ORDER
CATHY BISSOON, District Judge.
On May 11, 2012, Appellant hand delivered to the Clerk's Office a document, attached as an Appendix hereto, entitled, "Certification to Court of Appeals by All Parties." Although the Clerk's Office received and time-stamped the submission, the undersigned hereby directs the Clerk not to file the document in the above-captioned case.
The purpose of the form submitted by Appellant, Official Bankruptcy Form 24, is to secure before the District or Bankruptcy Court a certification that, based on certain enumerated statutory factors, "direct review by the court of appeals" is appropriate. See In re Crescent Res., LLC, 2012 WL 691876, *2-3 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2012) (emphasis added, citations to quoted sources omitted) (explaining, generally, Official Form 24 and 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)).
As to Appellant's request that the government pay for his bankruptcy transcripts, although Official Form 24 and this Court's prior Orders do contain the word "certification," that is the full extent to which they are conceivably interrelated. Appellant does not need certification before the District or Bankruptcy Court that direct review by the court of appeals is appropriate under Section 158(d)(2); he needs the Bankruptcy Court to certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), that his instant appeal to the District Court is not frivolous. See Order dated May 9, 2012 (Doc. 5) at 2 & n.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FILE AT CASE NO. 12-545-CB & 11-02159-JAD
CERTIFICATION OR APPELLATE ORDERS
B 24 (Official Form 24) (12/07)
[Caption as described in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7010 or 9004(b), as applicable.]
CERTIFICATION TO COURT OF APPEALS BY ALL PARTIES
A notice of appeal having been filed in the above-styled matter on 03/23/12 [Date], Gerald S. Jr., ECMC, and Sallie Mae, Inc., [Names of all the appellants and all the appellees, if any], who are all the appellants [and all the appellees] hereby certify to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A) that a circumstance specified in 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2) exists as stated below.
Leave to appeal in this matter ✓ is [] is not required under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). [If from a final judgment, order, or decree] This certification arises in an appeal from a final judgment, order, or decree of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered on 03/13/2012 [Date]. [If from an interlocutory order or decree] This certification arises in an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree, and the parties hereby request leave to appeal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).
[The certification shall contain one or more of the following statements, as is appropriate to the circumstances.]
The judgment, order, or decree involves a question of law as to which there is no controlling decision of the court of appeals for this circuit or of the Supreme Court of the United States, or involves a matter of public importance.
Or
The judgment, order, or decree involves a question of law requiring resolution of conflicting decisions.
Or
An immediate appeal from the judgment, order, or decree may materially advance the prograss of the case or proceeding in which the appeal is taken.
B 24 (Official Form 24)(12/07)-Cont Page 2
[The parties may include or attach the information specified in Rule 8001(f)(3)(C).]
See Attachment 1 (Request for Certification of Orders) and Attachment 2
(Statement of Issues Complained of on Appeal).
Signed: [If there are more than two signatories, all must sign and provide the information
requested below. Attach additional signed sheets if needed.]
___________________________________ __________________________________
Attorney for Appellant or Appellant, Attorney for Appellee (or Appellee
if not represented by an attorney) if not represented by an attorney)
Gerald S. Lepre, Jr. ____________________________________
Printed Name of Signer Printed Name of Signer
P.O. Box 58139 _____________________________________
Pittsburgh, PA 15209 _____________________________________
Address Address
(412) 952-6640 ______________________________________
Telephone No. Telephone No.
May 11, 2012 ______________________________________
Date Date
FILE AT CASE NO. 12-545-CB & 11-021 59-JAD CERTIFICATION OR APPELLATE ORDERS
Petitioner Requests to Appeal the following Direct Review Orders and Interlocutory Pre-Trial Orders of the Bankruptcy Court to this District Court:
1. Document 89 Order Entered on September 8, 2011 which Granted ECMC the Right to Depose Plaintiff and Defendant ECMC's Motion to Compel Discovery after the Discovery Order had expired.
ECMC was untimely with their Request to Depose Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant ECMC did not consult with Plaintiff about what Discovery Requests were inadequate prior to filing a Motion to Compel. This Pre-Trial Order was a manifest abuse of discretion and showed favoritism to Defendant ECMC. Furthermore, the Order was an error of law and effectively prejudiced the Plaintiff's cause at trial. ECMC did not show good cause why their Deposition to be Taken of the Plaintiff was untimely; the Bankruptcy Court; however, extended extra courtesies to the Defendant ECMC's Counsel by allowing ECMC to depose this Plaintiff without good cause shown. This was abuse of the Bankruptcy Court's Discretion, a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law denying Plaintiff the right to a fair trial or a fresh start.
2. Document 132, Document 133, Document 177 and Document 178 Orders Entered on November 8, 2011 and December 1, 2011, dismissing Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. as a party Defendant and Refusal to Plaintiff's Request for Default Judgment.
Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. never transferred the ownership of the student loans at issue until months after this Adversary Complaint had been filed. Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. never filed any response to the Adversary Complaint which Plaintiff and, thereafter, Plaintiff sought a default judgment against Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. Six (6) months later, the Bankruptcy Court allowed Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. to file an answer to the Complaint; wherein the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc., as a party Defendant. Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. should have suffered default judgment for failing to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint and any outstanding student loans Plaintiff had with Defendant Sallie Mae, Inc. should have been dismissed for that reason. This was abuse of the Bankruptcy Court's Discretion, a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law denying Plaintiff the right to a fair trial or a fresh start.
