UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
MARLENE FEARING, Petitioner Bankrupt! "#$%%&%'
(&' )i*+,oo+ Roa+ - Apt. %&" C/apter 0 Ca1e
Ma/to2e+i, MN ''""'
RESPONSE OF MARLENE FEARING
Tru1tee A11i3ne+ 4! t/e Court TO UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, DEPT
Step/en 5. Crea1e! OF 5USTICE6S OB5ECTION TO FEARING6S
7'&& One Finania* P*ae NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
"7&& Sout/ 8
t/
Street
Minneapo*i1, MN ''#&7

9onora4*e Kat/erine Con1tantine
Courtroo2 7C
Oto4er "8, 7&"#
"":A.M.
The following is Fearings Response to United States Trustee, Department of Justices
Objection to Fearings otice of !otion and !otion"
#$ The United States Trustee has standing to bring this objection pursuant to ## U$S$%$

& '() and *+ U$S$%$ & ,+-$
Fearin361 Re1pon1e: True, /o,e;er, Fearin3 <in+1 t/i1 o4=etion >uite +i1in3enuou1
an+ /!poritia*. T/e ,ron3<u* on+ut in part, a1 a**e3e+ 4! Fearin3 i1 +irete+ at
ator1 o< t/e U.S. Depart2ent o< 5u1tie. Depart2ent ator1 o< t/e U.S. Dept. o<
5u1tie are not i22une <ro2 pro1eution i< t/e! ;io*ate+ t/e *a,. Gi;en t/e
?O;era** Mi11ion State2ent o< t/e Depart2ent o< 5u1tie, it i1 to en<ore t/e *a, an+
+e<en+ t/e intere1t1 o< t/e Unite+ State1 aor+in3 to t/e *a,@ to en1ure pu4*i 1a<et!
a3ain1t t/reat1 <orei3n an+ +o2e1ti, to pro;i+e <e+era* *ea+er1/ip in pre;entin3
an+ ontro**in3 ri2e, to 1eek =u1t puni1/2ent <or t/o1e 3ui*t! o< un*a,<u* 4e/a;ior@
an+ to en1ure <air an+ i2partia* a+2ini1tration o< =u1tie <or a** A2erian1.A
#
C*ear*! a1 out*ine+ in Mar*ena61 5ourna* an+ atte1te+ to ,it/ a<<i+a;it1 o< 1,orn
1tate2ent1 4! ,itne11e1, Bin*u+in3 a retire+ U.S. Mar1/a**C ator1 o< t/e U.S.
Depart2ent o< 5u1tie at t/e Minne1ota Di1trit /a1 a *ot o< eDp*ainin3 to +o <or
t/eir un*a,<u* on+ut. I< t/e U.S. Depart2ent o< 5u1tie - Minne1ota Di1trit i1 a1
intere1te+ in up/o*+in3 t/o1e *a,1, t/e! 1/ou*+ /a;e no o4=etion i< t/o1e *a,1 are
e>ua**! app*ie+ to t/e2. Furt/er2ore, i< t/e! /a;e +one no ,ron3, t/e! 1/ou*+ /a;e
no o4=etion to a re;ie, o< t/eir on+ut. Bakroo2 =u+iia* po*iti1 an not *ean1e
t/o1e un*ean /an+1 a1 out*ine+ in Fearin361 4rie<1 an+ Mar*ena61 5ourna*.
*$ This .ro se ban/ruptc0 was filed under %hapter ) on Jul0 **, *(#1$
Fearin361 Re1pon1e: True
'$ 2nitiall0, Stephen %rease0 was appointed as %hapter ) trustee$ !r$ %rease0
3oluntaril0 rejected his appointment to ser3e as trustee on 4ugust 1, *(#1$
Fearin361 Re1pon1e: T/at i1 not a true 1tate2ent. )/en Fearin3 a**e+ Mr.
Crea1e! an+ in>uire+ ,/! /e ,a1 no *on3er on t/e a1e, Mr. Crea1e! an1,ere+, ?I
+on6t kno,, I ,a1 to*+ I ,a1 re2o;e+ <ro2 t/e a1eA. I< t/ere ,a1 1o2e on<*it I
a2 1ure Mr. Crea1e! ,ou*+ /a;e 1ai+ t/at. 9e /a+ no rea1on to *ie.
