May 16, 2024

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Judge Sean Lane

Southern District of New York - Bankruptcy Court
300 Quarropas Street
White Plains, New York 10601

RE: Case Index No 23-22095, Adv. Proc. No. 24-7009, Debtor Letter In
Opposition to AUST Gregory Zipes Illegal and Untimely Sur-Reply

Dear Hon Judge Lane:

In response to Assistant U.S. Trustee Gregory Zipes’ improper,

illegal, untimely, and unethical sur-reply dated May 12, 2024, we note
the following:

AUST Zipes’s Opposition to Debtor’s Motion for Sanctions and Counter-

Motion to Strike

1. Simply being "offended" by Debtor's arguments are insufficient to

strike.

2. More serious are the allegations that there are 100s of false,
fraudulent, frivolous, erroneous, deceptive, lies contained
within AUST Zipes's complaint, none of which can either be proven
or sustained, and he needs to respond to those specific examples.

3. Zipes once again gaslights Debtor and this Court, because he is

the only one that provides no legal basis for objecting to
Debtor's reply, or the 100s of specific examples of his false
statements.

4. How many times is Judge Sean Lane going to either seal, hide,
conceal, or "strike from the record" every time undersigned
Debtor defends himself to the fullest extent of the law and
 equity against the illegal, unethical, and immoral pleadings,
allegations and attacks of AUSA Dana Walsh Kumar and AUST Gregory
Zipes?

5. Just because Debtor’s responses, replies and testimony are

compelling, effective, and "offend" these two glass-nerved
government bullies, does not mean that Judge Sean Lane should
keep tampering with the public record to skew this case even more
towards the government, which already has infinite more
advantages over pro se debtor.

6. Our Reply Affirmation does not "purport to respond," it actually

"does respond."

7. Here again, like with AUSA Dana Walsh Kumar, AUST Gregory Zipes
terms any of Debtor's legal, equitable, ethical, and moral
defenses and counter allegations as "scandalous" or "offensive."

8. AUST Gregory Zipes should just put his "big boy pants on" and
intelligently respond to Debtor's allegations, point by point,
rather than constantly "running to the teacher" for protection
when he bullies the Debtor, and then gets a legal and equitable
bloody nose for running his mouth with no proof of fact,
frivolousness, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and other
illegal and unethical acts and behavior.

9. We already gave AUST Gregory Zipes a lengthy "primer" on Rule 11

Sanctions in our official written warning months prior, before
duly serving and giving him a 21 day safe harbor period to either
withdraw or correct his nonsense, so he should not now complain
that we did not "explain Rule 11 to him" even more than we
already did.

10. In contrast to another one of AUST Gregory Zipes’ unabashed lies,

we did comply with the 21 day safe harbor requirements by duly
serving him and Walsh, and then waiting 21 days or more before
filing with the court.

11. More bald faced lies by AUST Gregory Zipes, which the public
record will be sure to address.

12. Much was written before an adversary case number was assigned,
since it took the court 1 week to do so, and a newspaper asked
Debtor for his comments before AUST Zipes even served the Debtor,
a fact which was clearly spelled out for the court and AUST Zipes
to marinate in weeks/months ago.

13. Just like AUST Gregory Zipes' excessive use of the words
"scandalous" and "offensive" to describe and denigrate any of
debtor's pleadings and arguments that does doesn’t like, likewise
he also uses "frivolous."
14. He should just focus on responding to the pleadings, and not
cowering behind his thin-skinned rhetoric.

15. If he can not handle litigation, then he can always become a full
time professor at NYU where he is now part-time, because “those
who can, do, and those who can not, teach.”

16. AUST Gregory Zipes should be reminded that the only known legal
and equitable mechanism to counter his outright lies,
fabrications, falsities, and perjury of AUST Zipes is through
Rule 11 sanctions.

17. We have provided 100s of concrete examples in our multiple

pleadings, all in the public record.

18. Here is the 4th term that AUST Zipes uses when he can not, or
will not, intelligently respond to Debtor's pleadings -
"harassing."

