Judge Frank Moore, Western District of Texas in case #05-20097
"Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Act has been highly criticized across the country. In this writer's opinion, to call the Act a "consumer protection" Act is the grossest of misnomers. One of the most absurd provisions of the new Act makes an individual ineligible for relief under the Bankruptcy Code unless such individual..."has, during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in 111(a) an individual or gropu briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Interent) that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis." See 11 USC 109(h)(1). No doubt this is a truly exhaustive budget analysis"
"This Court views this requirement as inane. However, it is a clear and unambiguous provision obviously designed by Congress to protect consumers. "
"The Court's hands are tied. The statute is clear and unambiguous. The Debtors violated the provision of the statute outlined above and are ineligible to be Debtors in this case. It must, therefore, be dismissed. "
"An Order of even date will be entered herewith. Congress must surely be pleased"
I don't know about Congress, but I am sure the mortgage company that has foreclosed and thrown the Sosa family out on the street is!