1$ !ichael J$ 2annacone was subse5uentl0 appointed as chapter ) trustee, 2d$ !r$
2annacone filed a report of no distribution on September #,, *(#1$ 2d$
Fearin361 Re1pon1e: In Fearin361 initia* on;er1ation ,it/ Mr. Iannaone, /e
in+iate+ t/at Mr. Ra1/ke a**e+ /i2 an+ a1ke+ /i2 to take t/e a1e. It i1 o< *itt*e
1i3ni<iane to Fearin3 i< Mr. Iannaone <i*e+ a report o< no +i1tri4ution BFearin3
reei;e+ no 1u/ op!C Fearin3 /a1 no tru1t o< t/i1 tru1tee an+ an! <urt/er
reperu11ion1 o< an! ot/er ation1 t/at ou*+ po11i4*! 4e taken 4! /i2. )/en Mr.
*
Iannaone to*+ M1. Fearin3 t/at t/ere ,ou*+ 4e no pro<it1 to Fearin3 <ro2 /er 4ook
or 2o;ie ri3/t1 4eau1e t/e! 4e*on3 to U.S. 5u1tie, Fearin3 take1 /i2 at /i1 ,or+.
,$ The debtor has failed to demonstrate cause to remo3e !r$2annacone from this case
under ## U$S$%$ & '*1 6a7$
Fearin361 Re1pon1e: Con1titutiona* *a, 1a!1 t/at Fearin3 /a1 e;er! ri3/t to ?Due
Proe11A, 1o +oe1 "( U.S.C. Setion 7#". Fearin3 /a1 artiu*ate+ in /er 4rie<1 in
+etai* an+ /a1 *ear*! +e2on1trate+ 1u<<iient au1e to re2o;e Mr. Iannaone <ro2
t/i1 a1e. Gi;en Mr. Iannaone61 /o1ti*it! +irete+ at Fearin3 a1 1/e a**e3e1 took
p*ae on t/e p/one an+ a*1o ,itne11e+ 4! a ourt o41er;er at t/e Cre+itor1 Meetin3
i1 au1e in it1e*< <or /i1 re2o;a*.
-$ The ban/ruptc0 court does not ha3e jurisdiction to appoint a special prosecutor or
con3ene a Federal 8rand Jur0 because those are criminal remedies$
Fearin3 Re1pon1e: Cri2ina* on+ut a1 a**e3e+ 4! Fearin3 1upporte+ 4! /er
5ourna* an+ a<<i+a;it1 o< ,itne11e1, on3oin3 reta*iation a3ain1t Fearin3 ,it/ 2ore
4o3u1 an+ <rau+u*ent =u+32ent1 *e;ie+ a3ain1t /er, <ore+ Fearin3 into per1ona*
4ankrupt!. Cri2ina* on+ut 4! t/e1e perpetrator1 re>uire ri2ina* re2e+ie1.
T/ere<ore, a Fe+era* Gran+ 5ur! or a Speia* pro1eutor i1 eDat*! t/e our1e o<
ation nee+e+ 1ine t/e 2a=orit! o< Fearin361 propert! un*a,<u**! taken 4! t/e<t 4!
<rau+ ourre+ un+er t/e =uri1+ition o< a Bankrupt! Court. Fearin361 nee+ to <i*e
<or 4ankrupt! ,a1 +ue to t/e un*a,<u* an+ ri2ina* on+ut a1 a**e3e+ in /er
=ourna* an+ ontinue1 unti* Fearin3 /a+ no re2ainin3 a11et1 an+ /u3e =u+32ent1
a11e11e+ a3ain1t /er ,it/out /er kno,*e+3e unti* reent*!.
T/ere<ore, Fearin3 /a1 e;er! ri3/t to petition a 4ankrupt! ourt to en1ure 1u/
'
on+ut ,/i/ in*u+e+ i**e3a* on+ut 4! ator1 o< t/e U.S. 5u1tie Tru1ee61 o<<ie
+oe1 not our a3ain.
Un+er "( U.S.C. Setion E 7#" MISPRISON OF FELONY $ )/oe;er /a;in3
kno,*e+3e o< t/e atua* o22i11ion o< a <e*on! o3niFa4*e 4! a ourt o< t/e Unite+
State1 GGGG.. Ht/e *a, +oe1 not +i1tin>ui1/ or e*i2inate an! ourtI GGGG.JI<
t,o or 2ore per1on1 on1pire to in=ure, oppre11, t/reaten, or inti2i+ate an! per1on
in an! State, Territor!, Co22on,ea*t/, Po11e11ion, or Di1trit in t/e <ree eDeri1e
or en=o!2ent o< an! ri3/t or pri;i*e3e 1eure+ to /i2 4! t/e Con1titution or *a,1 o<
t/e Unite+ State1, or 4eau1e o< /i1 /a;in3 1o eDeri1e+ t/e 1a2eK . . . JT/e! 1/a** 4e
<ine+ un+er t/e tit*e or i2pri1one+ not 2ore t/an ten !ear1, or 4ot/K . . .