19. Then AUST Gregory Zipes uses his 5th term, "indecorous."

20. It appears that AUST Gregory Zipes has made more use of Roget's
Thesaurus, than the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, or the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21. With regard to AUST Gregory Zipes’ shameless request to the court
that “in the event that the Court elects to preserve the
Sanctions Motion on the record, but remove its offensive parts,
the Office of the United States Trustee (meaning Zipes) will
identify those specific portions of the document that it (he)
deems offensive for the Court, and accordingly provide the Court
with a redacted version of the document,” as if the court has not
done enough favors for AUST Gregory Zipes, at the Debtor's
expense, already over the past 2 years.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________
Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.
270 Victory Boulevard
New Rochelle, NY 10804

cc: AUST Gregory Zipes

1 Bowling Green
New York, NY 10004
WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON
United States Trustee for Region 2
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the United States Trustee
One Bowling Green, Room 534
New York, New York 10004
Tel. (212) 510-0500
By: Greg M. Zipes, Esq.
Trial Attorney

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x

Chapter 7
RAHUL DEV MANCHANDA,
Case No. 23-22095 (SHL)
Debtor.
-------------------------------------------x
WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON,
as United States Trustee for Region 2,
Adv. Case No. 24 -07009 (SHL)
Plaintiff,

-against-

RAHUL DEV MANCHANDA,

Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x
OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
TO DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND COUNTER-MOTION TO STRIKE

TO: THE HONORABLE SEAN H. LANE

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

William K. Harrington, the United States Trustee for Region 2 (the '.'United States

Trustee," or the "Plaintiff'), by and through the undersigned attorney, hereby submits this

opposition to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions ("Sanctions Motion," ECF No. 5) filed by

Debtor-Defendant Rahul Dev Manchanda ("Defendant"), and respectfully counter-moves for

the entry of an order striking the Sanctions Motion from the record. In support of this How many times is
Judge Sean Lane
opposition and counter-motion, the United States Trustee represents and alleges as follows: going to either seal,
"strike from the record" every time undersigned Debtor defends himself to the fullest extent of the law hide, conceal, or
and equity against the illegal, unethical, immoral pleadings, allegations and attacks of AUSA Dana Walsh
Kumar and AUST Gregory Zipes? Just because my responses, replies and testimony are compelling, effective, and "offend" these
two glass nerved government bullies does not mean that Judge Sean Lane should keep tampering with the public record to skew
this case even more towards the government which already has infinite more advantages over pro se debtor.
 GENERAL

I. On March 25, 2024, the United States Trustee filed an Adversary Complaint

against Defendant, objecting to the entry of a discharge in his chapter 7 bankruptcy case. See

ECF No. I (the "Complaint").

2. Approximately six weeks ago, on March 29, 2024, the Defendant filed a

document entitled: "Debtor Reply Affirmation to AUST Gregory Zipes," 1 which purports to It does not
"purport to
respond to the allegations in the Complaint, ECF No. 3 (the "Affirmation"), and which contains respond," it
actually "does
scandalous material. 2 Here again, like AUSA Dana Walsh Kumar, AUST Gregory Zipes terms any of respond."
Debtor's legal, equitable, ethical, and moral defenses and counter-allegations as "scandalous" or
3. On May I, 2024, Defendant filed a "Notice of Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions "offensive." AUST
Gregory Zipes should just put his "big boy pants on" and intelligently respond to Debtor's allegations,
against AUST Gregory Zipes" using the main case caption (the "Sanctions Motion"). See ECF point by point,
rather than constantly "running to the teacher" for protection when they bully the Debtor and then get
No.5. a legal and equitable bloody nose for running their mouth with no proof of fact, frivolousness,
malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and other illegal and unethical acts and behavior.
4. Though 12 pages long, the Sanctions Motion contains only a single paragraph

generally addressing sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (see id., We already gave
,r I a at 2), and
AUST Gregory
otherwise just largely repeats the Defendant's Affirmation. Zipes a lengthy
"primer" on Rule
DISCUSSION 11 Sanctions in
our official written
5. As a threshold matter, the Sanctions Motion must be denied because the warning, before
giving them a 21
False! We did Defendant has failed to comply with the "safe harbor" requirement of Federal Rule of day safe harbor
comply with the 21 day safe harbor requirements by serving him and Walsh and then waiting 21 days or more before filing period to either
with the court. Bankruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy Rule") 9011. The Defendant has sent frequent withdraw or
correct their
inflammatory and inappropriate emails to the Plaintiff, but the United States Trustee is unawarenonsense, so he
should not now
of any request by email or otherwise to withdraw the Complaint as a Rule 11 violation. The complain that we
More bald faced lies
did not "explain
by AUST Gregory Zipes, which the public record will be sure to address.
Sanctions Motion itself was filed with the main case caption and not in the adversary proceedingRule 11 to him"
even more than we
already did.

