IN RE JOHNSON
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland, Baltimore Division.
Filed: October 19, 2012.
3. The United States Trustee served his complaint and the summons issued by this Court on the Defendants in accordance with Rule 7004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
4. The summons required the Defendants to respond to the complaint by July 18, 2012, and scheduled a pre-trial conference for August 16, 2012.
5. The United States Trustee served his amended complaint on the Defendants in accordance with Rule 7004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
6. The Defendants did not respond to the complaint or amended complaint, and did not appear at the pre-trial conference.
7. The United States Trustee duly served his motion for default judgment on the Defendants. The Defendants did not respond to the motion.
8. Notice was duly given to the Defendants of the evidentiary hearing held on October 2, 2012. The Defendants did not appear at the hearing.
9. Mancini is a high school graduate with no subsequent college or other post-secondary education. Mancini is not an attorney and is not licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland.
1. Congress has provided that "[t]he United States trustee may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in any case or proceeding" under Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"). 11 U.S.C. § 307. Additionally, various paragraphs of § 110 of the Bankruptcy Code specifically provide that the United State Trustee may bring actions to redress the misconduct alleged in this case. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 110(i)(1), 110(J)(1).
2. The term "debtor" is defined by the Bankruptcy Code as a "person ... concerning which a case under [the Bankruptcy Code] has been commenced." 11 U.S.C. § 101(13). For purposes of these Findings, the Court applies that same definition.
3. At the hearing on this matter, the Assistant United States Trustee testified that Mancini admitted to him that the social security number listed on these documents was not Mancini's social security number but that Mancini claimed the numbers were tax identification numbers assigned to him or his businesses. However, the Assistant United States Trustee also testified that his own investigation indicated that the numbers were actually social security numbers issued to individuals living outside of Maryland. There was no evidence presented as to the identity of these individuals or that these individuals were aware that Mancini had used their social security numbers.