Furt/er2ore, in Mr. Iannaone61 O4=etion to Fearin361 Motion, /e <*at out a1k1 t/e
ourt to +en! Fearin3 an! <urt/er ?Due Proe11 Ri3/t1A. Fearin3 4e*ie;e1 t/at
re>ue1t in an+ o< it1e*< +e2on1trate1 ,/! Mr. Iannaone 2u1t 4e re2o;e+ a1 t/e
tru1tee <ro2 /er a1e.
0. The attached memorandum of law addresses these arguments in detail$
Fearin361 Re1pon1e: Fearin3 i1 a*1o atta/in3 /er Me2oran+u2 o< La,$
9:;R;FOR;, !arlene Fearing re5uests that the %ourt grant her re5uest for remo3al
of !r$ 2annacone as Trustee and grant Fearings re5uest to con3ene a grand jur0 or
appoint a special prosecutor$
Dated" October ##, *(#1 Respectfull0 submitted b0"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
!arlene Fearing, Debtor
1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUT9ORITIES
". REMOLAL OF A TRUSTEE
Statutor! Aut/orit!
.ursuant to Section '*1, 4 =an/ruptc0 %ourt has the authorit0 to remo3e a trustee$
Ca1e La,
Remo3al of a trustee is subject to the discretion of the ban/ruptc0 court$ In re
Morgan , 375 B.R. at 847.
%ause to remo3e a trustee is not defined$ Remo3al is determined on a >case?b0?
case, totalit0?of?circumstances approach$@ Ritchie Special Credit Investments, Ltd. v.
.S. !r"stee, 4#5 B.R. 3$#, 3$$ %&. Minn. '(($). The following situations ma0 lead to
a remo3al of a trustee as identified b0 the ;ighth %ircuit 4ppellate .anel$
6#7 Trustee is incompetent or unwilling to perform the duties of a trusteeA
6*7 Trustee is not disinterested and holds an interest ad3erse to the estateA
6'7 Trustee 3iolates his fiduciar0 dut0 to the estateA
617 Trustee is guilt0 of misconduct in office or personal misconductA
6,7 Trustee caused actual injur0 or fraudA
6-7 Trustee has an appearance of impropriet0$
It i1 Fearin361 ontention t/at t/i1 tru1tee61 on+ut in /i1 /an+*in3 o< t/i1 a1e /a1
in one <or2 or anot/er 4rea/e+ a** o< t/e 1ituation1 a1 out*ine+ a4o;e <or au1e <or
re2o;a* o< a tru1tee$
%ase in .oint"
#$ The conduct of !r$ 2annacone right from the 3er0 beginning was confrontational and
,
demeaning toward Fearing and he further demonstrated that hostilit0 toward Fearing in
their phone con3ersation as well as at the %reditors !eeting which was witnessed$
*$ Such attitude toward the debtor 6shows disrespect, hostilit0, and contempt toward
Fearing7 and signals a much bigger problem, one that cant be conduci3e to a fair and
unbiased outcome for Fearing$ There appears to be an underl0ing moti3e b0 the trustee
to cause further harm to Fearing and to depri3e her of an0 >%onstitutional Due .rocess@$
'$ Mr. Iannaone i1 not a +otor. It i1 not /i1 po1ition to +eter2ine in a+;ane
t/at Fearin361 5ourna* i1 t/e ,ork o< a 1ik ,o2an in nee+ o< 2e+iation ,it/out
rea+in3 t/e +ou2entar! or ta*kin3 to ,itne11e1. That remar/ in itself spea/s 3olumes
as to this Trustees 3enomous attitude toward Fearing and e3en more disturbing is the
5uestion of 9:BC Fearing had ne3er met !r$ 2annacone, howe3er, he certainl0 seemed
to /now a whole lot about Fearing$ This was a tainted process from the 3er0 beginning
and Fearing belie3es that the >smo/ing gun@ has been found$
1$ The e3er changing stories as to how this trustee was assigned to this case suggests that
their was a behind the scenes manipulation of this case as in all of Fearings legal cases$
,$ This Trustee was told b0 Fearing that an0 re3enues or ro0alties generated from the
sales of >!arlenas Journal@ had alread0 been assigned to %harit0 in *((+, shortl0 after
the documentar0 was written$ Bet, Fearing is accused of not listing the =oo/ as an asset$
It61 not Fearin361 a11et to *i1t$ Furthermore, the mar/eting of the boo/ shortl0 after its
release had been immediatel0 sabotaged$ The website was hac/ed wee/l0 in an ob3ious
attempt to hide the contents of the boo/ and curtail sales b0 destruction of the website$
9ho had the most to lose b0 disclosure of !arlenas JournalD$$e3er0 corrupt participant
named in the documentar0$ To do that /ind of damage in curtailing mar/eting of a boo/
-
without a legal ban is the wor/ of criminals protecting criminals$
