We all scoff at that. This is a case of an art gallery going under for financial reasons. The whole painting protest thing is phony and an attempt to break a lease. The painting is nothing out of the ordinary in SF. She still has assets from her settlement with the Catholic church that can be attached if she breaks the lease for no reason. She is protecting her assets and not willing to spend anymore on the money sucking gallery.
In December 1994, he sued Capobianco in a Tennessee state court. He alleged that Capobianco had engaged in fraud, embezzlement, forgery, conversion, and misappropriation of funds while working for him, resulting in damages of approximately $107,109.78. Attached to his complaint were copies of numerous checks that she had allegedly signed and issued without authorization. Capobianco answered in February 1995 and discovery commenced. At her deposition, she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions regarding the checks.
Before the trial was to begin, Capobianco relocated from Tennessee to San Francisco. There, in August 1998, she filed her chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. The deadline for nondischargeability actions was November 2, 1998.