Elsaesser v. Ioane et al

1 Ioane appears pro se, representing himself without the assistance of counsel. Generally
speaking, federal courts make reasonable allowances for pro se parties and construe their papers
and pleadings liberally. See, e.g., Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 190 B.R. 875, 883 (9th Cir.
BAP 1995). There are, however, limits to this proposition, and it has been held that the pro se
civil litigant is not necessarily entitled to the liberality afforded to pro se prisoner litigants.
Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986); accord McNeil v. United States, 508
(continued...)
SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
IN RE 	)
)
GERALD LINDSEY and 	) 	Case No. 03-21652-TLM
ONA LINDSEY, 	)
) 	SUMMARY ORDER
Debtors. 	) 	RE: IOANE FILINGS
________________________________ 	)
)
)
J. FORD ELSAESSER, Trustee, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 04-6098-TLM
)
MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE, et al, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
________________________________ 	)
A “housekeeping” order is once again required in this adversary
proceeding.
On July 30, 2004, the Court entered an Order instructing Defendant
Michael Ioane1 that he was responsible for serving his own pleadings and
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 8

1(...continued)
U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (acknowledging requirement of liberal construction of pleadings filed by
pro se defendants in criminal matters but noting it has “never suggested that procedural rules in
ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel”); see also In re Stober, 193 B.R. 5, 9 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996). Ultimately such
litigants, having elected to proceed without counsel, are obligated to comply with applicable
Rules and any orders of the court. Further, there is no doubt that the Court retains the power to
control the litigation before it. See § 105(a); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1001, 7016. Ioane’s status as a
pro se litigant presents no impediment to the instant Order.
SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 2
documents, that the clerk’s office would not serve them for him, and that should he
submit any further documents to the clerk with instructions to effect service, those
documents would be summarily destroyed. See Doc. No. 189. The Order also
warned Mr. Ioane that his practice of marking pleadings served on him as
“accepted [and] returned for value” and returning them to the clerk served no
purpose and “place[d] an intolerable and entirely unnecessary burden upon the
Court and clerk staff and needlessly increase[d] and complicate[d] the record[.]”
Doc. No. 189 at 3. The Court noted that it would not allow the process to
continue.
From the time the Court entered its previous Order in July 2004 until June
2005, Ioane has, for the most part, complied with the Court’s Order. However, in
June, 2005, the clerk was once again inundated by Ioane’s duplicate pleadings and
documents and requests for service by the clerk. These submissions violate the
Court’s previous Order and are dealt with herein.
(1) June 3, 2005 Submissions
On June 3, 2005 the clerk received from Ioane a memo dated May 31, 2005
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 8

2 It has long been a standard practice that, when pleadings are received along with a
“cover letter” requesting their filing (now a rare occurrence given electronic filing), the letter is
not made part of the record and is discarded by the clerk. Thus, disposition of Ioane’s memo is
not at all extraordinary.
3 Furthermore, if Ioane’s “acceptance” theory has any validity at all, something he
certainly has not shown and the Court seriously doubts, it appears that Ioane has already made his
point. Making the same notation on each and every page of the several hundred pleadings filed in
this case has no apparent utility.
SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 3
attaching approximately 30 pleadings previously filed in this adversary
proceeding, each containing a handwritten notation that the same had been
accepted and returned for value. See Attach. 1. The memo to the clerk was not a
pleading, and the Court has instructed the clerk to discard the memo2 and all
attached duplicate pleadings.
As noted in the Court’s previous Order, Doc. No. 189, if Ioane wishes to
continue with his seemingly pointless exercise of announcing his acceptance and
return of pleadings and papers served on him, he may do so through his own
pleading without attaching already filed pleadings. His current process would
guarantee virtually every pleading in the case would be filed twice, and it is an
unacceptable as well as unnecessary practice. The Court has and will continue to
discard all duplicate pleadings submitted for the purpose of “acceptance and
return.” 3
In addition, Ioane suggests in this June 3 memo the clerk “may also wish to
make copies for other interested parties.” See Attach. 1. As noted in the previous
Order, Doc. No. 189, the clerk’s office does not effect service for litigants, nor
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 8

4 The third memo, attach. 4, varies somewhat from the others in that it directs the clerk to
(continued...)
SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 4
does it copy pleadings to be served on litigants or provide other secretarial services
to litigants. Thus, no copies of Ioane’s June 3, 2005 submissions were or will be
made or provided to any party.
Any similar communications received by the clerk in the future will be
destroyed, as stated in the Court’s previous Order. See Doc. No. 189.
(2) June 13, 2005 Submissions
On June 13, 2005, the clerk received three memos from Ioane all dated June
9, 2005. See Attachs. 2, 3, 4. Initially, the Court notes that all three memos
contain a “note” stating “Ford Elsaesser is the accepted and appointed Fiduciary
for MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE, please send him copies and make sure all
Defendants get copies.” As stated above and in the Court’s previous Order, it is
not the clerk’s function or role to effect service for Ioane. Neither the three memos
nor their numerous attachments have been or will be copied or served by the clerk
on any party to this adversary proceeding.
With these three memos, approximately 180 duplicate pleadings were
submitted to the clerk. They were, in large part, merely stamped with Mr. Ioane’s
form “accepted for value” and “returned for value” language. See, e.g., Attach. 2.
These pleadings, like those discussed above, have been discarded by the clerk at
the Court’s instruction. 4 They serve no function other than to clutter an already
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 8

4(...continued)
give a number of documents Ioane feels he “does not need” to his “fiduciary” the Plaintiff
Trustee. Just as the clerk need not and will not effect service for Ioane, the clerk will not act as
Ioane’s courier and deliver documents. However, as several documents appear to be something
other than prior pleadings in this case, the clerk will maintain those documents that do not appear
to be duplicate pleadings for a period of fifteen (15) days in the event the Trustee or his counsel
(or other parties) wish to review them. As Ioane has not submitted these documents through
proper pleadings, nor indicated in any fashion a desire to have these documents become part of
the record, at the conclusion of fifteen days, the clerk will discard these documents.
5 While part of the record, if Ioane expects the Court to act on the basis of any of these
“notices,” he will need to set the same for hearing upon proper notice and service to all parties.
SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 5
large case file. Ioane has clearly expressed his position regarding “acceptance and
return for value” and additional copies of existing pleadings with such notation
need not and will not be made part of the record.
(3) June 15, 2005 Submissions – Doc. Nos. 482-487
On June 15, 2005, the clerk received several pleadings from Ioane and pro
se Defendant Glen Halliday. These pleadings are captioned as “notices” and
appear to be originals. Thus they were docketed and made part of the record.5
Several of these pleadings, however, attached copies of previous Court Orders,
now of course bearing Ioane’s stamped or handwritten notation regarding
acceptance and return. These duplicate pleadings, with the exception of the first
page which is retained for reference, have been discarded.
(4) June 1, 2005 Submission – Doc. No. 473
Finally, the clerk received and docketed a “Notice of Non-Interest by
Michael Scot Ioane and Glen Halliday and Request to Cease Communication[.]”
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 8

6 Oddly, this pleading asking that communications cease was filed simultaneously with
Doc. No. 472, Ioane’s “notice of address correction” for mailings to him and Halliday.
7 The Court has previously and repeatedly ruled that Ioane and Halliday are before the
Court solely in their individual capacities, and that their attempts to appear for or on behalf of
other Defendants were improper and would not be allowed. See, e.g., Doc. No. 488; Doc. No.
189 at 4-5.
SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 6
Doc. No. 473.6 This notice and request states that “No issue or controversy exists
before this court regarding MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE AND GLEN HALLIDAY,
in their individual capacity.”7 It further asserts that Ioane and Halliday, “in their
individual capacities are fictions and/or artificial entities[.]” In addition, the
document requests the parties and Court “[p]lease stop referring to MICHAEL
SCOTT IOANE and GLEN HALLIDAY as if they were natural human beings,
which they are not.” It asks that the case be “closed” as to them.
While this notice, Doc. No. 473, might be read as a request to dismiss
(“close”) the adversary proceeding as against Ioane and Halliday, the Court
declines to do so. Not only have these Defendants failed to set the request for
hearing, they have presented nothing more than an inartfully crafted allegation that
might be “liberally” read as a motion to dismiss. Further, contrary to their
allegation that they are not properly part of the suit in their individual capacities
and that they have no interest in the matter, they are named parties in this
adversary proceeding, were served, and have previously filed answers with this
Court.
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 8

SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 7
No action will be taken on this or any of the other notices in their present
form. Further, Ioane and Halliday will continue to receive service of all relevant
pleadings from the parties and the Court as applicable Rules require.
DATED: June 20, 2005
TERRY L. MYERS
CHIEF U. S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 8

SUMMARY ORDER RE: IOANE FILINGS - 8
CERTIFICATE RE: SERVICE
A “notice of entry” of this Decision, Order and/or Judgment has been
served on Registered Participants as reflected by the Notice of Electronic Filing.
A copy of the Decision, Order and/or Judgment has also been provided to non-
registered participants by first class mail addressed to:
Michael S. Ioane
1735 East Bayshore Road, Suite 3A404
Redwood City, CA 	94063
Glen Halliday
1735 East Bayshore Road, Suite 3A404
Redwood City, CA 	94063
Case No. 04-6098 (Elsaesser v. Ioane)
Dated: 	June 20, 2005
/s/Jo Ann B. Canderan
Judicial Assistant to Chief Judge Myers
Case 04-06098-TLM Doc 490 Filed 06/20/05 Entered 06/20/05 13:56:02 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 8