-$ Fearing was in attendance of man0 boo/ fairs to mar/et the boo/ and in particular a
:uman Rights %on3ention in 9ashington, D$ %$ in Februar0, *(#', which reported
hundreds of boo/s were sold, 0et there is no record of such sales$ 9ho has that /ind of
powerC %learl0, somebod0 doesDD The same people that were able to commit theft b0
fraud of Fearings assets as disclosed in !arlenas Journal$
)$ 2n this Trustees !otion to the %ourt, he as/s the court to disallow Fearing from
presenting an0 motions to the %ourt$ Therefore he is doing eEactl0 what Fearing has
alleged he is doing, den0ing Fearing her >Due .rocess Rights@$
+$ This Trustee indicated that he has made a finding of no pa0out of an0 assets, 0et he
fails to mention that there was another F),(,((( judgment against Fearing personall0 and
the corporate entit0 !$4$ Fearing, 2nc$ who was entitled to the remaining ' lots$ There is
no mention of what happened to the lots, or the F),(,((( illegall0 assessed to those lots
and who too/ illegal control of more of Fearings assets$ This is more theft b0 fraud of
Fearings propert0$ The beneficiaries are more of the same pla0ers identified in
>!arlenas Journal@$$ D Once again using a court s0stem for their corrupt endea3ors$
G$ There is a lot more to this case than being ac/nowledged b0 this Trustee and efforts to
hide the real truth which necessitated Fearings need to file for ban/ruptc0$
7. GRAND 5URY AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
STATUTORY AUT9ORITY
8enerall0, courts of general and special jurisdiction ha3e original jurisdiction o3er
most cases$ 64 =an/ruptc0 %ourt is a Special Jurisdiction %ourt7
Rule 6. The Grand Jury
SU!!O28 4 8R4D JURB
)
6#7 In General. )/en t/e pu4*i intere1t 1o re>uire1, t/e ourt 2u1t or+er t/at
one or 2ore 3ran+ =urie1 4e 1u22one+$
T/ere an 4e no 2ore 3reater pu4*i intere1t t/an a11urin3 t/at t/e
4ankrupt! proe11 i1 unorrupte+M
Ru*e #7 Speia* Pro1eutor

The majorit0 of the theft b0 fraud of Fearings propert0 was committed b0 a
ban/ruptc0 trustee as well as the debtor !ichael .$ 40mar, who filed ban/ruptc0 case
('?1--+*$ This underta/ing occurred in a =an/ruptc0 %ourt, therefore, incumbent upon
this court to summon an in3estigation in this matter$ 8i3en the se3erit0 of all allegations
6including the retaliator0, and conspirac0 to den0 rights7 which are federal offenses,
the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecutorial process can be determined at the
conclusion of the in3estigation$ The process of the theft is detailed in >!arlenas Journal@
6.ages #((?##*7 which includes the >=an/ruptc0 For .rofit@ report written b0 Robert
uis that outlines how !ichael 40mar accomplished his thie3er0 step b0 step with the
help of the =an/ruptc0 Trustee, =rian Heonard$
The actions of the local U$S$ Department of Justice 6reported in !arlenas
Journal7 depicting the outrageous conduct of Trustee =rian Heonard in his arbitraril0
confiscating two million dollars in assets belonging to Fearing without justification or
mandate to do so 6which included her home lea3ing Fearing homeless7$ 4nd 0et another
F,(,((($ in non?eEisting judgments assessed against Fearing without due process, b0
Judge O=rien, is clearl0 another complicit retaliator0 act against Fearing for reporting
!innesotas gender and racial discrimination to the 9ashington D$%$ =ureau, to which
the0 did find in Fearings fa3or that both general and racial discrimination had ta/en
+
place$ Fearing feels that conduct of the local U$S$ Justice Department is complicit in
retaliation against Fearing and clearl0 a disconnect and in conflict with the 9ashington
D$%$ =ureau of the U$S$ Department Justice and needs in3estigating$
Ca1e La,
Un+er "( U.S.C. Setion 7#", it i1 a ri2e to on1pire to +en! a *iti3ant t/eir J<ir1t
a2en+2ent ri3/t1 to petition t/e 3o;ern2ent <or re+re11 o< t/eir 3rie;ane1K Jt/e
<ourteent/ a2en+2ent ri3/t to +ue proe11K an+ t/e JFi<t/ A2en+2ent ri3/t to not
4e +epri;e+ o< *i<e, *i4ert! or propert! ,it/out +ue proe11 o< *a,K.