3. Document 175 and Document 176 Orders Entered on December 1, 2011 denying Plaintiff's Motion in Liminie to preclude evidence from trial, specifically, banking statements because of inaccuracy in those statements which the probative value of such records outweighed their prejudicial effect thus denying Plaintiff a fair trial, in that, the Bankruptcy Court entered a speculated opinion denying the discharge of student loans based upon, inter alia, these records which intertwined Plaintiff's fiances income into the grand scheme of Plaintiff's ability to make repayment into the student loans at issue. Essentially, the Bankruptcy Court ruled on both the Plaintiff's income and Plaintiff's fiances income in refusing to discharge the student loans. Plaintiff is not married and the Bankruptcy Court could not combine these incomes. This was abuse of the Bankruptcy Court's Discretion, a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law denying Plaintiff the right to a fair trial or a fresh start.
4. Document 191 and Document 193 Orders Entered on December 8, 2011 denying Plaintiff the opportunity to Depose witnesses by written interrogatory due to Plaintiffs alleged untimely request to depose and after Plaintiff had shown good cause for any delay; however, the Bankruptcy Court denied such request for Plaintiff to depose these crucial witnesses. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court allowed Defendant ECMC to depose Plaintiff untimely without a showing of good cause. This was abuse of the Bankruptcy Court's Discretion, a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law denying Plaintiff the right to a fair trial or a fresh start.
5. Document 199 and Document 200 Orders Entered on March 13, 2012 denying Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant ECMC's Untimely Pre-trial Memorandum and Untimely Pre-Trial Exhibits which were filed late without good cause shown. Additionally, this is the Order that entered Trial Judgment in Defendant ECMC's favor refusing to discharge the student loans at issue. This was abuse of the Bankruptcy Court's Discretion, a violation of constitutional rights, an error of law denying Plaintiff the right to a fair trial or a fresh start.
The Plaintiff requests leave to appeal all of these interlocutory direct review orders, in that, the judgments, orders or decrees involve questions of law requiring proper resolution by the District Court.
OR
An immediate appeal from these judgments, orders, or decrees may materially advance the progress of this case or proceeding in which this appeal is taken.
OR
These matters further involve a question of public importance.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: : Bankruptcy Case No. 11-20288
: Chapter 7
Gerald S. Lepre, Jr., : Judge Jeffrey A. Deller
Debtor. :
:
Gerald S. Lepre, Jr., : Adversary Complaint
: Chapter 7
Plaintiff : Judge Jeffrey A. Deller
:
Vs. :
:
United States Department of :
Education; Educational Credit :
Management Corporation; and :
Sallie Mae, Inc., :
:
Defendants. : Case No.: 11-02159-JAD
STATEMENT OF ISSUES COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
AND NOW COMES, the Plaintiff; Gerald S. Lepre, Jr., by and through himself, who respectfully and timely submits his Statement of Issues Complained of on Appeal and in support thereof avers the following forthwith:
I. WHETHER BURDEN OF PROOF IN A STUDENT LOAN DISCHARGE CASE REQUIRES PROOF OF TOTAL DESTITUTION AND UNEMPLOYMENT AND/OR THE PROSPECT OF TOTAL DESTITUTION AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE BORROWER'S NATURAL LIFE? IF NOT, WAS IT PATENTLY UNREASONABLE FOR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO HOLD APPELLANT TO SUCH A STANDARD TO SHOCK. ONE'S SENSE OF JUSTICE AND, THEREAFTER, DENY APPELLANT HIS RIGHT TO A FRESH START?
II. WHETHER. THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FAILED TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT SALLIE MAE, INC. AND, THEREAFTER, DISMISSED DEFENDANT SALLIE MAE, INC. AS A PARTY DEFENDANT?
III. WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEPOSE CRUCIAL WITNESSES PRIOR TO TRIAL; THUS VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS?
IV. WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING APPELLANT'S BANKING STATEMENTS OVER REPEATED OBJECTION'S WHEN SUCH EVIDENCE'S PRFJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHED ITS PROBATIVE VALUE; THUS VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS?
V. WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT BLANTANTLY AFFORDED ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL "EXTRA PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES" BUT HELD APPELLANT TO A MORE STRINGENT STANDARD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COURSE OF THIS CASE AND OVER APPELLANT'S REPEATED OBJECTIONS; THUS VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS?
VI. WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN BASING ITS DECISION OR REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE APPELLANT'S STUDENT LOANS AT ISSUE ON: 1) APPELLANT'S FIANCE'S ALLEGED INCOME OR BANKING ACCOUNT OR ALLLEGED BANKING TRANSFERS; 2) APPELLANT'S ALLEGED CONTROL OF HIS DISEASE OF ALCOHOUSM; 3) APPELLANT'S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REQUEST A FORBEARANCE OF THE STUDENT LOANS AT ISSUE; AND 4) OR OTIIER FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE; THUS VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FRESH START?
VIT. WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION APPELLANT'S INCOME, EXPENSES, DEPENDENT AND HIS TREATMENT FOR HIS DISEASE OF ALCOHOLISM AND, THE DISCHARGE THE STUDENT LOANS AT ISSUE; THUS VIOLATING APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FRESH START?
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: The bankruptcy court did commit an error of law, the bankruptcy did abuse it's discretion which amounted to a denial of Appellant's constitutional rights to a fair trial, a fresh start, due process and equal protection of the laws.
Respectfully submitted:
Gerald S. Lepre, Jr., De r,
P.O. Box 58139
Pittsburgh. PA 15209
Phone: (412)952-6640
Facsimile: (412) 265-1028
Dated: April 2. 2012 Email: leprejrlaw@yahoo.com
