Suter didn't use an attorney

[Bela]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10092

Regarding the above thread on Dominik Suter's $3 million bankruptcy, doesn't anyone think it's significant that this was done pro se, in other words, without an attorney?  

I filed for 50K in debt a few years ago and didn't dare represent myself.  But $3 million?  And it got discharged.  Why no attorney?  Any guesses?

[Christopher Marlowe]

David Uhlig on Page 5&6 of Suter's Bankruptcy filing is an LDA.
From Wikipedia:

A legal document assistant, or LDA (also commonly known as "document technician", "legal document preparer," "legal technician," "online legal document provider" and "legal document clerk") is a non-lawyer authorized to assist with the preparation of legal instruments. The profession is similar to a paralegal.

The role of a Legal Document Assistant varies significantly across legal jurisdictions, and therefore can be treated here in only the most general terms. Some acts performed by Legal Document Assistants may be lawful in one jurisdiction and prohibited in other jurisdictions.

From Page 5:
David Uhlig
444 W Boynton Beach Blvd.
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
561-731-0092

Attorney Alternatives · Boynton Beach, FL United States
444 W Boynton Beach Blvd..............Phone: (561) 731-0092
Boynton Beach, FL
33435-4027
United States

[Bela]

A legal document assistant or paralegal cannot represent a client in court.  All they do is prepare documents.  I am talking about legal representation.  

Suter went Pro Se (on a 3 million debt) in other words, he was his own representative.  I frankly would be scared to death if I had to explain to a judge how I got into 3 million in debt with no visible means of support.  Did he use the Zoomcopter / puzzle car / dead sea cosmetics mall sales as his source of income?

I had an attorney (cost was $750) represent me in court over a debt of about 50K.  The bankruptcy court where I went is a cattle call.  There were a ton of people waiting to be heard.  In spite of that, there is a judge, and he does ask questions.  I saw him question a Nigerian who had a business wiring money overseas.  

My atty at least told me what to say and do.  He made sure everything otherwise was in order.  A representative from Sears stores was there to make sure I hadn't screwed them (usually they will assume you did if you racked up a bunch of purchases 6 months or less before you file).  

So this business with Suter representing himself and getting off scott free just reeks of another corrupt hole in the judicial system.  I wonder how much the judge was paid off?

[Christopher Marlowe]

A legal document assistant or paralegal cannot represent a client in court. All they do is prepare documents. I am talking about legal representation.

Yeah. And even that is kind of a legal "black hole". At what point does "preparing a document" become "giving advice"? Document preparation can easily encroach on acting as an attorney.

Without knowing any facts of this case, it seems to me that paralegals who specialize in one particular area are going to be just as knowledgeable in that field of law as any judge or attorney, and certainly more so than a recent law grad who has only read the case book. In this example, a paralegal who has worked for the courts as process thousands of cases and he already knows the procedure. He knows all the forms; what the courts are looking for and what will satisfy them. Legally this paralegal can't give advice or tell you what to say, but how is the Florida Bar going to enforce that?

Suter went Pro Se (on a 3 million debt) in other words, he was his own representative.... 3 million in debt with no visible means of support. Did he use the Zoomcopter / puzzle car / dead sea cosmetics mall sales as his source of income?

Does the Small Business Administration count as a source of income?  Have you seen this?

Assistance Transaction #2039277
Expanded Detail on Individual Transactions for FY 2001
Award Or Aggregate #1
Recipient Information Section help link       
Recipient Name   URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS INC
Recipient City Name   BAYONNE
Recipient County Name   HUDSON
Recipient State Code   New Jersey
Recipient Zip Code   07002
Congressional District   NJ90: New Jersey unknown districts
Recipient Category   Individuals
Recipient Type   individual

