Evidentiary hearing. I can not take another 3 months!!!!!

[free2breathe]

I guess olivies' UST was sick when they covered this chapter in the training manual.

Thanks for looking this up f2b and reminding us that the UST is an ordinary person with a job and a job description/mission.

If it's on the tape, I would report her.

Maybe you can help the UST's Office improve their operational excellence by transferring the force residing in the upswing of your booted foot to the padded section of her humanitarian resources.

LOL!!! I love it!

[olivies]

i think olives is in the same district as we are and we had a female trustee that almost badgered some of the poor people...

really HOW dare anyone say that or refer to your children, what did your atty say about that one. couldn't he/she have asked for a different trustee??? based on what happened at the hearing. since apparently, there is some bias here???

Attorney said nothing. He's been of the "play nice, work the strategy around her motions and let's see how this pans out" up to now. I'm not sure if we can ask for another trustee since it's the one from the UST's office and not the regular bankruptcy trustee. ??? And, doing so may just incite more flames from whomever steps in. :/

I will ask that he brings it up at the hearing however.

#1- I do think it show's she's not just doing her job. She's not required to be impartial. She's required to examine the case completely partial to the law, and that's ok. However, when she made that comment she brought her personal partiality into the case examination IMHO.

And #2- Ummm....hello? How can she state "Six- WOW" and then not acknowledge that a family of 3 children (which would fit us into the family of 5+ for rent standards) is surely different from a family with 6.... 6 WOW... kids??? Would she have said "Three...WOW". ? No, she most surely would not have. So if 6 kids is such an out of the ordinary factor in her viewing of the case, that it causes her to make an inappropriate comment, how is it that it has no bearing on our case?? My attorney said surely the court wouldn't purport that a family with 8 or 10 kids is be able to take only the 5+ rental standard. So there's a line of reasonableness somewhere. A family of 5+, when you have a couple filing jointly, assumes 3 kids. So how does doubling that number of children not impact the rental standard? How is the line of reasonableness not crossed?

[tobee43]

Attorney said nothing. He's been of the "play nice, work the strategy around her motions and let's see how this pans out" up to now. I'm not sure if we can ask for another trustee since it's the one from the UST's office and not the regular bankruptcy trustee. ??? And, doing so may just incite more flames from whomever steps in. :/

I will ask that he brings it up at the hearing however.

#1- I do think it show's she's not just doing her job. She's not required to be impartial. She's required to examine the case completely partial to the law, and that's ok. However, when she made that comment she brought her personal partiality into the case examination IMHO.

And #2- Ummm....hello? How can she state "Six- WOW" and then not acknowledge that a family of 3 children (which would fit us into the family of 5+ for rent standards) is surely different from a family with 6.... 6 WOW... kids??? Would she have said "Three...WOW". ? No, she most surely would not have. So if 6 kids is such an out of the ordinary factor in her viewing of the case, that it causes her to make an inappropriate comment, how is it that it has no bearing on our case?? My attorney said surely the court wouldn't purport that a family with 8 or 10 kids is be able to take only the 5+ rental standard. So there's a line of reasonableness somewhere. A family of 5+, when you have a couple filing jointly, assumes 3 kids. So how does doubling that number of children not impact the rental standard? How is the line of reasonableness not crossed?

i think that's a good idea. i really didn't think it appropriate of her to bring up how many kids you have. no one has a right to do that..even if they think it. so i do hope he will bring it up or find a reason to request a different trustee..although, you don't want to get anyone worse?