MckMama Drama - Including the Fire - Merge

[TheJewAmongUs]

It's also my understanding that BadgerCare is on a sliding scale, i.e., if she's got some money, she will be paying some sort of premium.

Children should not be held hostage to their parents' greed and stupidity. Even if the parent is McKMama.

Even after trustee discovered that her income was over $10,000/month, she filed her legal separation paperwork saying she was making $2,750/month. So she might be paying something for BadgerCare, but not anywhere near what she could and should pay.

And I think there is a huge difference between holding kids hostage and making sure they have only what they need. There are plenty of kids with honest, hard-working, non-criminal parents who have a lot less than MckMama's kids. It may not be the kids' faults, but when your parents are lying, scamming, criminals and thieves, yes, there may be some consequences for the children, and I'm ok with that, because those are the choices that their parents made for them. I think in this case, the kids' basic needs will still be taken care of by family, and that's still more than lots of other kids with honest, hard-working, non-criminal parents get.

[kittypie]

(Deleted...info is earlier in thread...sorry!)

[kittypie]

How dumb does she think people really are?

Really dumb. Read some of the comments left on her blog and facebook. :roll:

[Alecto]

Who would buy them? Is there a market for "mycharmingkidsDOTnet" ? (don't click there, don't give Jen money)

There are people who are domain squatters. They buy domains hoping for errant clicks. These are the same kinds of people who buy domains that are close to the spelling of a real domain, or names of famous folks. Truthfully, if I had the cash available, I'd buy her domains, because you could make a few thousand bucks a year just off folks clicking on outdated links.

Also, I don't get how her subdomain (The /deals one) is separate from the other. That's like saying I have a house and I have a basement.

[The Archivist]

Yes, if someone buys a domain that once had a lot of traffic, they can throw up a crappy website with a bunch of ads and make money from the ads just by the volume of people going to the website on accident, or because they're looking for the old website.

[Sprocket]

So apparently the trustee petitioned the court saying that bankruptcy has been denied and the trustee is taking them to trial. Anyone know the amount of trouble she's in?

edited because reading comprehension fails me sometimes.

[Sprocket]

http://mwopblog.com/bankruptcy-the-filing/

http://mwopblog.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ment_3.pdf

http://mwopblog.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ment_1.pdf

[Sprocket]

In the statement of financial affairs the co-debtor disclosed her 2011 self-employment

income as $55,000, when she knew at the time she filed her bankruptcy that her gross income

from self-employment was approximately $148,000.

The debtors purchased a 34 foot Jayco Jayflight camper in early 2011 for $12,000. They

sold this camper in May 2011 and received $9,000 from the sale. The debtors did not disclose

the transfer or sale of this asset in their bankruptcy schedules or at the initial 341 meeting. The

debtors claimed at the continued creditors meeting they did not have to disclose this transaction

because they were holding an open title when it was sold, and therefore they never owned the

camper.

The trustee, upon information and belief, alleges that the co-debtor has manipulated her

income downward during the two month period prior to her bankruptcy filing. She switched off

ads on her website/domain to manipulate and lower ad revenue from her website, from which she

drew income. Since the debtors’ bankruptcy filing, those ads have been turned back on and the

co-debtor is again earning money from those ads.

The trustee realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 in support of this claim. The debtors have

transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated or concealed or have permitted to be transferred,

removed, destroyed, mutilated or concealed, property of the estate after the date of the filing of

the petition, namely the funds in the PayPal and Google accounts were undisclosed and have

been used by the debtors; the debtor sold the enclosed travel trailer that was not disclosed and

which was property of the estate, to a third party.

The trustee realleges paragraphs 1 through 16 in support of this claim. The Debtors have

concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information,

including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtors’ financial condition or

business transactions might be ascertained. The debtors failed to keep adequate books and

records from which their financial transactions could be ascertained. The co-debtor was

receiving cash payments from photography clients that were not disclosed and for which she has

been unable to provide an accounting.

The trustee realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 in support of this claim. The debtors

knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case (A) made a false oath or account.

