Snisko v. Cascade Funding Mortgage Trust HB4

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Appellant’s brief is replete with false quotations and erroneous statements of law. By way of example, appellant cites In re Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co., 6 F.3d at 1188, for the proposition that the applicable standard of review is de novo. [17] at 18. True, a bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. But this proposition cannot be found in the cited case. To the contrary, In re Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co. makes clear that the proper standard of review for a permissive-abstention case is abuse of discretion. 6 F.3d at 1188. Another example includes apparent quotations that do not appear in the cited cases. See, e.g., [17] at 32 (falsely quoting In re Tarnow, 749 F.2d 464, 465 (7th Cir. 1984)); [17] at 23 (falsely quoting In re Aguirre, 37 F.4th 427, 431 (7th Cir. 2022)); [17] at 26 (falsely quoting In re Boughton, 60 B.R. 373, 376 (N.D. Ill. 1986)); [17] at 39 (falsely quoting In re Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co., 6 F.3d at 1192)). ... I order appellant’s counsel, Martin Spencer, to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for the fabricated legal citations and other misrepresentations.

Authorities cited in the passage: In re Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., 6 F.3d 1184 (7th Cir. 1993) · In re Tarnow, 749 F.2d 464 (7th Cir. 1984) · In re Aguirre, 37 F.4th 427 (7th Cir. 2022) · In re Boughton, 60 B.R. 373 (N.D. Ill. 1986) · In re Pajian, 785 F.3d 1161 (7th Cir. 2015) · In re K&R Mining, Inc., 135 B.R. 269 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1991) · Secrease v. Western & Southern Life Insurance Co., 800 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2015)