IV. Conclusion In the final analysis, Judge Little’s opinion in In re Standing Order with Reasons Regarding Objections to the discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 and Proported Settlement of Actions, 272 B.R. 917(BKRtcy. W.D. La.2001) provides more than adequate authority for this Court to review Judge Callaway’s standing orders, which, in effect, are orders of this Court. Moreover, this Court has already exercised its jurisdiction denying the writ f prohibition as to the first standing order and taking under advisement the second.

. Here, the bankruptcy court, relying on Cho’s incomplete schedules and disclosures, accepted Cho’s position and entered an Order of Discharge on August 15, 2016 granting Cho a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727, removing Cho’s personal liability for all debts owed before his bankruptcy case was filed, and prohibiting anyone from making any attempt to collect a discharged debt from Cho personally. 3.

LH[5], at 727-91 (16th ed. 2015); 11 U.S.C. § 727(d). Thus, "cure" through restoring Mr. Arnell's pre-filing status quo was virtually impossible in March of 2012.

Even if this Court concluded that Plaintiff filed a valid refund claim, this Court should deny Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of indebtedness. Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1), corporations filing a Chapter 7 proceeding are not eligible for a discharge. See NLRB v. Better Bldg.

See, supra, Taylor, 81 F.3d at 23; Gilliam, 430 B.R. at 356-57; Severo, 129 T.C. at 168- 169; Doe, 438 F. Supp. 2d at 802-803; In re Cowen, 207 B.R. at 209. Thus, Mazur’s1993 bankruptcy tolled the ten-year collection statute from the date of the May through October 2002 assessments until at least six months after October 2006 (the date of his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727). More than 4.

Debts that can be discharged are treated in Chapter 7, Chapter 13, and even Chapter 11 cases under the Bankruptcy Code. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, such as this one, 11 U.S. Code §727(b) discharges a debtor “from all debts that arose before the date of the order for relief” except as provided in 11 U.S. Code § 523. Here, Brent has raised some concerns that the debt in question falls into several categories listed in § 523(a) in his papers.

threatened to undercut their prices and destabilize the market” – supported “inference of a joint motive by the two defendants to unlawfully stabilize roofing prices in northern New Jersey”); Case 3:16-cv-04735-FLW-DEA Document 48 Filed 02/14/17 Page 14 of 21 PageID: 475 9 Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Rosenberg, 85 F.Supp.2d 424, 437 (D.N.J. 2000) (civil enforcement action filed by trading commission against broker and noting that “evidence of prior bad acts must be probative of a material issue other than character to be admissible”) (citation omitted); U.S. v. Jewell, 614 F.3d 911, 922 (8th Cir. 2010) (where cause of action was for aiding and abetting tax evasion, evidence of separate tax evasion scheme was properly admitted at trial); In re Khalil v. Developers Surety & Indemnity Co., 578 F.3d 1167, 1168-69 (9th Cir. 2009) (on appeal of bankruptcy decision, Court noted that inference of fraudulent intent “from pattern of behavior” is permitted because 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) provides for “the denial of a discharge of debt where creditor shows that a debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath or account during the bankruptcy proceeding”); U.S. v. O’Leary, 739 F.2d 135, 136 (3d Cir. 1984) (finding no abuse of discretion in allowing co-conspirator to distribute cocaine to testify to prior purchases of cocaine). SKP’s citation to Church on the issue of allowing “prior bad acts” is also inapposite because the “prior bad acts” there were actionable.

ed 01 0/ 7 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT “4” Case 5:16-cv-00250-MTT Document 15-5 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 6 Case 5:16-cv-00250-MTT Document 15-5 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 6 Case 5:16-cv-00250-MTT Document 15-5 Filed 01/10/17 Page 3 of 6 Case 5:16-cv-00250-MTT Document 15-5 Filed 01/10/17 Page 4 of 6 Case 5:16-cv-00250-MTT Document 15-5 Filed 01/10/17 Page 5 of 6 Case 5:16-cv-00250-MTT Document 15-5 Filed 01/10/17 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT “5” Case 5:16-cv-00250-MTT Document 15-6 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 3 Information to identify the case: Debtor 1 Marcus M. Freeman First Name Middle Name Last Name Social Security number or ITIN xxx−xx−0096 EIN _ _−_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Debtor 2 (Spouse, if filing) First Name Middle Name Last Name Social Security number or ITIN _ _ _ _ EIN _ _−_ _ _ _ _ _ _ United States Bankruptcy Court Middle District of Georgia Case number: 13−51756 aec Order of Discharge 12/15 IT IS ORDERED: A discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 is granted to: Marcus M. Freeman 1665 Wesleyan Dr. Apt. 1218 Macon, GA 31210 2/1/16 By the court: /s/Austin E. Carter United States Bankruptcy Judge Explanation of Bankruptcy Discharge in a Chapter 7 Case This order does not close or dismiss the case, and it does not determine how much money, if any, the trustee will pay creditors.

11 U.S.C. § 727(b). However, 11 U.S.C. § 523 provides for the following exception: (a) A discharge under section 727 . . . of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-- (1) for a tax or a customs duty-- (A) of the kind and for the periods specified in section 507(a)(3) or 507(a)(8) of this title, whether or not a claim for such tax was filed or allowed; (B) with respect to which a return, or equivalent report or notice, if required-- Case 3:07-cv-00081-BTM-WMC Document 65 Filed 01/16/09 Page 4 of 9Case 3:16-cv- 1705-L-DHB Document 8-7 Filed 11/17/16 Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 07cv81 BTM(WMc

The Defendant has attempted to argue that reporting both a charge off by the furnisher and that it was discharged by a bankruptcy court is both accurate and complete. However, this argument is legally flawed and incorrect because 11 U.S.C. section 301(b), as discussed above, explicitly states that the order for relief is entered on the petition date and all debts existing as of the petition date are discharged under 11 U.S.C. section 727(b), thus a charge off of the debt, after the bankruptcy petition date, by the Defendant was not possible because the debt was discharged. (FAC ¶ 6) Though section 301(b) and section Case3:12-cv-02612-SI Document20 Filed07/06/12 Page5 of 10 Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 727(b) (supra) are clear, the issue, if in dispute, would be properly decided by summary judgment or a trial on the merits not a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion.