PD, the part of the Foster/Humphries law suit that you provided a link to does not identify any account that could be linked to the
listing of the Foster bank accounts in the "Schedules" part of the Foster Bankruptcy that you also provided a link to. Of
course, if you had provided a link that included the exibits, that would have helped. Without a full review of the Foster/Humphries
law suit, or the bankruptcy filing that the "Schedules" (you provided a link to) belong to, it is really not possible to find any
account link. For all that can be seen with the two links that you provided, it doesn't confirm anything.
PD, you leave too many questions to be answered.
Was the bank account specifically mentioned in the "exhibits" part of the law suit? Unless that is the case, then you are only
conjecturing that it was intentionally omitted from the Bankruptcy filing. For all we know, it could have been closed by
the time the bankruptcy "Schedules" were filed. Or it is listed in the Bankruptcy filing but not specifically as the account that
was used by Humphries to harm Foster. Or it could be an account in Humphries name, for which Foster has no control, in which
case, Foster is correct in not including it with his Bankruptcy filing.
Is this bankruptcy a continuation of the 2006 bankruptcy proceedings? Without the Petition that goes with these "Schedules",
it is not possible to tell from the links you provided. It is my understanding in reviewing the law on bankruptcy a set of schedules
like these are required only at the initial filing of the Bankruptcy. Once the petition has been accepted by the court, then the schedules
do not have to be redone. If the bankruptcy is a continuation, the only reason that the debtor may need to resubmit a set of schedules
is if there is a substantive change to the condition of the person filing the petition for bankruptcy. A substantive change is something
like the death of either one or both of the petitioners, a sudden income windfall that allows the petitioners to emerge from bankruptcy,
or loss of the ability to pay by loss of employment or loss of income producing property by virtue of seizure of such property by a
government agency.
PD, with all the additional questions that can be raised, all you have accomplished is just muddying up the picture here. Of course,
if your intention is to muddy up the picture, then you have done a good job.
Isn't it time you stopped all the insinuation and conjecture? If you can really prove some kind of illegal complicity, then do so.
If not, do something better with your life. Or not. It is your choice.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
