Holy crappin' crap!

[rfassett]

Went to the US Courthouse 90 miles up the road today. Arrived at 10:40 after being lost for 10 minutes. Had a 11:10 reaffirmation hearing that started 20 minutes late. Judge said he would take care of the paperwork. I believe it all went well. Quick lunch and back to the courthouse at 12:30 for 2004 examination which was scheduled for 1:00. Started 5 minutes early and finished at 3:00. I think the examiner should have to wear gloves. Man! I feel like I have been through the wringer. Examiner said she needed to run our testimony by her supevisor but she was satisfied with our answers and she would anticipate no roadblocks in front of the April 11th (60 day extended) discharge date. Here's hopin'!

[pa308]

whats a 2004 examination?

[rfassett]

A month ago I wondered the same thing. It is just an interigation by the U S Trustee's DOJ office, under oath and complete with court reporter. The U S Trustee's office is (was) attempting to formulate an argument to deny discharge under Section 727 (I believe). But I believe we convinced the attorney that we have not commited fraud nor malfeasance, etc.

[pa308]

if you dont mind my asking, any idea what in your bk brought that around? Not trying to be nosy. I'm going to file sometime between April and June and trying to learn as much as i can.

[PaKettle]

I'm curious, too - what caused such an "interrogation"? Sounds like a nasty tax audit!

[Bobbi]

i had someone in our 341 from the federal court who asked about my forms, i guess because they were completed so well, and we are prose.......i thought that was normal but someone else told me that didn't happen to them. i think they pick and choose who to screw with sometimes........glad it went well!

[DivorceRuinedMe]

I wonder if this 2004 examination is what the US trustee wants to do with me. Hmmm.....I'll have to ask my atty if that's what the trustee wants to do to me when I talk to her this AM.

Why again do you think you were picked on?? I know why I'm being picked on. I was audited and there was a clerical error in my petition and the audit found it before I could amend it and there ya go. At least that's why I think I'm being picked on...

[rilbrianne]

It's luck of the draw. 1 case out of every 250 (I believe) is chosen for audit to make sure people aren't screwing the system and the system isn't screwing people. Of course, if there were things being hidden such as a bank account in a foreign country that was found out, that is another reason you may be audited. Or, hiding income, assets, etc.

[rfassett]

Sorry about not expounding last night. I was physically and emotionally drained after the meetings. Here is what I know about the ride we are on. We filed pro se on November 2nd and the 341 was scheduled for December 11th. We used an internet form preparation company to prepare the petition for our review and filing. Within two days of sending a copy of the petition to the trustee, we received a call from the trustee's secretary asking how we came up with our exemptions. I explained that the internet company supplied a list and I selected the ones I thought were appropriate. Within a week, we received a letter from the DOJ's office requesting credit card statements for two years, bank statements for two years, personal tax returns for two years and two years tax returns for a wholly owned corporation to which I am the sole shareholder (this entity was not included in the bankruptcy filing), insurance policies and a few other odds and ends as well as an eighteen point question and answer dialog. When the dust settled, we sent 4 pounds and 13 ounces of paper to the DOJ and a second set to the bankruptcy trustee. And I had the feeling that if they looked through all of that info, they would know more about me than I know about me. That's when it started getting scary. This information was requested to be in the DOJ's office 14 days prior to the 341 meeting and it was there three days early. In the meantime, we received another inquiry from the DOJ's office about the internet company that we used for our petition. At this crossroads, I was exploring the idea of whether I should get an attorney invovled. Well, I was watching pacer pretty close and in the 11th hour, the DOJ's office posts that the case is a presumption of abuse case and we are to await further instructions. We wait and watch, and again in the 11th hour, the DOJ's office posts that after further review, the case is not a presumption of abuse case. At this point, I assume everything is hunky dorry and now it is just a matter of waiting out the 60 days. Day 58, the DOJ's office requests a 60 day extension of time to file an objection to discharge. This caught me totally by surprise because, I was under the assumption that they had reviewed everything and were satisfied. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. On day 59, I filed an objection to their request for a 60 day extension because nothing had been communicated to me that there were any issues. On day 60, we received the invitation to the 2004 examination. So I started making some phone calls to the DOJ's office to get a handle on what the issues were and was informed that they were seeking a dismissal of the case based on section 727(a)(2), (3), (4), and (5). More ignorance. I spent the next two days getting up to speed on section 727(a). This caused me to go back and review the petition and the documents we had supplied to the DOJ and I concluded that the DOJ's office had their imaginations working very well. I had concluded that if they were trying to make a case out of our filing based on the sections quoted (or anyother sections for that matter), they were barking up the wrong tree. We had been completely forthright in all of our answers and have nothing to hide. So it was our job to convince the examiner of those facts at the 2004 meeting. I think we succeeded. Only time will tell. April 11th is our new discharge date. I guess I am glad the government is paying attention, but I wish they would pay attention with someone else for awhile.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Wow. Rfasset, I can't tell you how impressed and encouraged I have been by your stick-to-it-iveness and courage in everything you've written about. If I had gotten any one of those notifications, I do believe I would have become a new Depends customer. But everything you write confirms what I have been thinking, which is that with study and careful diligence, a straightforward Ch7 pro se bk can be done even through audits and challenges. I think you have probably encouraged some pro se folks here, even as painful as it has to have been for you to go through it. You've encouraged me!!! I can't imagine where you'd be right now if you'd relied a lazy or unavailable atty instead of yourself. Thank you for writing all you have; I have learned a lot from your experience.

