Marie Acree

<gyRUPI Cp o

% oo

o/ ie Ne

IT IS ORDERED as set forth below: ey

Cy OlsTRICT ao

Date: February 20, 2025 leas □

Wad fry

LisaRitchey Craig

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

IN RE: CASE NO. 23-53135-lre

Consolidated with

MARIE ACREE Case No. 23-56269-Irc

Case No. 23-59531-lre

ee eesen □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ No, 24-50310-Ire _

MARY IDA TOWNSON,

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, CHAPTER 13

MOVANT

Vv.

CONTESTED MATTER

EMANUEL D. CLARK,

CHARLES FREEMAN JR.,

PATRICK D. IVERSON, and

JACQUELYN DUFFY,

RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Claudia Marie Acree, who resided at 3060 Bobolink Drive in Rex,

Georgia, passed away on January 19, 2022. During 2023 and 2024, four

bankruptcy petitions were filed naming Marie Acree as the debtor,

listing her address as 3060 Bobolink Drive (“Bobolink Drive Property”),

and bearing what purported to be her original signature: Case

Numbers 23-53135 (“Acree I”); 23-56269 (“Acree II”); 23-59531 (“Acree

III”); and 24-50310 (“Acree IV”) (collectively, the “Acree Petitions”). The

Acree Petitions were presented to the Clerk of Court, United States

Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia (“Clerk”), by Charles

Freeman (Acree I), Patrick Iverson (Acree II and Acree IV), and

Jacquelyn Duffy (Acree III). The filing of the Acree Petitions halted

foreclosure of the Bobolink Drive Property.1 Public records show that

Emanuel Clark, through his company EBA Capital Inc., was the

primary beneficiary of a fraudulent post-mortem deed purporting to

grant ownership of the Bobolink Drive Property.

On March 31, 2024, the United States Trustee filed her Motion for

Sanctions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011

1 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) filed a motion for in rem relief from the automatic

stay. (Acree III, Dkt. 13). In its stay relief motion, Wells Fargo reported that, in 2017,

Claudia Marie Acree executed a note in favor of Wells Fargo, secured by the Bobolink Drive

Property and that Ms. Acree passed away on January 19, 2022, per Georgia death records.

Wells Fargo further reported that someone claiming to be Claudia Marie Acree had

executed a quitclaim deed on April 26, 2022—three months after Ms. Acree’s reported

death—attempting to transfer the Bobolink Drive Property to EBA Capital, Inc. Wells

Fargo attached copies of the death record and the quitclaim deed to its in rem stay relief

motion, as Exhibits C and D. The Court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for in rem relief by

order entered November 13, 2023. (Acree III, Dkt. 20).

(“Sanctions Motion”) against Emanuel Clark (“Clark”), Charles

Freeman Jr. (“Freeman”), Patrick D. Iverson (“Iverson”), and Jacquelyn

Duffy (“Duffy”) (collectively, “Respondents”).2 (Acree I, Dkt. 26). The

United States Trustee asserts that Respondents are subject to sanctions

under Rule 9011 for presenting to the Court four forged petitions in the

name of Marie Acree, a deceased individual, to initiate a stay that

hindered and delayed a creditor’s legitimate exercise of its rights in real

property and to perpetuate a scheme to improperly obtain possession or

ownership of the Bobolink Property.

The Sanctions Motion also chronicles Respondents’ abusive and

fraudulent conduct in and in connection with other bankruptcy cases,

including preparing and recording forged deeds and filing forged

bankruptcy petitions for other deceased individuals, such as Robert L.

Johnson, Steven E. Weinstein, Edward Newsome, Brace C. Pinney, and

Joseph Marchman. Emanuel Clark and Charles Freeman also engaged

in serial filing of abusive petitions for themselves.

2 The United States Trustee is an official of the Department of Justice appointed by the

Attorney General to supervise the administration of bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. §§ 581 –

589. United States Trustees “serve as bankruptcy watch-dogs to prevent fraud, dishonesty,

and overreaching in the bankruptcy arena.” H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, at 88 (1977), reprinted in

1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6049. The United States Trustee may raise, and may appear and

be heard on, any issue in any bankruptcy case. 11 U.S.C. § 307.

On April 1, 2024, counsel for the United States Trustee served the

Sanctions Motion on Respondents and filed a certificate of service.

(Acree I, Dkt. 27). The certificate of service and exhibits presented

during the evidentiary hearing show the United States Trustee served

Respondents at addresses listed on identification documents they

presented to the Clerk’s office.3 The Court concludes that service of the

Sanctions Motion complied with the requirements of Rule 7004(b).

On June 17, 2024, the Court entered an Order and Notice of

Evidentiary Hearing on the Sanctions Motion (“Hearing Notice”).

(Acree I, Dkt. 33). On June 19, 2024, the Bankruptcy Noticing Center

served the Hearing Notice on Respondents. (Acree I, Dkt. 34) The

Court scheduled the in-person evidentiary hearing for July 31, 2024

(“Evidentiary Hearing”). Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, the parties

were required to file and serve their exhibit lists and witness lists by

July 12. The United States Trustee timely filed and served her List of

3 Where (1) an individual’s driver’s license is not expired; (2) state law requires a driver’s

license application to be sworn out under oath; and (3) state law imposes a continuing

obligation to notify the DMV of an address change and obtain an updated license—the

address listed on an individual’s driver’s license presumptively “qualifies as a ‘dwelling

house or usual place of abode’ for establishing that proper service was accomplished

pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b).” Garcia v. Cantu (In re Cantu), 363 B.R. 503, 511–13

(Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2006). Georgia law contains provisions similar to the Texas provisions

discussed by the Court in Cantu. See O.C.G.A. § 40-50-3 (requiring license holders in

Georgia who move from the address stated on their licenses to apply for an updated license

within sixty days). The identification documents presented by Clark, Freeman, Duffy, and

Iverson were not expired at time of service. (UST Exhibits 44-47).

Exhibits and List of Witnesses. (Acree I, Dkts. 37 and 38). None of the

Respondents filed a list of exhibits or a list of witnesses.

The Court conducted the Evidentiary Hearing on July 31, 2024.

None of the Respondents filed a response and none appeared at the

Evidentiary Hearing, personally or through counsel or other

representative. Adriano Iqbal, Esq., appeared on behalf of the United

States Trustee. Deborah Jackson, an Auditor for the United States

Trustee Program, provided credible and persuasive sworn testimony in

support of the allegations set forth in the Sanctions Motion. The United

States Trustee presented 49 exhibits, all of which were admitted

without objection and were reviewed and considered by the Court in

rendering its ruling.4 The Court took judicial notice of the Court’s

dockets and the content of documents filed in bankruptcy cases for the

purpose of ascertaining the timing and status of events in the case and

facts not reasonably in dispute. In re Ferguson, 376 B.R. 109, 113 n.4

4 The Court admitted 49 exhibits offered into evidence by the United States Trustee:

pleadings filed in this Court (UST Exhibits 1-17); selected quitclaim deeds and PT-61 tax

forms obtained from county real property records (UST Exhibits 18-34); death records

obtained from the Georgia Office of Vital Records (UST Exhibits 35-40); business records

obtained from the Corporations Divisions of the Office of the Georgia Secretary of State

(UST Exhibits 41-43); identification materials Respondents submitted to the Clerk; (UST

Exhibits 44–47); a Summary Chart of Relevant Cases capturing certain key data points—

including filing date, debtor’s residence, social security number, and case progress—for

each of the sixty cases discussed in the Sanctions Motion, as well as for three related cases

filed after the Sanctions Motion was filed (UST Exhibit 48); and images from a 2005 video

(“On Our Way Up”) featuring some of the Respondents (UST Exhibit 49).

(Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2007), as amended (Oct. 25, 2007) (citing Fed. R. Evid.

201); In re Hart, 2013 WL 693013, at *1 n.2 (Bankr. D. Idaho Feb. 26,

2013) (“Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of

its own dockets.”); Thomas v. Alcon Labs., 116 F. Supp.3d 1361 (N.D.

Ga. 2013) (citing Serpentfoot v. Rome City Comm’n, 322 F. App’x 801,

807 (11th Cir. 2009)). The exhibits, other documents, testimony, and

argument presented at the Evidentiary Hearing support the factual

allegations in the Sanctions Motion and demonstrate cause for

imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

Procedure 9011, Bankruptcy Code section 105, and the Court’s inherent

powers.

The Acree Petitions

A voluntary bankruptcy case is commenced by the filing of a

petition by an entity that may be a debtor under the selected chapter.

11 U.S.C. 301. Only an individual with regular income may be a debtor

under chapter 13. 11 U.S.C. 109(e). Petitions must be verified or

contain an unsworn declaration. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1008 and Official

Form B 101 (Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy).

Form 101 requires the debtor sign the petition in two places.5

Claudia Marie Acree passed away on January 19, 2022. (UST

Exhibit 35). A “Quit Claim Deed” filed on April 26, 2023, purports to

record the transfer of the Bobolink Drive Property from Claudia Marie

Acree to EBA Capital, Inc., for $10.00 and “other good and valuable

consideration” (“Acree Quit Claim Deed”). (UST Exhibit 18). The deed

bears what is clearly a forged signature for Marie Acree and the notary

seal and signature of Peter Hall, dated April 26, 2022—three months

after Marie Acree’s date of death. The quitclaim deed contains several

unusual characteristics, including typos instructing the reader to “SEE

EXBIT [sic] ‘A’” for a “LEAGAL [sic] DESRIPTION [sic]” of the

property. Emanuel Clark was the incorporator and registered agent for

EBA Capital, Inc., and his address is given as 4 Rockmart Drive,

Atlanta, GA 30314.6 (UST Exhibit 41).

On April 3, 2023, Charles Freeman presented for filing a pro se

chapter 13 petition for Marie Acree, commencing Case No. 23-53135.

(Acree I, Dkt. 1, Pg. 11). The skeletal petition, which was filled out by

5 See Page 7 of Form 101; Page 9 of Form 101.

6 EBA Capital’s Articles of Incorporation, on file with the Corporations Division of Georgia’s

Secretary of State, shows EBA Capital was established on January 6, 2023—well after the

“Quit Claim Deed” was purportedly signed on April 26, 2022, but before it was recorded in

Clayton County on April 26, 2023.

hand, lists the debtor’s name as Marie Acree, with a social security

number ending in 3670. It gives her address as 3060 Bobolink Drive,

Rex, Georgia, 30273. The petition bears two “wet ink” signatures for

Marie Acree, both dated April 3, 2023. The Clerk’s intake form

appended to the petition includes Freeman’s telephone number and

signature, acknowledging receipt of a Deficiency Notice, and indicates

that the Clerk’s office verified Freeman’s photo identification prior to

accepting the petition for filing. (Acree I, Dkt. 1, Pg. 11). The Court

dismissed the case on April 28, 2023, for failure to correct filing

deficiencies.7

On July 3, 2023, Patrick Iverson presented for filing a pro se

chapter 13 petition for Marie Acree, commencing Case No. 23-56269.

(Acree II, Dkt. 1, Pg. 11). The skeletal petition lists the debtor’s name

as Marie Acree, with a social security number ending in 3670. It gives

her address as 3060 Bobolink Drive, Rex, Georgia, 30273. The petition

bears two “wet ink” signatures for Marie Acree, both dated July 3, 2023.

7 On February 21, 2024, the Court granted the United States Trustee’s motion to hold the

case open to permit the U.S. Trustee to investigate the conduct of persons who presented

the petition for filing or otherwise participated in the preparation or filing of the petition

and to file and prosecute pleadings pertaining to the conduct of such persons. (Acree I,

Dkts. 15 and 16). On March 26, 2024, the Court granted the U.S. Trustee’s motion for

procedural consolidation of the four Acree cases, with Case No. 23-53135 being the lead

case. (Acree I, Dkts. 20, 22, and 28).

The Clerk’s intake form appended to the petition includes Iverson’s

telephone number and signature, acknowledging receipt of a Deficiency

Notice. (Acree II, Dkt. 1, Pg. 11). The Court dismissed the case on July

28, 2023, for failure to correct filing deficiencies.

On September 29, 2023, Jacquelyn Duffy presented for filing a pro

se chapter 13 petition for Marie Acree, commencing Case No. 23-59531.

(Acree III, Dkt. 1, Pg., 11). The skeletal petition lists the debtor’s name

as Marie Acree, with a social security number ending in 3670. It gives

her address as 3060 Bobolink Drive, Rex, Georgia, 30273. The petition

bears two “wet ink” signatures for Marie Acree, both dated September

29, 2023. The Clerk’s intake form appended to the petition includes

Duffy’s telephone number and signature, acknowledging receipt of a

Deficiency Notice, and indicates that the Clerk’s office verified Duffy’s

photo identification prior to accepting the petition for filing. (Acree III,

Dkt. 1, Pg., 11). The court dismissed the case on December 1, 2023.

