My US Legal Journey: The Public Record

For three years I have been involved in court proceedings in the United States connected to my former marriage. I have not spoken about them publicly. I am setting out the public record here, factually and with sources, so that anyone who searches my name can read what the courts actually show rather than someone else's summary of it.

Everything below is drawn from public court dockets, and each case is linked so readers can check the record themselves. Where I describe my own experience, I say so plainly.

Two adversary proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, both arising from the Chapter 7 bankruptcy of Stonebridge Ventures, LLC (case 8:22-bk-11556), were closed in 2024.

A. Cisneros v. Colangelo et al (8:23-ap-01013) was filed in February 2023. I was a defendant. The proceeding was dismissed by joint stipulation of the parties, with the order approving dismissal entered on August 19, 2024, and the case terminated on October 9, 2024.

Jensen v. Stonebridge Ventures, LLC et al (8:23-ap-01086) was filed in August 2023. The plaintiff sought, among other things, turnover of approximately $550,000 in property sale proceeds in which she claimed a secured interest. I was one of several defendants. That case was also terminated on October 9, 2024.

Both federal matters are closed. That is what the dockets show, and the dockets are linked below for anyone who wants to read them.

One matter remains open: Jensen v. Colangelo, case CVPS2400742, in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. It was filed in 2024 and is still before the court. The court posted tentative rulings in the case as recently as October 2026.

Because this case is active, I will describe only what the public docket establishes: the case exists, it is civil, and it continues. I will not comment on its merits while it is before the court.

This is my own account, and readers should treat it as such. The litigation has now run for three years. In that time, the opposing side has gone through four attorneys and has recently engaged a fifth. Each change of counsel has meant new filings, new delays, and new cost.

Over that time, four attorneys have terminated their relationship with Monika Jensen. It has been confirmed, all four times, that the reasons were: first, that she was untruthful in her disclosures to her attorney, and second, that she did not pay her attorney's bills. She has now engaged a fifth attorney.

I make this statement because people following the case deserve to know why the representation on the other side has changed so many times. The court filings remain the best source for anyone who wants to verify the record, and the dockets are linked above.

I have continued to appear, to respond, and to follow the process. I intend to see it through, and I will let the court's eventual rulings speak for themselves.

A filing is an allegation, not a finding. A closed case has an outcome that can be read on the docket. An active case has not been decided. I ask readers to keep those distinctions in mind, to follow the links above, and to weigh the full context rather than excerpts chosen by anyone, including me.