I am so glad it's finally coming to a close for you, and I hope it all works out quickly and smoothly. Here's hoping the govt pays attention to someone else soon. Good luck!!!

[rfassett]

Thanks FreshLikeADaisy! In nearly all aspects of my life, and this one notwithstanding, I take the "never give up, never surrender" approach and attitude. And that, often times, means doing a lot of research to arm myself with knowledge. As they say, it is not knowledge that is power, it is the USE of that knowledge that is power. Because of this board and people like yourself, I know alot more about bankruptcy now than I did when I filed back in November. Ours was not a well thought out, well planned and well orchestrated filing. We woke up one day in late October and realized that we had no money and lots of bills staring us in the face. We literally put the bankruptcy petition together over a weekend and filed it on Tuesday after that weekend. Would we have been better prepared had we taken more time to plan it? Perhaps! But the thought of planning it never crossed our minds. It was something that we decided to do and proceeded on course. As to a "lazy or unavailable attorney"? Actually, my wife mentioned after the 2004 meeting yesterday that she does not know how an attorney could have helped us during this process anymore than we have helped ourselves. I will withhold my concurance on that thought until after April 11th. The real reason we did not seek out legal assistance was really a matter of dollars and cents. I had no idea where we would have gotten the funds to pay for an attorney. We were just able to afford the pre-filing education, the internet bankruptcy forms preparation fee and the bk filing fee. So our pro se was more out of necessity than it was a desire to take on the system. In retrospect, I have learned a great deal over the past four months. And one of the things that continues to haunt me is just how much I don't know.

Anyway, I appreciate all of the words of encouragement and well wishes. I will continue to keep you folks posted as things progress.

[pa308]

rfasset did you have on hand 2 years worth of your credit card statements? Man I hope like hell they dont ask me for them because I dont know if I could come up with them, dont think most people could.

what are the chances of the credit card companies wanting to provide you with them in the bk circumstances I wonder.

[rfassett]

pa308, yes we did have them on hand. And we went through them painstakingly nearly page by page yesterday during the 2004 examination. Sometime during or right after the meeting, the trial attorney (who by the way was very, very nice, kind and considerate) who did the inquisition, mentioned that often times people DON'T have their statements. So here I am sitting there thinking "so I get punished for having my stuff"? And I might have even said that out loud, because she (the attorney) says, "yeah, it doesn't seem fair does it?" So if they are requested and you don't have them, just say so, I guess. I would not encourage anyone to be untruthful about it though. If you have them, provide them. I thought it was interesting that attached to several of the pages of the copies of our credit card statements were pictures printed from websites that the DOJ's office visited while trying to guess what we had charged. They had a picture of my son's class ring. And they had a picture of a headset that I use in my job. And on and on. I have to say this, they have been very thorough.

[PaKettle]

Jeez, rfassett, what a NIGHTMARE you've been through! I feel for ya.

Congrats on riding it all out and getting through it. I see from your other post that you are finally declared a no asset case, so congrats again!

It sounds to me like the trustee just decided to pick on you for no real reason, just because you were filing pro se maybe? What a pain in the behind!

Glad you're done with all that crap!

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Rfassett, my own bk is pro se because I had no money; I had to borrow the filing fee and even the $$ for the book! But it is turning out to be a *very* happy accident, because I have learned so much and maybe can help someone else. I had a good friend nearly walk into a 13 with unaffordably high pmts, who was well under the median and easily qualified for a 7, and I was able to point out the difference for her which was great. I'm with you, I love to learn and to take decisive action to solve my problems; this whole experience has been incredibly empowering. I am truly wishing and hoping you get your long-awaited discharge without any further drama!!! Good luck to you!