ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE SHOULD BE FILING A LIFT OF STAY
The U.S. Supreme Court said in Cohen v. de la Cruz, The Bankruptcy Code has long prohibited debtors from discharging liabilities incurred on account of their fraud affording relief only to an honest but unfortunate debtor.
The burden of proof lies with the creditor of proving non-discharge ability by a preponderance of the evidence. Though, one need not prove a specific incident of misrepresentation.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in McClelland v Cantrell, determined that actual fraud is broader than a false representation. The Court distinguished between the two types of fraud, as both were elements of Section 523, hence, one must have meaning different from the other, or only one phrase would have been used in the statute. The McClelland court adopted a broad concept of fraud rather than a specific definition. The Court stated Fraud is a generic term, which embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise and which are resorted to by one individual to gain an advantage over another by false suggestions or by the suppression of truth. No definite and invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition defining fraud, and it includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated.
When it comes to fraud, the Court knows it when it sees it.
B. Debts Not Dischargeable
198. See SEC. 86, supra.
Sec. 98. Debts Not Affected By A Discharge
A discharge in bankruptcy releases the debtor from all provable debts, except (1) taxes, (2) liabilities for obtaining money under false pretenses, or for willful and malicious injuries to person or property, or for alimony, or for maintenance or support of wife or child, or for seduction, or for criminal conversation, (3) those not duly scheduled where no notice to debtor, (4) those created by fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation and defalcation.
4) Debts not dis-chargeable if they are "liabilities for willful and malicious injuries to the person or property of another."
To come within this provision the injury must have been intentional, otherwise it is a dis-chargeable liability.206 Thus it was held that where a debtor built a fire in the street and after he had left it supposedly extinguished and a small boy's clothes caught fire, and he was burned, there was no willful or malicious injury and the liability (which had been reduced to judgment) was dis-chargeable.207 And where a person illegally drove a car while intoxicated, and in so doing injured another, the liability was discharged, unless he willfully or intentionally committed the injury.208
But if the injury is WILLFUL or MALICIOUS there is no discharge, as, for example, a judgment for assault and battery.209
So with the the above being said and the declarations filed. HOW IN THE WORLD DID THEY GET THE ACTIONS STAYED.
More proof that it's not what you know it's who you know.
Barkley123,
Where is the list of creditors? Where do you file this proof of claim? As far as I can tell from the SAC court there is a preliminary injunction. The police powers from automatic stay can't be lifted. Bankruptcy can't work. What am I missing here?