On January 10, 2024, Patrick Iverson presented for filing a pro se

chapter 13 petition for Marie Acree, commencing Case No. 24-50310

(Acree IV, Dkt. 1, Pg. 11). The skeletal petition lists the debtor’s name

as Marie Acree, with a social security number ending in 3670. It gives

her address as 3060 Bobolink Drive, Rex, Georgia, 30273. The petition

bears two “wet ink” signatures for Marie Acree, both dated January 10,

2024. The Clerk’s intake form appended to the petition includes

Iverson’s telephone number and signature, acknowledging receipt of a

Deficiency Notice, and indicates that the Clerk’s office verified Iverson’s

photo identification prior to accepting the petition for filing. (Acree IV,

Dkt. 1, Pg., 11). The Court dismissed the case on January 29, 2024, for

failure to pay the filing fee.

Other Abusive Filings by Respondents

In the Sanctions Motion and during the Evidentiary Hearing, the

United States Trustee identified a system of fraud and abuse

perpetrated not only in the four Acree cases but also in connection with

other petitions presented to the Court for filing by Clark, Freeman,

Iverson, or Duffy. Records of the bankruptcy court and other public

filings show that Respondents have intentionally engaged in a pattern

and practice of filing forged or suspicious property deeds and presenting

skeletal pro se petitions to the Court for improper purposes, often in the

name of deceased persons.8

Emanuel Clark presented two pro se skeletal petitions for “Robert

L. Johson” (sic), listing the debtor’s address as 5190 Post Road Pass,

Stone Mountain, Georgia (“Post Road Pass Property”): In re Robert L.

Johson, No. 22-50883 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed Feb. 1, 2022) and In re

Robert L. Johson, No. 23-54074 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed May 1, 2023).

Both cases were dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. Robert Lee

Johnson, who resided at the Post Road Pass Property, passed away on

April 4, 2020. (UST Exhibit 36). A “Quit Claim Deed” filed on May 8,

2023, purports to record the transfer of the Post Road Pass Property

from Robert L. Johnson to EBA Capital, Inc., for $10.00 and “other good

and valuable consideration.” (UST Exhibit 19). The deed, dated April

26, 2022, bears what is clearly a forged signature for Robert L. Johnson,

who was then deceased, and the notary seal and signature of Peter

Hall. The document contains the same typos as the Acree Quit Claim

Deed, instructing the reader to “SEE EXBIT [sic] ‘A’” for a “LEAGAL

[sic] DESRIPTION [sic]” of the property.

8 In the Sanctions Motion and during the Evidentiary Hearing, the United States Trustee

identified suspicious or abusive filings in addition to those specifically discussed in this

Order.

Emanuel Clark presented a pro se skeletal petition for Steven E.

Weinstein, listing the debtor’s address as 1516 Barrington, Atlanta

Georgia. In re Steven E. Weinstein, No. 22-50832 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed

Jan. 31, 2022). (UST Exhibit 9, Pg. 9). The case was dismissed on

March 25, 2022, for failure to correct filing deficiencies. Steven E.

Weinstein, who resided at 1516 Barrington Court, Atlanta Georgia

(“Barrington Court Property”), passed away on January 2, 2012. (UST

Exhibit 37). A “Quit Claim Deed” filed on January 19, 2022, purports to

record the transfer of the Barrington Court Property from Steven W.

Weinstein to Artis Vance for $10.00 and “other good and valuable

consideration.” (UST Exhibit 21). The deed, dated January 1, 2021,

bears what is clearly a forged signature for Steven Weinstein, who was

then deceased, and the notary seal and signature of Peter Hall. The

document contains the same typos as the Acree Quit Claim Deed,

instructing the reader to “SEE EXBIT [sic] ‘A’” for a “LEAGAL [sic]

DESRIPTION [sic]” of the property.

Jacquelyn Duffy presented three pro se skeletal petitions for

Edward Newsome, listing the debtor’s address as 6 Rockmart Drive,

Atlanta Georgia (“6 Rockmart Drive”): In re Edward Newsome, No. 23-

59526 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed Sept. 29, 2023); In re Edward Newsome,

No. 23-62862 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed Dec. 29, 2023) (UST Exhibit 14, Pg.

