Tworog v. Burke

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:23-cv-00140-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/24 Page 1of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

)
JOHN JOSEPH TWOROG, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 23-140-JJM
)
WILLIAM BURKE, )
Defendant. )
)
ORDER

Debtor John Joseph Tworog, a former lawyer and current pro se litigant, has
actively engaged several courts with various litigation—mostly stemming from his
divorce—over the last dozen years. Mr. Tworog’s divorce proceedings spanned over
twelve years and spawned four separate appeals to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
During that same time, Mr. Tworog has filed five separate bankruptcy cases! in which
he has included a claim against his ex-wife’s divorce lawyer, William Burke.? Each
bankruptcy filing resulted in the imposition of an automatic stay of his state court
divorce proceedings. Additionally, Mr. Tworog sought to bring adversarial claims
against the Rhode Island Supreme Court Chief Justice, and against Mr. Burke’s

attorney in this case.

1 Mr. Tworog filed for bankruptcy in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2018, and 2020.
The Bankruptcy Court notes that the prior bankruptcy proceedings “were skeleton
cases that were dismissed for failure to file required documents.” ECF No. 1-3 at 2.

2 Defendant William Burke’s attorney recently filed a suggestion of Mr. Burke’s

death.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:23-cv-00140-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/24 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

After litigating his fifth bankruptcy case for almost three years whose
disposition resulted in many decisions and orders, Mr. Tworog appeals the Final
Judgment of the Bankruptcy Court’ to this Court. Before the Court is Mr. Burke’s
Motion for Summary Affirmance, or to Dismiss Appeal, or to Strike Appellant’s Brief.
ECF No. 11.

I, STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing an appeal from a bankruptcy court final judgment, this Court
employs “the same familiar standards of review normally employed in direct appeals
to the courts of appeals in civil cases generally. The district court accepts all
bankruptcy court findings of fact unless ‘clearly erroneous, but reviews rulings of law
de novo.” Jn re LaRoche, 969 F.2d 1299, 1801 (1st Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 8013). The court “independently reviews the bankruptcy court’s decision, applying
the clearly erroneous standard to findings of fact and de novo review to conclusions
of law.” Jn re LaRoche, 969 F.2d at 1801 (quoting Jn re G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d 1467,
1474 (1st Cir. 1991)). Thus, just as the First Circuit would if it reviewed this appeal,

this Court will “focus on the bankruptcy court’s decision, scrutinize that court’s

3 Mr. Tworog states that he is appealing: (1) Decision and Order by Judge
Finkle dated May 14, 2021; (2) Decision on 2018 Stay Violation Claim dated
February 24, 2023; (3) All Orders on Amended Motion to Join Christopher Lefebvre
as Defendant the final Order on February 24, 2023; (4) Decision and Order on Motion
to Reopen Case to Amend Schedules and to Reconsider Order dated January 20, 2023;
(5) All Decisions and Orders Denying Motions to Join Paul Suttell as defendant; (6)
Order entered on December 21, 2021; (7) Order entered on April 7, 2022; (8) Order on
Motion to Enter Re-Proposed Amended Adversary Complaint including all denials of
Count X and Count Y, last entered on February 24, 2023; and (9) Final Judgment
entered on February 24, 2023. ECF No. 14 at 4.

Case 1:23-cv-00140-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/24 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

findings of fact for clear error, and afford de novo review to its conclusions of law.” Jn
re Healthco Int'l, Inc. 132 F.3d 104, 107 (1st Cir. 1997).
II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Tworog’s Brief in Support of his Appeal violates Rule 8014 of the Fed. R.
Bank. P. in many ways, making it almost impossible for the Court to evaluate his
claims under the applicable standard of review. Specifically, it fails to contain “(5) a
statement of the issues presented, and for each one, a concise statement of the
applicable standard of appellate review” and “(7) a summary of the argument which
must contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the
body of the brief, and which must not merely repeat the argument headings.” Not
only does he not lodge his appeal based on substance, but also the basis for his “issues”
consists of ad hominem attacks‘ against people involved in this needlessly long-run
saga, many of whom gave him multiple chances, their time, and due process in
bringing his many claims.

But, considering Mr. Tworog’s pro se status, the Court will try to understand
his issues so that it can resolve Mr. Burke’s motion. Mr. Tworog seemingly identifies
six issues: (1) his stay violation claim; (2) the state Family Court and Rhode Island

Supreme Court’s alleged violation of the automatic stay; (3) his desire to add a claim

4 For example, Mr. Tworog calls the Family Court judge who presided over his
divorce proceedings a “renegade judge” who is “truly a demented person.” ECF No. 9
at 1,2. He alleges that Mr. Burke “fully participated in the illegal hearing.” Jd. at 2.
He wants to sue the Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court personally
“because by his decision he caused the infliction of emotional distress on” him. Jd.
at 4. He also alleges that the parties and their attorneys “went into full perjury mode”
and forged signatures. /d. at 5, 6.

