Originally Posted by Karen Kline in her Statement of the Case

March 8, 2006, because of my disability and trauma from lack of notice of judgment and sale I did not fully understand hearing. I showed my confusion by thanking Judge Vigil for saying he was glad I made it, 10:11:06. Thanks under the painfully short notice showed lack of normal mental clarity, as my stammering showed my disability.

I knew I needed my bankruptcy to protect my property because I had experienced that in 1997, but the oppressive combination of little and no notice confused me and I withdrew my motion to reopen so it wouldn’t conflict with the state court, which was confused since I also knew I needed it to protect me from the state court.

When I couldn’t remember what happened I wanted the CD transcribed, but the CD picked up by Agnes Samora of Adult Protective Services, March 13, 2006 [RP 439], was Ftr and didn’t work on the CD player where it was to be made into a tape, so I couldn’t see what had happened.

What Leverick had said was way too fast for me to follow at the time.

To comprehend it now I had to listen many times, and I stopped counting at fifteen.

At the time I could not understand how the Sale was confirmed despite violation of stay. Now I know Leverick falsely said at 10:22:32 that Complaint was filed March 5, 2005; in fact Complaint for Foreclosure was filed March 9, 2005 [RP 1]; I now know that at 10:22:40 he falsely said “We got notification through the bankruptcy center that the Chapter 13 had been filed on March 23rd 2005 which was after the date we had served her with the Amended Complaint”, in fact my Chapter 13 which was filed on March 21, 2005, as shown by Exhibit 1 referenced on p. 1 of my “Correction to Objection to Approval of Sale and Foreclosure Judgment” [RP 223]; in fact I and other defendants were served amended complaint on March 29, 2005 [RP 64, 66, 68, 70] in violation of the automatic stay.

I could not understand how the sale was confirmed despite violation of Rule 1-005 NMRA requiring every pleading subsequent to original complaint be served on each party unless they are in default for failure to appear. I was not in default on March 29, 2005 when Amended Complaint was served in violation of stay [RP 64, 66, 68, 70].

At 10:22:53 Leverick speciously said, “However under Rules 1-005 subparagraph (A) we’re not required to serve her with the Amended Complaint ah if we don’t seek new or additional claims against her. Specifically it says, ‘No service need be made on parties in default for failure to appear except pleadings that assert new or additional claims for relief.’ The Amended Complaint was only brought before the court to add the additional parties to deal with their claims and their interest in the property. It did not assert a new or additional claim against Ms. Kline and therefore, and this has been the practice of this law firm for a long period of time, we were not required to serve her with any supplemental pleadings in the case.”

By law I had 30 days to answer from service of the Complaint on March 18, 2005 [RP 62], so I was not in default on March 29, 2005 [RP 66] when the Amended Complaint was served on me and additional parties in violation of the automatic stay; and, because the Amended Complaint was served in violation of the automatic stay it did not bring before the court the additional parties.

I could not understand how the sale was confirmed despite fact I had wired money to reinstate 10:17:25, wire instructions attached at [RP 440], despite explaining at 10:17:54 my attempt to deposit $128,250; and despite explaining at 10:18:51 that the condo association’s liens exceeded what is authorized by the Condominium Act.

I got sick on the way home and was sick for hours.

That night I realized what the hearing was, why I needed the bankruptcy court, and why Green had Hope keep calling me to be sure I came, so I wouldn’t lose my rights, he said, according to Hope.

In reality he needed me for an illusion of due process. That was why Judge Vigil was glad to see me.