The Mike Postle saga marches on. In the latest developments regarding the involuntary-bankruptcy proceedings he faces, attorneys for Veronica Brill and Todd Witteles today filed formal oppositions to Postle’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings.
In parallel filings, Witteles’s counsel, Eric Bensamochan, and Brill’s attorney, Marc J. Randazza, assailed the dismissal motion Postle filed earlier this month. Both attorneys took Postle to task for avoiding the actual matter of the legal fees still owed to Witteles and Brill.
Postle’s motion to dismiss the involuntary-bankruptcy proceedings was largely several pages of personal attacks targeting Brill and her attorney, Randazza. All but ignored by comparison was the matter at hand — Postle’s failure to date to pay the combined $55,000 he owes to Brill and Witteles.
Randazza declares Postle ‘wrong on the facts and the law’
Randazza wasted no time in shredding Postle’s attempt to dismiss the case and stall ongoing collection efforts. “[The motion],” wrote Randazza, “is nothing more than a bizarre screed written by someone with a personal grudge against Attorney Randazza.
“If Mr. Postle wishes to make it all about Attorney Randazza,” Randazza continued, “so that he misses the point as to the law and the relevant facts, it seems almost illogical to bring this to his attention. Nevertheless, here we are.”
Randazza again noted for the record that Postle’s personal fixation on him denied the fact of the involuntary-bankruptcy filing. That effort was spearheaded by Witteles’ counsel, Bensamochan, who is a California bankruptcy attorney by specialty. Randazza signed onto the filing on Brill’s behalf but Bensamochan leads the collection efforts against Postle. Randazza stated that “Bensamochan [has] more bankruptcy law knowledge in his sleep than Mr. Randazza will ever have on his sharpest day.”
Postle’s ‘bad faith’ argument declared false
Another of the arguments Postle floated was that the involuntary-bankruptcy filing against him was made in “bad faith”, due to the enmity between he and Randazza. Both Randazza and Bensamochan addressed that claim in their respective filings, and both abused the notion.
Bensamochan took pains to clarify that Postle made no such bad-faith claims toward he and his client, Witteles. It’s a critical flaw in Postle’s argument, since Witteles and Brill were granted virtually identical financial judgments on matching anti-SLAPP motions against Postle.
Bensamochan wrote, “The entirety of the bad faith argument in the Motion to Dismiss is premised on the Debtor’s history with Mr. Randazza. Todd Witteles is a petitioning creditor and is not affiliated in any way with Mr. Randazza.” Bensamochan later pointed out, “The Motion to Dismiss makes no allegations of bad faith on the part of Mr. Witteles and quite frankly, there is no basis for said allegations against attorney Randazza as well.”
Witteles’s attorney also added, “The alleged debtor improperly attempts to re-litigate issues that have already been disposed of, and have clearly become the basis for a vendetta against Ms. Brill and her counsel.”
The twin filings come two weeks before the next hearing in the case. Postle’s involuntary-bankruptcy matter will be heard before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Klein. The hearing is scheduled for 10 am on Tuesday, October 13.
Featured image source: Twitter