Case 1:23-cv-00140-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/24 Page 4of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

against the Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court; (4) the Bankruptcy
Judge’s alleged “fraud and judicial misconduct”; (5) allegations that his ex-wife’s
lawyer, William Burke, engaged in criminal activity; and (6) that Mr. Burke’s lawyer
in this case acted unethically. ECF No. 9. He does not, however, identify the facts
that the Bankruptcy Judge found that he alleges are clearly erroneous nor does he
challenge specific legal rulings for this Court’s de novo review.

After a thorough review of all the papers, as well as the Bankruptcy Judge’s
Decisions and Orders, the Court has concluded, consistent with its standard of
review, that the Bankruptcy Court made no clear error in determining the facts and
made no errors in its conclusions of law.

1. The 2013 Stay Violation Claim (Issues 1 & 2)

Mr. Tworog alleges that the Bankruptcy Court erred in denying his claim about
the actions of the Rhode Island Family Court and the Rhode Island Supreme Court
considering the bankruptcy statute’s automatic stay. He asks this Court to (1) “find
that Mr. Tworog’s claim on his Schedule A/B is not “clearly inconsistent” with his
2013 Stay Violation Claim against Mr. Burke and the AP-20-1008 be amended to
include that claim” (ECF No. 9 at 3); and (2) “that this Court hold that his 2016
Appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court is still pending and that body vacate its
judgment and substitute the judgment that [the Family Court judges’] orders from
the August 2018 hearing are null and void.” Jd. at 3-4.

Mr. Tworog’s brief fails to lay out the facts underlying these issues so the Court

cannot evaluate whether the Bankruptcy Court’s findings were clearly erroneous, but

Case 1:23-cv-00140-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/24 Page5of 7 PagelD #:

<pagelD>

the Bankruptcy Court correctly found as a matter of law that Mr. Tworog lacked

standing to raise these claims and judicial estoppel prohibited him from pursing the

claims in an adversarial proceeding. ECF No. 1-3 at 8-12. The Bankruptcy Judge

also correctly pointed out that Mr. Tworog was trying to “nullify the Family Court’s

award of attorneys’ fees” in violation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Jd. at 15-16.

A review of that decision shows no error of law.

2. Motion to Add Supreme Court Chief Justice to the adversarial proceeding
(Issue 3)

Mr. Tworog sought leave to add the Chief Justice of the Rhode Island Supreme
Court as a defendant to his adversarial proceeding claiming that the chief justice
allowed a hearing to take place in violation of the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy
Court correctly denied the motion first because it was untimely and prejudicial, and
secondly because it would be futile considering the chief judge’s judicial immunity for
his judicial acts made within his jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-5. A review of that decision
shows no error.

3. 2018 Stay Violation (Issue 4)

Mr. Tworog alleges that Mr. Burke violated the 2018 automatic stay that
went into effect when he filed his fifth bankruptcy petition days before the Rhode
Island Supreme Court heard arguments in his divorce proceedings. ECF No. 9 at 4-
6. The Bankruptcy Court held a trial on this claim, took evidence, and then issued a
decision granting judgment to Mr. Burke. ECF No. 1-7. The Court applied the right
law, made findings of credibility, and concluded as a matter of law that “Mr. Burke

did not violate the automatic stay.” /d. at 12. A review of the entire record shows

Case 1:23-cv-00140-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/24 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

that there was no clear error in the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact, and that she
correctly stated and applied all proper laws.
4, Claims against Mr. Burke and his Attorney (Issues 5 and 6)

Mr. Tworog looks to add claims against Mr. Burke claiming he is “guilty of
vicarious liability for allowing criminal activity for someone who works for him.”
(ECF No. 9 at 7), and that “someone” is Mr. Burke’s attorney. The Bankruptcy Court
found that Mr. Tworog’s attempt to amend the complaint and add these claims was
futile, and that he “cannot meet the conditions mandated by Rule 15(b)(2).”. ECF
No. 1-8 at 5. A review of that decision shows no error.

III. | CONCLUSION

Mr. Tworog has failed to show that the Bankruptcy Court incorrectly stated or
applied the law, and he did not show that she was clearly wrong in any of her factual
findings. In fact, the Court observes that the Bankruptcy Court was thoughtful,
thorough, and extremely patient with Mr. Tworog through his five bankruptcy filings
and many motions to amend and reconsider. A review of the entire record uncovers
no error of law or fact. Thus, the Court GRANTS Mr. Burke’s Motion to Dismiss this

bankruptcy appeal. Judgment is entered for the Defendant.

Case 1:23-cv-00140-JJM Document19 _ Filed 01/23/24
<pagelD>

ITIS SO ORDERED. f

i /

John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

January 23, 2024

Page 7 of 7 PagelD #: