A judge threw out "Octomom" Nadya Suleman's bankruptcy claim Tuesday after she failed to file the proper paperwork to show she can't pay as much as $1 million in debt.

That means creditors can move to collect what they say they're owed, and a pending foreclosure can go ahead against the La Habra, Calif., house Suleman lives in with her 14 children, according to The Orange County Register.

Suleman's case was thrown out because she didn't file a dozen financial documents and statements required to prove bankruptcy. In her initial filing April 30, Suleman estimated that she owed as much as $1 million that she is unable to repay.

Suleman had sought protection from her debts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which means a court-appointed trustee would have liquidated her assets to pay off creditors before she is discharged from most of her debts. According to the filing, she owed money to more than 20 parties, including utility companies, her father and a Christian school.

A Guatemalan mother who says her child was stolen and later turned over to a U.S. couple for adoption said Tuesday that she will go to a Missouri court seeking to get her daughter back now that the U.S. State Department has said it doesn't have jurisdiction to help return the girl.

The State Department confirmed Tuesday that it has informed Guatemala's government that it can't help return Anyeli Hernandez Rodriguez because the U.S. and Guatemala had not signed the Hague Abduction Convention at the time of the alleged kidnapping in 2006.

"We're obviously deeply concerned about allegations regarding stolen children and inter-country adoptions wherever these cases come up," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement. "We consider the appropriate venue in the United States for pursuing this case is in the state courts. They're the competent organ for holding a full hearing on the merits and the best interests of the child."

A human rights group that has pursued the case in Guatemala's courts on behalf of the child's biological mother, Loyda Rodriguez, said the next step will be to find a U.S. law firm to file a civil suit charging immigration fraud.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Houston American Energy Corp. between March 29, 2010 and April 18, 2012.

To join the Houston American class action, visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Laurence Rosen, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com or lrosen@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against Houston American for failing to adequately disclose problems with its Tamandua #1 well, and the well's C7 and C9 formations. Namely, that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) the continued investment in testing and completing the C7 and C9 formations in Tamandua #1 well was unproductive and not commercially viable; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

www.rosenlegal.com

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday halted an effort to grant "personhood" rights to human embryos, saying the measure is unconstitutional.

The state's highest court ruled unanimously that a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would define a fertilized human egg as a person violates a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Pennsylvania case and "is clearly unconstitutional." Supporters of the personhood amendment are trying to gather enough signatures to put it before Oklahoma voters on the November ballot.

Opponents contend the measure would ban abortions without exception and interfere with a woman's right to use certain forms of contraception and medical procedures, such as in vitro fertilization.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights filed a protest with the state Supreme Court on behalf of several Oklahoma doctors and residents. They asked the court to stop the group Personhood Oklahoma from gathering signatures.

The nine-member court determined the initiative petition "is void on its face" and struck it down.

"The only course available to this court is to follow what the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiter of the United States Constitution, has decreed," the court said.

Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states.

"We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."

That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.

The Supreme Court will decide whether to apply retroactively its 2010 decision that immigrants have a right to be told that a guilty plea could lead to their deportation.

The high court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Roselva Chaidez, who was in the process of being deported when the court made that March 2010 decision.

Chaidez pleaded guilty to fraud in 2004 after falsely claiming to be a passenger in a car wreck. Authorities started deportation procedures while she was applying for U.S. citizenship in 2007.

Her lawyer never told her that her fraud conviction may lead to her deportation. Chaidez says she should be able to take advantage of the Supreme Court decision that cemented that principle.