1
The Defendant continues to improperly use the name "Gregory" instead of Greg.
2
For example, the Defendant interlineated scandalous comments to the Complaint in his
Affirmation, including after paragraph 135 of the Complaint.
False! Much was caption, further confusing matters. Absent a demonstration that the Defendant has complied
written before an adversary case number was assigned, since it took the court 1 week to do so, and a newspaper asked Debtor hor his comments
before AUST Zipes with the "safe harbor" provision, filed a proper Sanctions Motion, and sought permission of the
even served the Debtor, a fact which was clearly spelled out for the court and AUST Zipes to marinate in weeks/months ago.
Court to file the Sanctions Motion, the Sanctions Motion should be denied. The United States

Trustee does not waive the need to comply with the safe harbor requirement or to follow proper

pleading and notice procedures. In re Obasi, No. 10-10494 SHL, 201 l WL 6336153 (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2011) (denying Bankruptcy Rule 901 l motion for non-compliance with safe

harbor); In re Miller, 730 F .3d 198, 204 (3d Cir. 2013) ("strict compliance with the safe harbor

rule is required" .... "if the twenty-one day period is not provided, the motion must be denied.'1)

(cleaned up).

6. The Sanctions Motion should separately be denied as frivolous. 3 "[Bankruptcy] Just like AUST
Gregory Zipes'
Rule 901 1, like its counterpart Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, plays an important role in excessive use of
the words
maintaining the professionalism of the bar and the integrity of court processes. That role is best "scandalous" and
"offensive" to
effectuated when the Rule is invoked sparingly, and '[a] request for sanctions under Rule 11 is describe and
denigrate anyof
not a tactical device."' Obasi, 2011 WL 6336153, at *8 (citations omitted). The Sanctions debtor's
pleadings and
Motion fails to cite relevant Bankruptcy Rules and disregards the Court's procedures for putting arguments that
they don't like,
matters on the calendar. It is frivolous because the Defendant already has filed a mirror-image likewise he also
uses "frivolous."
Affirmation in response to the Adversary Complaint, and the merits of the United States He should just
The only mechanism to counter the outright lies, fabrications, falsities, and perjury of AUST Zipes is through Rule 11 sanctions. focus on
Trustee's allegations will be decided in the context of this adversary proceeding. And it is an responding to the
pleadings and not
improper tactical device that seeks seek the same relief through multiple filings, in this instance cowering behind
his thin skulled
both the earlier Affirmation and the later Sanctions Motion. rhetoric. If he can
not handle
7. Courts generally impose sanctions for the "presentation of legal contentions and litigation then he
can always
claims that are frivolous; factual contentions that lack evidentiary support; and filings made for anbecome a full
time professor.

3
Bankruptcy Rule 901 l(a) states in part: "If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailirig
on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the
motion." The United States Trustee reserves his right to ask for such sanctions.
 improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of

litigation." Freeman v. Stake.com, No. 22 Civ. 7002 (RA), 2023 WL 7386354, at *l (S.D.N.Y1

Nov. 7, 2023) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. l l(b)(l}-(3), (c)(l); internal quotation marks omitted).

8. Further, courts exercise their discretion to impose sanctions "with restraint,"

Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323,334 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted),

and "resolve all doubts in favor" of the individual who signed the allegedly sanctionable filing,

O/iveriv. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265, 1275 (2d Cir. 1986).

9. The Defendant has failed to demonstrate any basis for imposing sanctions on the We have
provided 100s of
undersigned counsel for the United States Trustee. The Sanctions Motion is bereft oflegal concrete
examples in our
argument, and instead simply relies on the previously-filed Affirmation, which contains ad multiple
pleadings, all in
Here is the 4th term
hominem attacks against the undersigned and other inappropriate and harassing material. the public record.
that AUST Zipes uses when he can not or will not intelligently respond to Debtor's pleadings - "harassing."
10. The Sanctions Motion contains no factual or legal basis as to why sanctions would

be appropriate. Like the Affirmation before it, the Sanctions Motion is rife with offensive,

indecorous language, used solely for the purpose of harassing the Plaintiff in this adversary "indecorous." It
appears that AUST
proceeding. See, e.g., Malkan v. Mutua, 699 F. App'x 81, 83 (2d Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of Zipes has made
more use of Roget's
Thesauraus than the
sanctions motion because the district court "reasonably found that the motion had no factual or
Federal Rules of
legal basis, and was meant to harass"). Bankruptcy
Procedure, and the
Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
 11. Accordingly, the Sanctions Motion should be denied, and it should be stricken

from the record. 4

Dated: New York, New York

• May 12, 2024

WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

By: Isl Greg M Zipes

Greg M. Zipes
Trial Attorney
One Bowling Green, Room 534
New York, New York 10004
Phone:212-510-0500

4
In the event that the Court elects to preserve the Sanctions Motion on the record, but remove its
offensive parts, the Office of the United States Trustee will identify those specific portions of the
document that it deems offensive for the Court, and accordingly provide the Court with a redacted
version of the document. As if the court didn't do enough favors for AUST Gregory Zipes at the Debtor's expense already over
the past 2 years.