Project and Award Info Section help link       
Major Agency   Small Business Administration
Agency Code   7300: Small Business Administration
Agency Name   SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Federal Award ID   45966540
State Application ID Number   SAI EXEMPT
CFDA Program Number   59.012: Small Business Loans
CFDA Program Title   SMALL BUSINESS LOANS
Assistance Category   Loans (both direct and guaranteed)
Assistance Type   guaranteed/insured loan
Project Description   TO AID SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN FINANCING IN THE PRIVATE CREDIT MARKETPLACE
Action Section help link       (Award or Aggregate #1)
Fiscal Year   2001
Action Type   new assistance action
Federal Funding Amount   $498,750 * SBA loan help link
Non-Federal Funding Amount   $166,250
Total Funding Amount   $665,000
Obligation / Action Date   06/22/2001
Starting Date   06/22/2001
Ending Date   06/22/2024
Record Type   individual action
* Note: SBA may include loans that have been authorized but for which no award was made. We are working with SBA to resolve this issue.
Principal Place Section help link       
Principal Place Code   3403580
Principal Place State   NEW JERSEY
Principal Place County or City   BAYONNE

http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads. ... T&sortby=i

Wayne Masden wrote a little bit about Suter:

June 20-22, 2008 — More on mysterious Urban Moving Systems

Further information from OMB Watch's Federal Spending website, indicates that in addition to $498,750 Israeli Mossad front Urban Moving Systems received in June 2001 from the Small Business Administration (SBA), it also received $166,250 from "non-federal funding."

Urban Moving Systems' CEO Dominik Suter fled the firm's Weehawken, New Jersey headquarters on September 11 before FBI agents could re-interview him about five of his employees, all Israeli intelligence agents, seen videotaping the World Trade Center from Liberty State Park in Jersey City before the impact of the first hijacked aircraft.

Interestingly, the SBA data record of its loan to Urban Moving Systems shows its location in Bayonne, New Jersey, an indication it moved to Weehawken in in advance of the 9/11 attacks.

Suter's name appeared on a terrorist watchlist provided by the FBI and leaked by Italian financial surveillance authorities. His name appears along with all the 9/11 Arab hijackers. A similar list, also based on FBI information, and leaked by the Finnish financial surveillance authority, did not contain Suter's name.

The list from Italy contains the following addresses for Suter:  

28 Harlow Crescent Rd., Fair Lawn, NJ 07410;

312 Pavonia Ave., Jersey City, NJ 07302;

15000 Dickens Suite 11, Sherman Oaks, CA

A year of birth of 1970 and a Social Security Number of 129-78-0926 is also listed.

A Veromi search resulted in a full name for Suter of Dominick Otto Suter, with addresses in Fairlawn, New Jersey; Jersey City, NJ; and New York City. Weehawaken is listed as the business address for Urban Moving Systems. Another Veromi search resulted in New Rochelle, New York as another business address for Urban Moving Systems, a total of four addresses for the firm before 9/11: New York City, Bayonne, Weehawken, and New Rochelle.

Veromi also lists Ornit Levinson as a possible relative of Suter's with addresses in New York City, Fairlawn, NJ, Jersey City, Sherman Oaks, California, New Rochelle, and Van Nuys, California. Two businesses are associated with Levinson: 1 Stop Cleaning LLC of Royal Palm Beach and Wellington, Florida and INVSUPPORT, Inc. of Wellington, Florida. The Italian watchlist also lists Omit Levinson, aka Omit Suter, with a birth year of 1971 and a Social Security Number of 122-78-0232. Addresses for Levinson are listed as:

28 Harlow Crescent Rd., Fairlawn, NJ 07410

312 Pavonia Ave.,Jersey City, NJ 07302

15000 Dickens Ste 11, Sherman Oaks, CA

The Florida Articles of Incorporation for INVSUPPORT lists Levinson as director with an address of 11924 Forest Hill Blvd., Suite 22, #372, Wellington, Florida 33414. The state of New Jersey filed a civil suit against Suter and Urban Moving Systems in Florida in 2005. A West Palm Beach, Florida address is listed for Suter.

On September 14, 2005, WMR reported: "There are indications that Israeli national Dominik Suter, the former head of Urban Moving Systems in Weehawken, NJ is back in the United States, this time in south Florida and may be using his actual name. An informed source claims that Suter is working for an aviation-related firm in south Florida. The firm is reportedly involved in parts locating for the aerospace and aviation industries.Suter ran the Weehawken, NJ-based moving company on 9-11 when a number of Urban Moving Systems vans were spotted around north Jersey before and after the hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center. One Urban Moving van was seen at Liberty State Park in Jersey City as the first plane hit the towers. The five occupants, all Israeli nationals, were seen videotaping and celebrating the attack and were dressed in Arab clothing. The five were later arrested near Giant Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ. One of the Israelis told police they were at Liberty State Park to 'document the event.'

After the Israelis were detained for several months in Brooklyn as terrorist suspects, they were quickly deported to Israel. After the FBI questioned Suter on September 11, he fled the United States on September 14, 2001. The FBI was due to question Suter again before he fled the country. Later, Federal law enforcement agents discovered pipes, caps, explosive chemical materials, and traces of anthrax at the Weehawken warehouse. Suter's name and those of some of his moving employees turned up in a CIA database of foreign intelligence agents. Suter's name also appeared on an FBI 9-11 terrorism suspect.

On October 2, 2005, WMR reported: "On April 11, 2001, a DEA agent and a Fredericksburg, Virginia policeman questioned two female Israeli 'art student' nationals at the shopping center in Fredericksburg. The passport for Yael Gavish contained some interesting entry/exit visas: 13 December 2000, entry into Bogota, Colombia and 5 February 2001, exit visa from Bogota. In addition, on 5 February there was a possible entry visa for Panama, which was followed by a 9 March 2001 entry visa in New York City. Gavish's colleague Meirav Balhams had a New York State identity card listing her address as 354 Paterson Plank Rd., Jersey City, New Jersey. An FBI 9-11 suspect list dated February 22, 2002 lists Dominik Suter, along with an Ornit Levinson, a.k.a., Omit Suter, with an address of 312 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City. Dominik Suter was the head of Urban Moving Systems of nearby Weehawken, the base of operations for two white vans with the same rear license plate that were seen parked at the Doric Apartments (near Patterson Plank Road) and at Liberty State Park at the same time the first plane struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The occupants of both vans, all Israelis, were seen celebrating the attack while dressed in Arab garb. Five Israelis in one of the vans were later arrested by the local police and FBI near Giant Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey in the late afternoon of September 11."

http://wacla.org/2008/07/01/wayne-madse ... g-systems/
(WM is subscriber only for certain articles)

[Bela]

Suter's already been pegged to the Zoomcopter business:
http://mybigfatanti-zionistlife.blogspo ... s-and.html

[Bela]

Yeah. And even that is kind of a legal "black hole". At what point does "preparing a document" become "giving advice"? Document preparation can easily encroach on acting as an attorney.


The only documents that get presented in a bankruptcy are lists of creditors, lists of debts and assets or income, and some forms that declare everything that you are saying or presenting is true.  

The attorney I had had all the paperwork done by HIS paralegal.  The JUDGE always has the last say.  The judge can always bring something up, can always question what is being presented.  Apparently he brought nothing up.  You have an attorney present in case this happens .  The Nigerian I mentioned was represented by the same attorney I had.  He appeared before the judge a few minutes before I did, and the judge gave him some grief because his money wiring business looked dicey.  I am sure he had his documents all in order as well.  The judge is the final arbiter.  Suter for whatever reason knew his case would get discharged.  

This is from one website:

Use a Bankruptcy Lawyer

Bankruptcy lawyers are highly recommended for the majority of bankruptcy filers. Bankruptcy is a very difficult process, and legal guidance should be used throughout. Although there are costs, the risks of proceeding without one are high.
Use a Filing Service

Though not recommended, filing services can relieve some stress to the debtor. They will do all paperwork filing, but will not provide any legal advice. The debtor will save a great deal of money not getting a bankruptcy lawyer.
File "Pro Se"

For those without the financial means to hire a lawyer or filing service pro se  is the only remaining option for debtors. Bankruptcy is risky to undergo without legal aid, however, in times of financial crisis, it may be necessity.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Good get with the whirlycopter story.

