Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Jim, I assume you are talking about a situation where the prospective debtor is still using the non-valid SSN (as to him/her, as it might validly be someone else's, the "victim"). But how about a situation where debtor used false social many years ago but has now had a valid number for many years and all current debts were incurred under the valid number? I.e., technically no current "victim" in the sense of no outstanding debts or other issues under the old false number, and the BK case is of course being filed under the valid number? What would you do with that one?
Joseph E. Caceres, Esq.
Caceres & Shamash, LLP
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1010
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2409
Tel: (323) 852-1600, x102
Fax: (323) 852-9009
E-mail: jec@locs.com
----- Original Message -----
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] No valid SSN: any success, anyone?
At the current time there appears to be inconsistency in the different divisions. You can almost be guaranteed a motion to dismiss in Santa Ana. However, elsewhere the disclosure requires a "declaration" which is served on all creditors and all three credit reporting agencies. Then, the *victim's* creditors have an opportunity to bring an action to deny discharge. Unless the debtor continues to use the "bad" social security number at work etc. the *current* position of the OUST in LA, the Valley and Riverside is that nothing else is required and no opposition to discharge. The position in Santa Ana is that in every one of those cases there is a *victim* and they deem the filing done in "bad faith".
Hale Andrew Antico, Esq.
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:14 AM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] No valid SSN: any success, anyone?
Perez notwithstanding, has any member filed a post-BAPCPA with a known non-gov't issued SSN and received a discharge? Or are all these people forced to deal with "their" debts outside the bankruptcy system? Just trying to do a risk/benefit analysis, which can then be passed along to potential clients.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Do not file invalid SSN cases in SA or RS. SV is reviewing policy. I think
eventually there will be uniformity, unfortunately.
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I don't think it is a good idea. Santa Ana policy may become the policy
of all other divisions and thier's is a blanket policy with no wiggle
room except maybe conversion to a 13 and having to face that whole
problem.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

On a different topic Lou Esbin asked Peter at our last meeting about the
"split" in policies between our local USTO offices. I saw Peter look up,
gulp, and then somehow we all got sidetracked. Did he ever give an answer?
______________________
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
___________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of
Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the
use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication (or
in any attachment).
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] No valid SSN: any success, anyone?
> Can we approach Peter Anderson on this for a position for the District?
>
> M. Erik Clark
> Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
> West Covina, CA 91791
> www.BLClaw.com
> Office: (626) 332-8600
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
> Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
> American Board of Certification
>
> ________________________________
>
> Sent: Wed 5/7/2008 9:20 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] No valid SSN: any success, anyone?
>
>
>
> At the current time there appears to be inconsistency in the different
> divisions. You can almost be guaranteed a motion to dismiss in Santa Ana.
> However, elsewhere the disclosure requires a "declaration" which is served
> on all creditors and all three credit reporting agencies. Then, the
> *victim's* creditors have an opportunity to bring an action to deny
> discharge. Unless the debtor continues to use the "bad" social security
> number at work etc. the *current* position of the OUST in LA, the Valley
> and Riverside is that nothing else is required and no opposition to
> discharge. The position in Santa Ana is that in every one of those cases
> there is a *victim* and they deem the filing done in "bad faith".
>
>
>
> Hale Andrew Antico, Esq.
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:14 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] No valid SSN: any success, anyone?
>
>
>
> Perez notwithstanding, has any member filed a post-BAPCPA with a known
> non-gov't issued SSN and received a discharge? Or are all these people
> forced to deal with "their" debts outside the bankruptcy system? Just
> trying to do a risk/benefit analysis, which can then be passed along to
> potential clients.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Can we approach Peter Anderson on this for a position for the District?
M. Erik Clark
Borowitz, Lozano & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.BLClaw.com
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
________________________________

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

At the current time there appears to be inconsistency in the different
divisions. You can almost be guaranteed a motion to dismiss in Santa
Ana. However, elsewhere the disclosure requires a "declaration" which
is served on all creditors and all three credit reporting agencies.
Then, the *victim's* creditors have an opportunity to bring an action to
deny discharge. Unless the debtor continues to use the "bad" social
security number at work etc. the *current* position of the OUST in LA,
the Valley and Riverside is that nothing else is required and no
opposition to discharge. The position in Santa Ana is that in every one
of those cases there is a *victim* and they deem the filing done in "bad
faith".

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Perez notwithstanding, has any member filed a post-BAPCPA with a known
non-gov't issued SSN and received a discharge? Or are all these people
forced to deal with "their" debts outside the bankruptcy system? Just
trying to do a risk/benefit analysis, which can then be passed along to
potential clients.
Perez
notwithstanding, has any member filed a post-BAPCPA with a known non-gov'tissued SSN and received a discharge? Or are all these people forced to
deal with "their" debts outside the bankruptcy system? Just trying to do a
risk/benefit analysis, which can then be passed along to potential
clients.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.