11); and In re Edward Newsome, No. 24-53252 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed

Mar. 29, 2024) (UST Exhibit 15, Pg.11). Edward Newsome passed away

on November 28, 2006, survived by his spouse, Jamie A. Newsome.

(UST Exhibit 40). Newsome’s address—6 Rockmart Drive— is the

address listed on the Georgia driver’s license Duffy presented to the

Clerk when filing the Acree III petition. (UST Exhibit 47). This

property appears to be adjacent to Clark’s address, 4 Rockmart Drive,

which is also the address for EBA Capital Inc. (UST Exhibits 44 and

41). A “Quit Claim Deed” filed on November 7, 2022, purports to

transfer the 6 Rockmart Drive Property from Jamie A. Newsome to

Emanuel Clark, whose return address is listed as 4 Rockmart Drive.

The document contains the same typos as the Acree Quit Claim Deed,

instructing the reader to “SEE EXBIT [sic] ‘A’” for a “LEAGAL [sic]

DESRIPTION [sic]” of the property.

Clark, Duffy, and Iverson each presented a pro se skeletal petition

for Brace C. Pinney Jr., of Stockbridge Georgia, who passed away on

July 1, 2021 (UST Exhibit 39): In re Brace C. Pinney, No. 21-58210

(Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 2, 2021); In re Brace C. Penny, No. 23-60819

(Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 2, 2023); and In re Brace C. Penny, No. 24-

51402 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. filed Feb. 6, 2024). All three petitions list the

same social security number, ending in 1447, for the debtor, and all

three petitions list his address as 203 Farm Brook Parkway in

Stockbridge, Georgia. Although the death certificate lists a different

Stockbridge address than the one given on the petitions —170

Brookfield Drive instead of 203 Farm Brook Parkway—the social

security number on the death certificate matches that listed on all three

petitions.

On January 2, 2024, Iverson presented a pro se skeletal petition

for Joseph Marchman, listing the debtor’s address as 2766 Macby Walk,

Marietta, Georgia: In re Joseph Marchman, No. 24-50027 (Bankr. N.D.

Ga.) (UST Exhibit 12, Pg. 10). Joseph G. Marchman, who resided at

2766 Macby Walk in Marietta Georgia, passed away on February 10,

1999. (UST Exhibit 38).

In addition to presenting fraudulent and abusive bankruptcy

petitions in the names of others, Clark and Freeman have engaged in

serial and abusive filing of petitions in their own names. (UST Exhibit

48). Emanuel Clark has personally filed more than twenty pro se

bankruptcy petitions in the Northern District of Georgia, many in

violation of a twenty-year bar order.9 Charles Freeman has personally

filed at least fourteen pro se bankruptcy petitions in the Northern

District of Georgia. Official court records demonstrate Clark’s

involvement in at least nine of Freeman’s cases: Clark is listed as a

bankruptcy petition preparer in five of Freeman’s cases and delivered

four of Freeman’s petitions to the Clerk for filing. Freeman failed to

properly prosecute any of his cases; all were dismissed.

Authority to Impose Sanctions under Rule 9011

The United States Trustee contends that Respondents are subject

to sanctions under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 because,

as “unrepresented parties,” they presented, or were responsible for

9 In 2015, Judge Sacca entered an order banning Clark from filing any case under Title 11

for a period of twenty years. See Order Dismissing Chapter 13 Case Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

Sections 105(a), 109(g) and 349(a), In re Clark, No. 15-51966-jrs (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Mar. 26,

2015), Dkt. 13 (the “2015 Order”). This Order observed that Clark had filed “seven (7)

previous cases, as well as the instant case, . . . us[ing] five (5) different social security

numbers and report[ing] to the Court under penalty of perjury that he has filed no prior

bankruptcy cases.” This constituted “abuse” sufficient to warrant a twenty-year bar. In

Clark’s most recent case, Judge Baisier entered an order dismissing the case as void ab

initio because it was violative of the 2015 Order. See Order Dismissing Chapter 13 Case as

Void ab Initio Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(a), 109(g) and 349(a), In re Clarke, No.

21-50811-pmb (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2021), Dkt. 13. In this order, the Court observed

that Clark “has filed multiple cases using different variations of his name and different

social security numbers since the entry of the twenty (20) year ban.” Records of the Clerk

show Emanuel Clark, with an address of 4 Rockmart Drive, filed another chapter 13

petition on September 6, 2024: Case No. 24-59410-bem. The case was dismissed on

September 23, 2024, for failure to pay the filing fee.

presenting, the Acree Petitions to the Court for improper purposes.10

“Rule 9011 imposes the baseline of conduct required of those who

submit papers to the Court.” Matter of Goolsby, 2017 WL 2312853, at

*2 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. May 26, 2017). Specifically, Rule 9011 provides

that, by submitting a paper to the Court (whether by signing, filing,

submitting, or advocating), the presenting party certifies that, to the

best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an

inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) the paper is not being

presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and (2)

the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions in the paper are

warranted by existing law or by nonfrivolous argument for the

extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment

of new law. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b). Non-attorneys, have the same

10 The movant must follow specific procedures under Rule 9011. First, a Rule 9011 motion

“shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific

conduct alleged to violate [the Rule].” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(1)(A). Second, “[t]he

motion for sanctions may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days

after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged

paper...is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.” Id. The Court finds that the

Sanctions Motion complies with the first requirement and that the second requirement, the

“safe harbor” provision, is inapplicable because the conduct alleged involves “the filing of a

petition in violation of subdivision (b).” FED. R. BANKR. P. 9011(c)(1)(A); see also In re

Meltzer, 516 B.R. 504, 522 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2014) (collecting cases and explaining that the

carveout’s rationale is that “[t]he filing of a petition has immediate serious consequences . .

. which may not be avoided by the subsequent withdrawal of the petition.” (quoting the

Advisory Committee Note to Rule 9011)).

duties under Rule 9011 as attorneys. In re Weiss, 111 F.3d 1159, 1170

(11th Cir. 1990).

The emphasis in Rule 9011(a) and (b) is on the submission of

papers to the Court. Sanctions are warranted when papers presented to

the Court are frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual

foundation or are filed in bad faith or for an improper purpose. Glatter

v. Mroz (In re Mroz), 65 F.3d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1995). The Court

may impose sanctions against the parties who violated the Rule or

those who are responsible for the violation. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c).

The burden of proof is on the party seeking sanctions. See In re

Marietta City Gramling St. Land Tr., 2014 WL 6460684, at *5 (Bankr.

N.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2014) (citing In re Weaver, 307 B.R. 834 (Bankr. S.D.

Miss. 2002)). “Once a prima facie case has been made, the burden shifts

to the party from whom the sanction is sought to show a legitimate

purpose for the filing.” Id. (citing In re King, 83 B.R. 843, 847 (Bankr.

M.D. Ga. 1998)).

Respondents Freeman, Iverson, and Duffy personally appeared at

the Clerk’s office and submitted the Acree Petitions for filing with the

Court. In so doing, they each acted as an “unrepresented party” with

respect to those papers. The uncontroverted evidence demonstrates

Clark also bears responsibility for submission of the Acree Petitions.

Accordingly, all the Respondents are subject to the provisions of Rule

9011. See In re Gares, 2024 WL 5196575 (Bankr. E.D. La. Dec. 19,

2024) (imposing sanctions under Rule 9011 against an unrepresented

individual who forged another person’s signature and filed an

unauthorized chapter 13 petition in that person’s name). The Sanctions

Motion, the official Court records, and the testimony, exhibits, and

argument presented at the Evidentiary Hearing support findings that

each of the Respondents—Emanuel Clark, Charles Freeman, Patrick

Iverson, and Jacquelynn Duffy—presented or was responsible for

presenting the Acree Petitions to the Court for improper purposes,

including initiating a stay that hindered and delayed a creditor’s

legitimate exercise of its rights in real property and perpetuating a

scheme to enable one or more persons to improperly obtain an interest

in the Bobolink Drive Property. Therefore, they are subject to sanctions

for violating Rule 9011.

If a violation of Rule 9011 is found, the nature of the sanction is

within the Court’s discretion, but any sanction “shall be limited to what

is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct

by others similarly situated.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(2). Rule

9011(c)(2) allows the Court to impose “directives of a nonmonetary

nature” if necessary “to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable

conduct by others similarly situated.” The Court finds that injunctive

relief is an appropriate sanction for Respondents’ violations of Rule

9011, especially because their misconduct involves repetitious

fraudulent filings.