I did a little checking on the court and the judge, but I didn't really find anything:
I looked at that Boynton Beach address and guessed that the nearest bankruptcy court was the one Suter used.
The US Bankruptcy Court in Southern FL has several offices: Miami, Fr. Lauderdale, and W. Palm Beach. Palm Beach was the closest, 22 minutes away.

The judge back in 2005 was Steven H. Friedman.  His 14 year appointment ended in 2007.  This is what the Palm Beach bar bulletin had to say:

On November 2, 2007, the Honorable Steven H. Friedman will complete his 14- year term of distinguished service on the bench of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. Members of the Bankruptcy Bar will recall Judge Friedman's compassion for the pro se debtor and his patience in ensuring that all litigants who appeared before him, whether represented by counsel or not, left with the feeling that the bankruptcy system treated them fairly. During Judge Friedman's tenure on the bench, he was especially fond of the Bankruptcy Bar's professionalism and the mutually beneficial relationship he developed with his law clerks. For the 12 years prior to Judge Friedman's judicial appointment, attorney Friedman, among other things, represented debtors, creditors and bankruptcy trustees in the Southern District of Florida. In 1987, attorney Friedman was appointed as a Chapter 7 panel trustee and remained a panel trustee until his 1993 judicial appointment. Upon completing his service on the bench, Judge Friedman is looking forward to returning to the private practice of bankruptcy law.

OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES
Publication: Palm Beach Post (Florida)
Date: Monday, January 5 2009
Steven H. Friedman, Attorney at Law, 777 S. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, 33401, (561) 313-1351, attorney

[Bela]

Already tough enough?

Bankruptcy practitioners say new scrutiny by U.S. Trustee's office of Chapter 7 filings is so onerous Congress' means-testing bill isn't needed
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/Awar ... nough.html
April 7, 2003
By Steve Ellman

With Congress poised to pass legislation to stamp out what the credit industry calls rampant abuse of Chapter 7 consumer bankruptcy protection, South Florida experts say a little-noticed program launched by the U.S. Department of Justice is already doing the job.

Under the Justice Department's 2001 "civil enforcement initiative," bankruptcy trustees in Florida's Southern District are scrutinizing debtors' finances with unprecedented rigor, federal officials and bankruptcy lawyers say.

The initiative is a creation of the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, which administers the nation's bankruptcy trustees and cases. The department announced the program in October 2001, describing the plan as a "more aggressive use [of] existing civil enforcement methods to curb abuse of the bankruptcy system." The Executive Office says that in its first year, the initiative resulted in 5,800 successful challenges of Chapter 7 filers.

Some experts say the program strikes a reasonable balance between policing abuse and leaving bankruptcy trustees and judges flexibility to evaluate cases on an individual basis. But debtor attorneys complain that the initiative is making it harder for legitimate filers to discharge their debts and that it amounts to a form of means testing eligibility for Chapter 7 protection.

Currently there is no statutory means test or income cap for people who wish to file a Chapter 7 petition. The U.S. Trustee's office and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court evaluate eligibility based on whether, after comparing a person's income with allowable expenses, the filer has any disposable income to pay his debts.

Under the Trustee's enforcement initiative, the trustee and the court have been taking a harder look at reported income and expenses. The pending legislation would couple that with a relatively low cap on disposable income, blocking many people who currently are eligible for Chapter 7 from filing. Such means testing is one of the most controversial aspects of the bill.

"I never had a single petition inquired about before the [Trustee's enforcement] initiative began," said Bradley Shraiberg, a partner at Boca Raton bankruptcy boutique Furr & Cohen who represents both debtors and creditors. Now, he estimates that more than 70 percent of his debtor-clients are subjected to inquiry.

The chief element of the enforcement initiative is near-universal and intensive review of the income and expense statements of Chapter 7 filers. If the Trustee calculates that the debtor is able to enter a payment schedule with creditors, the petition can be challenged in court and dismissed. The debtor would then have the option of filing for Chapter 13 protection, which, unlike Chapter 7, puts filers on a payment plan for up to five years.

Patricia Dzikowski, a partner at Dzikowski & Walsh in Fort Lauderdale, who has served as a private trustee appointed by the U.S. Trustee's office for more than a decade, said she's seen a "tremendous" increase in the U.S. Trustee's scrutiny of debtor's finances due to the initiative. "Appointed trustees are taking a much bigger role in looking over I and J [income and expense] schedules," Dzikowski said.

Steve Turner, acting assistant trustee for the U.S. Trustee's field office in Miami, said calculating debtor income and expenses is a big part of the initiative, but stressed that the Trustee's office continues to consider individual circumstances.

"There is no benchmark," Turner said. "Sometimes you see on its face that a debtor's expenses are less than their income and they could go to Chapter 13. Sometimes you see a guy driving around in a Mercedes and it doesn't pass the smell test. It depends on the facts of the case."

Bill limits flexibility

Critics of the pending legislation in Congress say the success of the U.S. Trustee's initiative lends credence to their argument that there are effective ways to address bankruptcy abuse without eliminating the flexibility of judges and trustees to evaluate cases individually. Under current law, judges and trustees are required to consider the "totality of the circumstances" faced by the debtor, rather than any specific income and expenses criteria, in deciding whether the person is abusing the Chapter 7 process.

"If [the initiative] is implemented fairly, it's an efficient and equitable way to weed out abuse," said Chief Judge Robert Mark of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, who has publicly criticized the pending legislation. "A means test would be substantially more expensive and potentially quite unfair."

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003, which overwhelmingly passed the House on March 19 and is now pending in the Senate, would eliminate much of the judges' and trustees' flexibility in considering Chapter 7 petitions.

The credit card and credit union industries have been pushing for the legislation, citing an increase in Chapter 7 filings involving consumer debt, particularly unsecured credit card debt. Such filings make up the large majority of total bankruptcy filings, which have increased with the downturn of the economy during the past two years.

Nationally, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, total bankruptcy filings grew from 1,253,444 in 2000 to 1,577,651 in 2002. Chapter 7 filings have constituted two-thirds of the total throughout that period.

Debtors currently can choose freely between Chapter 7 and 13. Debtors usually prefer Chapter 7 because it allows them to liquidate their assets and discharge their debts quickly without losing their house or car. Creditors prefer Chapter 13 because it requires debtors to repay a portion of the money they owe within five years.

The pending legislation in Congress would establish a tough means test that would essentially limit Chapter 7 protection to low-income people and tightly restrict allowable expenses. Under the legislation, anyone who earns in excess of the state median income for a similarly sized family and who has $100 to $167 per month in disposable income, as determined using Internal Revenue Service expense standards, would have to file under Chapter 13 rather than Chapter 7.

The legislation is nearly identical to that which passed both chambers last year but never was reconciled. The measure was held up over a provision relating to the ability of anti-abortion protesters to discharge judgments arising from lawsuits filed by abortion clinics.

The legislation is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, "has not yet determined what step to take next," according to committee spokeswoman Margarita Tapia. It's expected that Senate Democrats will try once again to attach the abortion-related provision along with other amendments, including a measure to make it harder for wealthy people to shield unlimited assets in a homestead in Florida, Texas and a few other states. But the Democrats may have a hard time doing so this year because they no longer control the Senate.

The legislation has been widely criticized as draconian by bankruptcy judges, the bankruptcy bar and academic experts since it was originally proposed in 1994. "The premise, fears, and conditions underlying the original perceived need for bankruptcy reform six years ago do not exist," Judith Greenstone Miller, representing the bankruptcy section of the Commercial Law League of America, a creditors' rights group, told Congress last month.

While filings may have increased "incrementally" since 1994, Miller said, the economic climate has worsened since then and Americans are filing for bankruptcy because of life setbacks such as divorce, medical bills, loss of jobs, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, displaced military personnel and corporate downsizing, and "not merely to escape one's obligations." She argued that Congress instead should crack down on growing bankruptcy abuse by corporate officers and directors who've been involved in financial misconduct.

Some supporters of the Trustee's enforcement initiative say the program works so well that Congress should drop the statutory means test from the new legislation and rely on the program's rigorous scrutiny of income and expenses to root out fraud and abuse.

But some debtor attorneys say the new enforcement program unfairly makes bankruptcy more difficult and expensive, and constitutes a back-door means test. "I have clients with unexpected reverses in circumstances beyond their control," Shraiberg said. "It seems indecent to deny worthy candidates a fresh start."

Targeting debtor

misconduct

The Trustee's enforcement initiative has two components, described last month in testimony to Congress by Lawrence A. Friedman, director of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees. One is directed at "consumer protection ... from unscrupulous bankruptcy petition preparers and attorneys." The other targets "debtor misconduct," including "inaccurate financial disclosure" and "concealment of assets."

Friedman boasted of the initiative's success. He reported that during fiscal year 2002, the U.S. Trustee's field offices overall took more than 50,000 civil enforcement and related actions that yielded about $160 million in debts not discharged. Nationally, he said, the program prevented the Chapter 7 discharge of almost $60 million of debt, led to the denial of a discharge for more than 800 debtors on the grounds of serious misconduct, successfully took action against fraudulent petition preparers in more than 1,500 cases, and launched an audit effort to identify the scope of fraud and abuse.

But he also testified that the fraud and abuse provisions in the House bill would increase the effectiveness of his office's enforcement initiative, particularly the means testing and debtor audit provisions. He said a statutory means test would establish a more objective and consistent basis for defining abuse.

Nailing 5,800 abusive Chapter 7 filers may not seem like much when there were an estimated 1.5 million personal bankruptcy petitions filed in that period. The credit industry contends that the cases are a small percentage of actual abusers. But supporters of the U.S. Trustee's initiative point out that the program is new and has great potential.

The initiative's primary tool for attacking debtor misconduct is Section 707(b) of U.S. Bankruptcy Code, which allows the court to dismiss petitions when debts "are primarily consumer debts" and their discharge under Chapter 7 would be "a substantial abuse" of the code.

In his testimony, Friedman defined "substantial abuse" as "seek[ing] discharge of debts despite an ability to repay."

But Shraiberg said that Friedman's definition conflicts with case law in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in South Florida. According to Shraiberg, judges there have traditionally interpreted "substantial abuse" in light of "the totality of the circumstances" rather than "ability to repay."

Despite the U.S. Trustee's initiative, several South Florida bankruptcy judges say they've seen few 707(b) challenges. Judge Mark recalled trying just one such action in his 12 years on the bench. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Friedman in West Palm Beach called them "a rarity" and said he'd seen "no increase." No log of such challenges is kept by the U.S. Trustee's field office in Miami.

The only Section 707(b) dismissal listed on the Internet site for the Southern District of Florida in the last five years is a January 2001 ruling by U.S. Bankruptcy Court Chief Judge Emeritus Judge A. Jay Cristol. He dismissed a Chapter 7 petition filed by a police officer who had debt of $66,000 but who used part of his annual income of $60,000 to care for two retired police horses.

Judge Paul Hyman, who sits in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, said he's seen "more than 10 but less than 20" 707(b) challenges since the Trustee's initiative began. Hyman said only one led to a petition being dismissed.

Unprecedented documentation

The rarity of 707(b) dismissals misses the point, according to Shraiberg. He says the Trustee's office and private trustees are wielding their new hammer of tougher scrutiny outside the courtroom.

Shraiberg and other consumer bankruptcy attorneys report a sharp increase in their receipt of letters of inquiry about Chapter 7 petitions from the assistant U.S. Trustee's Miami office and from private trustees appointed by the office. The letters focus on debtors' income and expenses as enumerated under bankruptcy court Schedules I and J. They are demanding exorbitant levels of supporting documentation, Shraiberg said.

The letters contain the "implicit threat" of a court challenge to the petitions, Shraiberg said. That's objectionable, he added, in light of the Section 707(b) language that "there shall be a presumption in favor of granting the relief requested by the debtor."

"It's unfair to individuals already in financial distress," Shraiberg said. "I tell clients upfront that it's going to cost them a minimum of $1,500 to contest a challenge." That's in addition to the $1,500 to $3,000 he said he charges to file for Chapter 7 exclusive of challenges.