7#" MISPRISON OF FELONY
)/oe;er /a;in3 kno,*e+3e o< t/e atua* o22i11ion o< a <e*on! o3niFa4*e
4! a ourt o< t/e Unite+ State1, onea*1 an+ +oe1 not a1 1oon a1 po11i4*e 2ake
kno,n to t/e 1a2e to 1o2e =u+3e o< ot/er per1on in i;i* or 2i*itar! aut/orit! un+er
t/e Unite+ State1, 1/a** 4e <ine+ un+er t/i1 tit*e or i2pri1one+$
"( U.S.C. Setion 7#" 1tate1 in re*e;ant part:
CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIG9TS
JI< t,o or 2ore per1on on1pire to in=ure, oppre11, t/reaten, or inti2i+ate an!
per1on in an! State, Territor!, Co22on,ea*t/, Po11e11ion, or Di1trit in t/e <ree
eDeri1e or en=o!2ent o< an! ri3/t or pri;i*e3e 1eure+ to /i2 4! t/e Con1titution or
*a,1 o< t/e Unite+ State1, or 4eau1e o< /i1 /a;in3 1o eDeri1e+ t/e 1a2eK . . . JT/e!
1/a** 4e <ine+ un+er t/e tit*e or i2pri1one+ not 2ore t/an ten !ear1, or 4ot/K . . .
4t the federal le3el, %ongress has remo3ed the go3ernmentIs immunit0 for injuries
resulting from the negligent and, in some cases, intentional conduct of federal agencies,
federal officers, and other federal emplo0ees 6-( Stat$ +1* J*+ U$S$%$4$ & #'1-6b7, *-)1,
*-+(K7$
%. ANALYSIS
othing has changed since the printing of >!arlenas Journal in terms of an0
%onstitutional rights for Fearing, who is a natural born U$S$ %itiLen$ The same ongoing
retaliation and complicit0 to destro0 Fearings image, slander her character and to den0
her those rights b0 an0 means possible including judiciar0 in3ol3ement is well
G
established and ongoing$ 2t does 3er0 little for Fearing to file for a ban/ruptc0 discharge,
when its business as usual with ongoing bogus and fraudulent lawsuits initiated against
Fearing b0 the same indi3iduals that were defended b0 the league of %ities who were
represented b0 the 8reene ;Epel law firm, to solicit participation b0 the courts to
continue with unlawful proceeding and judgments against Fearing for blowing the
whistle on go3ernment corruption$
8ranting a %hapter ) discharge is onl0 putting a band aid on a 3er0 serious epidemic$
The epidemic of hatred and intolerance in discriminator0 practices is 3er0 much ali3e for
eEclusion of minorities to suburban >all white@ communities in !innesota$ The courts,
State and Federal including the ban/ruptc0 court were used to commit theft b0 fraud M of
Fearings assets in retaliation for her blowing the whistle on go3ernment corruption$
Fearin361 +ou2entar! ?Mar*ena61 5ourna*A *ear*! re;ea*1 1o2e ;er!