The debtors failed to disclose the PayPal account, the Google AdSense account and the domain

names through which the debtor was blogging. The debtors failed to disclose the camper, which

was sold post-bankruptcy filing. The co-debtor intentionally underrepresented her income on

Schedule I, having deposited in excess of $7,000 in the month prior to her bankruptcy filing, yet

reporting monthly income of $1,500. The co-debtor also failed to disclose income from

Amazon and other affiliate programs from her blog. The Trustee, upon information and belief,

believes that the co-debtor has income and/or incentives from Groupon, Logical Media,

Eversave, Commission Junction, Double Click and other possible affiliate programs.

1. Denying the debtors a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727 (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)

and (a)(4).

2. Granting the plaintiff a judgment against the debtor in the amount of $3,360- the

value of the undisclosed PayPal and Google accounts and the trailer sold postbankruptcy

filing. The plaintiff also requests a judgment against the debtors for

the value of any other undisclosed assets yet to be discovered and proven at trial.

3. For such other and further relief that is just and proper.

They are effing toast. I don't feel bad for her husband because I think he's as shady as she is... but all of the blog stuff is her bag. I wonder just how much he knew.

[SunnyAndrsn]

Really dumb. Read some of the comments left on her blog and facebook. :roll:

Have you read any of the crap her followers post? They are really, really dumb.

[Sprocket]

I don't want the kids to suffer -- which if the trustee is correct and she's turned her ads back on and is on track to make $140k+ this year, there is no way that he owes her $800.00 a month in child support. His income should be fairly verifiable and hers.... well, not so much, until now. And surely she should be able to afford healthcare for her kids instead of mooching off of the state of WI.

[mirele]

I don't want the kids to suffer -- which if the trustee is correct and she's turned her ads back on and is on track to make $140k+ this year, there is no way that he owes her $800.00 a month in child support. His income should be fairly verifiable and hers.... well, not so much, until now. And surely she should be able to afford healthcare for her kids instead of mooching off of the state of WI.

He needs to pay child support...but I think it needs to be revised drastically to take into account the amount of money she is making. It does take two to tango.

[longskirtlotsakids]

Every child in Wi is eligible for Badgercare. However, someone with her income would be paying a premium conparable to Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

She filed in WI for child support. No judge would look at his income and her income and award her child support if he is making factory wages. The formula does not compute. Of course, unless he brings it up in court, they are just going to stick him and bleed him.

[Eclipse]

Every child in Wi is eligible for Badgercare. However, someone with her income would be paying a premium conparable to Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

She filed in WI for child support. No judge would look at his income and her income and award her child support if he is making factory wages. The formula does not compute. Of course, unless he brings it up in court, they are just going to stick him and bleed him.

He is going to have to pay child support. In most jurisdictions child support is seen legally as the child's right to receive support, not for the parent with physical custody to receive support. He is going to have to pay a percentage of his income of child support based on the number of kids he is paying for based on the formula Wisconsin uses. Wisconsin allows for the payor to apply for a variance based on extreme circumstances, and their differences in income don't really cut it as an excuse most of the time. I've seen cases were a parent who makes 20,000 pays support to a parent who makes over 250,000 because its the child's right to be supported.

[kittypie]

Have you read any of the crap her followers post? They are really, really dumb.

Yep. And worse than that is that JM knows full well how dumb they are and uses it to her advantage. She should have filed for MORAL bankruptcy.

At least the Trustee's pleading will get the ball rolling.

I can't cut and paste from my tablet but Tracey Coehnen's blog "The Fraud Files" sets forth some good info from a forensic accountant's perspective.

[Snickerdoodle]

I can't cut and paste from my tablet but Tracey Coehnen's blog "The Fraud Files" sets forth some good info from a forensic accountant's perspective.

Here is Tracey's blog. http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2 ... y-trustee/

She does a great job of summarizing the situation in layman's terms.

[HijabiLady]

She is in really, really deep shit. Do you think they will do prison time? If so, i wonder what happens to the kids?

[Koala]

Yeah, I am thinking they are fucked big time.

[Sprocket]

He is going to have to pay child support. In most jurisdictions child support is seen legally as the child's right to receive support, not for the parent with physical custody to receive support. He is going to have to pay a percentage of his income of child support based on the number of kids he is paying for based on the formula Wisconsin uses. Wisconsin allows for the payor to apply for a variance based on extreme circumstances, and their differences in income don't really cut it as an excuse most of the time. I've seen cases were a parent who makes 20,000 pays support to a parent who makes over 250,000 because its the child's right to be supported.