Shraiberg said the U.S. Trustee's tougher new income and expense analysis fails to account for debtors' individual circumstances. "They questioned one of my clients over a $100 monthly cell phone bill," he said. "He was a FedEx driver with a serious illness in the family. Was he supposed to spend all day looking for pay phones to call home?" The client won Chapter 7 protection — but only after demonstrating that his debts were not consumer debts.

Clients who are discouraged from filing for Chapter 7 protection by the prospect of a 707(b) challenge are left with two alternatives, Shraiberg said. Those with no financial resources give up on bankruptcy and resign themselves to living with creditors hounding them. A second group, with greater resources, file for Chapter 13 protection. But Chapter 13 filings cost significantly more in attorney fees and often commit the filer to an onerous repayment schedule, he said.

Fran Sheehy, a Coconut Creek bankruptcy attorney, shares Shraiberg's assessment of the U.S. Trustee's initiative. She said she's experienced a "blizzard of paperwork" under the program.

"It used to be all you had to do in Chapter 7 was file, unless [the debtor's] numbers were really off the wall," she said. Now, "each trustee has their own version of a means test. They're comparing I and J schedules with IRS guidelines, with little regard for the totality of [the debtor's] circumstances."

She said even before the initiative was launched, the U.S. Trustee's office had the necessary tools to weed out abusive filings. In her view, the new program is excessive. "[The initiative] is wasting resources," she said. "It makes the Trustee a collection agency for the credit card companies."

A spokeswoman for the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees defended the program and denied that the more aggressive use of Section 707(b) challenges constitutes a back-door means test. In a statement sent by e-mail, Jane Limprecht said Section 707(b) "is intended to prevent debtors who are undeserving or capable of repaying a significant portion of their debts from receiving a discharge in Chapter 7.

"While the Civil Enforcement Initiative does not implement 'means testing' with respect to Section 707(b) actions, the U.S. Trustee Program strives to reach consistency of practice, and many offices are endeavoring to identify or develop objective standards to assess whether debtors' expenses are excessive."

Better than a means test

Some prominent bankruptcy attorneys who represent debtors say the Trustee's enforcement initiative has its virtues, particularly compared with the legislation in Congress.

"Clearly there's a major new effort under way to weed out abuse of the system," said Patricia Redmond, a shareholder at Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson in Miami. She said she's "not bothered" by the Trustee's program, and prefers it to the means test contained in the House bill.

"The 707(b) inquiries are not a means test, which would be much more rigorous," Redmond said. "I much prefer the case-by-case method of the initiative to a one-size-fits-all approach."

Arthur Rice, a partner at Rice Pugatch Robinson & Shiller in Miami, said even though he believes creditors' claims of rampant bankruptcy abuse are overblown, he's a "big fan" of the initiative's more thorough income and expense scrutiny. "The question is, how do you effectively police the system?" he said. "I'm not in favor of a means test. But what is a trustee supposed to do when they get income schedules with no records?"

Even critics of the initiative like Shraiberg say they prefer it to a rigid means test. But the criteria for determining abuse should be codified by Congress rather than left to the discretion of each bankruptcy trustee and judge, Shraiberg argued.

Surprisingly, those who say the pending legislation is too rigid and harsh haven't seized on the U.S. Trustee's enforcement initiative as a more flexible alternative for addressing bankruptcy abuse.

During the House Judiciary Committee's hearings on the bankruptcy bill early last month, alternatives to means testing were discussed — but not in the context of the U.S. Trustee's program, said an aide to U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who, along with 111 other House Democrats, voted against the bill. Instead, most Democratic criticisms have centered on its failure to address the role of credit card companies, which are accused of offering cards too freely.

In an e-mailed comment to the Daily Business Review, Nadler said the U.S. Trustee's civil enforcement initiative "makes clear ... that a radical and inflexible overhaul of the current system would be both unnecessary and counterproductive."

But a spokesman for a group that strongly supports the House bill, Joe Rubin, public affairs director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued that means testing is the best solution. "The Trustee's initiative used a lot of resources," he said. "But abuse is so prevalent that a statutory means test makes sense."

Rubin insisted that critics' fears about the fairness of the means test are overblown. "Means tests are not as ironclad as they're made out to be," he said. "Chapter 7 will still be there for filers who really need protection."

Judge Cristol couldn't disagree more. He called the proposed legislation an "abomination" and said means testing would undercut the core purpose of bankruptcy court. "Forgiveness of mistakes and the debts they lead to is central to our mission," he said. "I like to hope we'll always be the most humane branch of the judicial system."

Steve Ellman can be reached at mailto:sellman@floridabiz.com">sellman@floridabiz.com or at (561) 820-2071.

[Bela]

Suter also went bankrupt in '05, a long way away from that federal loan in '01.  So what was his income in the meantime?  How long did he let his bills go unpaid before he filed?  It would be interesting to know.

[§N9sh2bj]

The only thing attorneys can do is argue.
argue will get you in dishonour, and you will lose.
Dominick likely knew this and so he wanted to settle and close the matter.
According to ..I can't remember now some latin-titled book on lawyers and courts longstanding:
The first duty is to the court
the second duty is to the public
and maybe the third duty is to the client.

Who in their right mind would hire someone who first loyalty is to the agent of a private corporate court, which in fact operates as a bank?

[Christopher Marlowe]

Cal Bus & Prof Code 6068

It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:
   (a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and
of this state.
   (b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers.
   (c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses
only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a
person charged with a public offense.
   (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided
to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth, and
never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.
   (e) (1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril
to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.
   (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an attorney may, but is not
required to, reveal confidential information relating to the
representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably
believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that
the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or
substantial bodily harm to, an individual.
....

[Bela]

A judge can still block a discharge of debt, attorney or no attorney.  With a 3 million debt, you're better off with an attorney.  Judges don't often listen to civilians who act as their own counsel.  Most of the time, they probably think you're cracked if you choose to represent yourself.  I would like to see the complete case file.

"All attorneys can do is argue"

They can do more than that.  Like think of all the loopholes from previous cases.  I got an atty for a speeding ticket.  She was able to change it to something that didn't get on my record and on top of that I didn't have to waste any time going to court.  Well worth the $275 I had to pay her.  Arguing your own case without any legal training is not a good idea.

In the article I posted regarding the standards of proof in a bankruptcy, it goes over how some lowly FedEx driver got raked over the coals for having a $100 monthly cell phone bill.  This is what I am talking about.  Suter gets out of 3 million debt without the judge batting an eyelash (at least that's what it looks like) - and acting as his own rep to boot.  There's something odd here.

[Bela]

1.   What should I know about the Bankruptcy Reform Act requirements BEFORE filing my petition?

The Bankruptcy Reform Act (also known as the BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005) has changed the requirements for debtors filing bankruptcy after October 17, 2005.

The above from the West Palm Beach Bankruptcy Court where Suter filed:  http://www.flsb.uscourts.gov/Pro_Se/pro_se_frame.html
Suter filed his case on the 12th of October, 2005, thus beating the deadline for the new rules.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Good get, Bela. I should have thought of that.

[Tomas O'Crohan]

As I'm sure most everyone here is well aware of at this point, the "courts" are a fraud. What we have now in this country is Talmudic Law, i.e., the "law" is whatever the "rabbis" say it is at any given moment and is based on considerations that have nothing to do with the particular case the "rabbis" are deciding. "The Rules" are espoused as sacrosanct when they want to bludgeon you with them but are completely ignored when they want to something else, i.e., save your opponent. What a fraud. If the call goes into chambers that a certain outcome is expected in a certain case, that's how the case is decided. If the "law" is against the desired outcome, they just make up some new "law" all the while putting on the pretence that they're "upholding the rule of law." What a fraud. To answer your question about why the UPS guy was bludgeoned over a cell phone bill and the 3 million scammer got off without having to even go to the expense of hiring a lawyer, just examine the name of the scammer. Under this current, thoroughly corrupted "system of justice", it's not the facts and the law applied to those facts that determine the outcome of the case but rather THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. Yes, that's a tough pill to swallow indeed but it's one more brutal reality we confront in this war against the octopus that intends on devouring us. There are a lot of arms that need to be severed.