Court to re-open Disrict Court decisions against her as she requested. On May 16, 2006, the judge granted the motion to strike. Our reply was supported by another stack of documents supporting our claims she lied to the bankruptcy Court and is concealing assets. Seems Barbie decided to do some rummaging around looking at court cases and then decided to step in it. On April 21, 2006, she filed TWO motions with the Bankruptcy Court. One motion was to Dismiss With Prejudice our complaint, thereby removing us and our adversarial proceeding from her life. The second motion was to have the Bankruptcy Court Vacate The Park County Judgments that forms the basis for our financial claim against her. We would like to know what she is smoking and would she share it? In any event, on May 16, 2006, the judge DENIED both of her motions, pointedly informing her that hers was a trial court, not a court of appeals, and that if she wanted to reopen the judgments she would have to go back to the Colorado District Court. Barbie's Motion To Dismiss is based solely on the judgment we have agaianst her and does not address the numerous additional causes of action we claimed under the bankruptcy laws. It also did not follow procedure and offered not one lick of proof of her allegations. Barbie's Motion To Vacate is just another in a long whine by her about how the courts have cheated her of the opportunity to prove to them how the many people, including us, have cheated her. In her whine, without cheese, she accuses Officers of the Court of lying and of altering court documents. What she failed to address was the fact that she had six months in which to appeal the ruling and she did not. Needless to say, we filed responses to her motions, in a timely manner. Our Response To Motion To Dismiss was filed May 5, 2006, along with our Response To Motion To Vacate with a bonus that Barbie wasn't expecting, our Motion For Sanctions where we say her motions were frivolous and a waste of time and that she makes defamatory statements about us and Officers of the Court. On May 16, 2006, the judge DENIED out motion for sanctions, saying Barbie was pro se and therefor did not fully understand what she could not do. The scheduling hearing was held May 16, 2006 was interesting. A trial was set for August 21, 2006. When we brought up her unwillingness to provide bank records, Barbie complained to the judge that we wanted records going back six years. The judge agreed that six years seemed a long time. Karen then told the judge about the $300,000 check Barbie received in February, 2001, (for the mortgage on her house) and that Barbie claimed it went into the business, which we don't believe. The judge then told Barbie that that was a claim with particularity, stating specifics, not a general claim (like "we know she's hiding money somewhere"), and as such, she would have to give us the records we wanted. The judge informed her that the burden of proof shifted to her after we make such a claim. She was not happy. The August 21, 2006 trial was converted into a non-evidentary hearing on our Second Motion To Compel since Babs has not been forth-coming in the production of documents as requested under the rules. Trial was held Monday, October 16, 2006, at 9am in Courtroom. Present were Karen & Mike as the plaintiffs and Barbi-poo as the defendant. Later, someone visited Babs for about 30 minutes. Bankruptcy Court Denies Attempt By Barbara Robbins to Dump Debts. On Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Judge Elizabeth E Brown ruled against Barbara stating that the Court did not find her "testimony credible" and that she had failed to show $128,350 on her Statement Of Financial Affairs and accompanying Schedules. The Order Denying Discharge states that Barb "received at least $270,000 in additional income" in the two ½ yeards before her bankruptcy filing and that Barbie was "unable to provide (the) Court with a satisfactory explanation regarding the ultimate disposition of the monies received..." Waaaaa!. That's the sound of Barbara Robbins again crying about losing ANOTHER round in court. Let's see, She lost in Teller County in 2001 at the Board Hearing; she lost in Park County in 2002 when we counter-sued; she lost in Small Claims Court in Teller County to John & Ann Hart; she lost in the Colorado Court of Appeals over this web-site; she lost a four-party case in Teller County Court in 2004; and she lost in US Bankruptcy Court in 2006. Waaaaa!. Barbie keeps claiming that all she needs is her day in Court. She's had more than one day in court and she's lost every one of them. Get a clue, Babs. You keep losing because you are a loser. And, according to the government agencies and the courts, you are GUILTY. Barbie, go cry on George's shoulder some more and then give him another toy, like the boat you titled in his name to avoid declaring it as an asset. Maybe you should give some thought to protecting your Lexus in the same way you protected your boat. But, wait! That doesn't seem to have helped you. But Wait! It gets better. Lynn Martinez, the Bankruptcy Trustee who was assigned the case, has filed a Motion To Share Discovery with the Bankruptcy Court. We are under a direct order from the Court not to share any of the documents or specific information obtained in discovery (and there is quite a lot). Ms Martinez wants the documents so she can collect and liquidate "property of the Bankruptcy Estate of Barbara Robbins." Hot damn. And the hits just keep on a comin'. Barbie has until November 13, 2006 in which to respond to the motion.