The whole situation is just majorly fucked for the kids. And she has made it where he can't even see them (20+ year old car that probably wouldn't make the 5 hour drive -- not that he'd have the money for gas to get there...)

[emmiedahl]

His child support is going to be drastically reduced if the court gets wind of her income. I know this varies state-by-state, but I have a relative who is leaving a husband who turned abusive. She has their children. He will probably get visitation every other weekend and one evening a week, and she will be paying child support to him. Because she makes quite a bit more than he does (not a ton, like 75,000 compared to his 25,000) so if he has any time with the kids, he is the one who needs the support.

Right now he is refusing to vacate the family home, so she is paying the mortgage even though she and their children are staying in a relative's extra bedroom. She cannot afford to get an apartment until she is out from under the mortgage because they live in CA.

[Sola]

Here is Tracey's blog. http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2 ... y-trustee/

She does a great job of summarizing the situation in layman's terms.

Oh wow! I don't see how she can talk her way out of this one.

[Sprocket]

Another question for those familiar with bankruptcy laws:

How far of a reach does the court have? It is speculated that she's hiding money with her father or possibly her sister. She admitted that her sister is essentially an employee but was vague about her duties and income... not to mention that her sister "bought" a car from her that was less than the payoff total. Could the bankruptcy courts go after her sister's financial records/car in a fishing expedition of sorts to find money from Jennifer Howe Sauls McKinney?

[emmiedahl]

I think MckMama could be in big trouble. This is small potatoes as far as fraud goes; nonetheless, her lies are egregious and purposeful. Just reading the transcripts of the meeting with the trustee, I think he is pissed at her. There is a lot of debt, but also a lot of income. I think she could afford to pay off the debt quickly if she committed to living on $50,000 a year, which would be a downgrade for her but certainly not poverty.

Also, she needs to buy some health insurance. She has abused emergency rooms all over the country. Doing that with no health insurance when she certainly had the means to acquire it, that is wrong. ER doctors are not there for sniffles and headaches. She chose to go without insurance and to use the most expensive mode of care in every.single.situation. Now she needs to pay up, and hopefully the price tag will be enough to help her understand why a primary care provider and insurance are better options.

Those doctors are not big corporations. They are working people who possibly earn less than MckMama. She needs to pay for their services.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

Has anyone thought of the IRS? You can bet your bottom dollar she hasn't been reporting all her blogging and ad money all this time. If the trustee wants to he can certainly forward her file to the IRS for a look-see. She could end up in bigger trouble with them than even the bankrupcy court.

[Sprocket]

I think MckMama could be in big trouble. This is small potatoes as far as fraud goes; nonetheless, her lies are egregious and purposeful. Just reading the transcripts of the meeting with the trustee, I think he is pissed at her. There is a lot of debt, but also a lot of income. I think she could afford to pay off the debt quickly if she committed to living on $50,000 a year, which would be a downgrade for her but certainly not poverty.

Also, she needs to buy some health insurance. She has abused emergency rooms all over the country. Doing that with no health insurance when she certainly had the means to acquire it, that is wrong. ER doctors are not there for sniffles and headaches. She chose to go without insurance and to use the most expensive mode of care in every.single.situation. Now she needs to pay up, and hopefully the price tag will be enough to help her understand why a primary care provider and insurance are better options.

Those doctors are not big corporations. They are working people who possibly earn less than MckMama. She needs to pay for their services.

Quoting because this just can't be said enough.

[polabear]

Wisconsin, as far as child support goes, takes a percentage of the non-custodial parent's net income without considering the other parent's income. They have a few different schedules for high income and low income parents, but this is the standard percentages:

(a) 17% for one child;

(b) 25% for 2 children;

(d) 31% for 4 children; and

(e) 34% for 5 or more children.

If they share physical custody over 25% of the time, then amounts get changed. Also, usually the father is ordered to carry and pay for health insurance for the children. Other states do consider the income of the custodial parent, but it varies.

My husband and I live in IL, and he pays a straight 20% of his gross income, plus 50% of any school fees, health costs over 30 dollars, and any extracurriculars. He and his ex have one child. The 50% is negotiable - if it had ever gone to court, the judge could have ordered my husband pay for 70% or more of all of that. But, he makes more than his ex, although back when he had to pay alimony, he actually had less to live on than his ex, since she got half his income, plus had a job of her own.