Authority to Impose Sanctions Under Statutory & Inherent Powers

Pursuant to Rule 9011(c)(1)(A)’s command that “[a] motion for

sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions

or requests,” the United States Trustee did not, in her Sanctions

Motion, seek relief under other grounds. This does not, however,

preclude the Court from considering whether to impose sanctions

pursuant to § 105 of the Bankruptcy Code or the Court’s inherent

powers. In re Evergreen Sec., Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257, 1279-1280 (2009);

Matter of Goolsby, 2017 WL 2312853 at *2.

Section 105(a) and the Court’s inherent authority are necessary

backstops for maintaining an orderly and efficient federal bankruptcy

system, which depends on the integrity of information supplied by its

participants. Dishonesty and fraud strike at the foundation on which

the bankruptcy system is premised. The Courts’ authority to respond to

misconduct with meaningful sanctions is essential both to enforcing

provisions of the Code and to preventing abuses of process. See

generally In re Gerstner, 648 B.R. 746 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2022); In re

Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2008); In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567,

1575 (11th Cir. 1995); Evergreen, 570 F.3d at 1263. These inherent

powers include the authority, upon provision of sufficient notice, to

sanction individuals who have acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly,

or for oppressive reasons or who have practiced a fraud upon the Court.

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991); Gerstner, 648 B.R.

at 725; Mroz, 65 F.3d 1575.

The Court finds that Respondents were provided adequate notice

of the allegations and the relief sought, having been served with the

Sanctions Motion, which described the alleged misconduct and included

exhibits in support of the allegations. Further, Respondents were given

a meaningful opportunity to respond and to appear. Under its inherent

power, the Court may investigate whether it has been the victim of

fraud and “fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses

the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. at 44-45. The

Court finds that Respondents acted in bad faith and perpetrated a fraud

upon the Court: their presentation of the Acree Petitions constituted

intentional, material misrepresentations that harmed the integrity of

the judicial process. Denial of access to the Court on behalf of others is

an appropriate remedy for Respondents’ misconduct.

Conclusion

The Sanctions Motion and the documents, exhibits, testimony, and

argument presented at the Evidentiary Hearing support the factual

allegations in the Sanctions Motion and demonstrate that Respondents

knowingly and purposefully engaged in conduct that constituted a fraud

upon the Court, warranting imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, § 105(a), and the Court’s inherent

powers. Respondents were provided notice and an opportunity to

respond to the allegations but failed to do so. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Emanuel Clark, Charles Freeman Jr., Patrick D.

Iverson, and Jacquelyn Duffy are prohibited from presenting a petition

to the Clerk’s intake desk for filing if they are not the named debtor nor

that debtor’s attorney;11 and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court may consider

removing this prohibition as to any of the Respondents upon the filing

of an appropriate motion in this case and service upon the United

States Trustee.

[END OF DOCUMENT]

Draft Prepared by:

/s/ Jeneane Treace

Jeneane Treace

Georgia Bar No. 716620

United States Department of Justice

Office of the United States Trustee

362 Richard Russell Federal Building

75 Ted Turner Drive SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

404.331.4437

jeneane.treace@usdoj.gov

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Emanuel De’Andre Clark

4 Rockmart Drive SW

11 This Order does not bar Respondents from seeking bankruptcy relief as debtors if they

are otherwise eligible to do so. Likewise, this Order does not bar any individual from filing

a bankruptcy petition through means other than delivery by Respondents, including

delivering the petition personally, by another courier, or by hiring counsel.

Atlanta, GA 30314

Charles Freeman Jr.

5183 Post Road Pass

Stone Mountain, GA 30088

Patrick D. Iverson

1758 Big Valley Lane

Stone Mountain, GA 30083

Jacquelyn Duffy

6 Rockmart Drive SW

Atlanta, GA 30314

Melissa J. Davey, Chapter 13 Trustee

Suite 2250

233 Peachtree Street, NE

Atlanta, GA 30303

Brandi R. Lesesne

Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, L.L.P.

4004 Belt Line Rd, Suite 100

Addison, Texas 75001

Brenda Booth

485 Polk Rd

Moreland, GA 30259-2246

United States Trustee

362 Richard Russell Federal Building

75 Ted Turner Drive SW

Atlanta, GA 30303