+i1tur4in3 <at1 an+ pattern1 t/at annot 4e i3nore+. The documentar0 was published
in *((+ and all mentioned law0ers, judges and trustees were gi3en a cop0 of the
documentar0 b0 Fearing in which an open in3itation for an0one to challenge those
allegations which are supported b0 court records, depositions, affida3its and statements
b0 third part0 witnesses$ Those challenges were answered with more theft of Fearings
assets, again with the aid of the courts$ The onl0 real answer to Fearings challenge was
the U$S$ Justice Department in 9ashington, D$%$ Their comments were >the0 did not
dispute an0 of the allegations because their Department did find both racial and gender
discrimination, but since judges were in3ol3ed, the0 lac/ed the authorit0 to prosecute
because judges ha3e immunit0@$ Since the Supreme %ourt ruling in !a0, *(#1,
!illbroo/ 3s$ United States, that is no longer the case$ The Mill*roo+ v. nited States
#(
case, whereb0 !illbroo/s due process rights were 3iolated and e3idence altered or
destro0ed b0 lower courts to den0 !illbroo/ his >Due .rocess@ rights is similar in nature
to what Fearing eEperienced$ The U$S$ Supreme %ourt confirmed and ruled on a 3er0
simple >no brainer@, ?No4o+! i1 a4o;e t/e La, in*u+in3 3o;ern2ent ator1@$ >4n0
actions that the0 ta/e not defined b0 their office or illegal b0 their nature ha3e been
outside of their office therefore done in their pri3ate capacit0 and therefore without an0
protection of their office$@
Fearing found no rules or jurisdictional mandates to e3en remotel0 appl0 to the well
eEecuted high?tech l0nching she recei3ed at the hands of local go3ernment officials,
which has forced her into po3ert0 and the need to file for ban/ruptc0$ 4fter *( 0ears of
in3estigating as to what transpired, it has all finall0 been pac/aged b0 Fearing to shed the
light on this corrupt conspiratorial underta/ing$
2n re3iewing the e3idence, Fearings ordeal began when she filed a discrimination
lawsuit against the %it0 :astings M Da/ota %ount0 and mo3ed up the Ri3er to Ha/e St$
%roiE =each M 9ashington %ount0 and the o22on +eno2inator in all of this was BT/e
Lea3ue o< Citie1, repre1ente+ 4! t/e Green E1pe* La,<ir2C whose one partner is none
other than the U$S$ 4ttorne0 for the !innesota District of the United States Department
of Justice$ The league of %ities represented b0 8reen ;spel had their dirt0 hands in e3er0
lawsuit that was initiated against Fearing 6e3en those cases that supposedl0 had nothing
to do with representing the %it07$ !ost often the0 hid themsel3es in the bac/ground and
brought in an attorne0, Jon Ningstad of Ha/e ;lmo 6same town as Trustee !r$ 2annacone7
to handle the litigation$ !r$ Ningstad had no mandate or jurisdictional standing to initiate
an0 of the litigation, 0et he was awarded attorne0 fees 6paid for with theft of Fearings
##
propert07 b0 State and Federal %ourts including the =an/ruptc0 %ourt$
The stratedg0 used b0 legal counsel in all of these lawsuits against Fearing was to
pre3ent her from submitting e3idence to the court b0 either destruction of the e3idence or
flat out refusing to allow Fearing to present e3idence or b0 no notice to her of an0 court
proceedings$ 2ronicall0, we ha3e this same re5uest b0 this trustee, !r$ 2annacone to den0
Fearing the right to >Due .rocess@$ This was true in Da/ota %ount0 District %ourt,
9ashington %ount0 District %ourt, Federal %ourt before Judge ;ric/son in two separate
lawsuits, and ban/ruptc0 court before Judge O=rien$ The same Opla0 boo/ was used to
achie3e illegal judgments against Fearing, in which the0 committed their theft b0 fraud$
9ho paid for all of these bogus lawsuits with no jurisdiction or mandate to initiateC
Fearing did with proceeds from the theft of her assets which included her home, lea3ing
her homeless$ 4nd now we are to belie3e that all details of Fearings ordeal written in
!arlenas Journal, which was e3idenced b0 affida3its of witnesses is one big fair0 taleC

#. CONCLUSION
8i3en the abo3e stated facts, Fearing feels it is incumbent upon this court toA
4$ 8rant Fearing her right to due process b0 issuing an order for change in trustee andA
=$ Summon a Federal 8rand Jur0 or Special .rosecutor to in3estigate the
allegations outlined in >!arlenas Journal@ and her need to file for ban/ruptc0 protection$
These are federal crimes and gi3en the egregious nature of these crimes an in3estigation
is necessar0$
Dated" October ##, *(#1
Respectfull0 submitted b0"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
!arlene Fearing, Debtor
#*