Questions and Answers
Q: The fact pattern/problem refers to 32 USC 1311(a) but the statute does not exist. Is this supposed to be 33 USC 1311(a)? A: Yes, all references to 32 USC 1311(a) should be to 33 USC 1311(a) Q: Is the date when the compliance went in to effect October 1, 2011 or October 11, 2011? A: The compliance order went into effect October 1, 2011. Q: There seem to be some words missing from a sentence on page 12 of the fact pattern. Should "to discharge both properties to file the petition, echoing the family court's reasoning" have "she refused" or similar language before "to file the petition"? A: The sentence should read as follows: Feeling hopeless, Lake next attempted to file Chapters 7 and 11 bankruptcy actions to discharge both properties. She refused to file the petition, echoing the family court’s reasoning. She told him that Lake was required to file jointly with his spouse pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 302… Q: In terms of the DOMA question for review, if one is representing the "EPA, et al" party, are we to assume that the "et al" part of that party is the Department of Justice for the purposes of the DOMA question? A: All participants are free to make reasonable assumptions regarding the parties based on the fact that the “et al” party may include the Justice Department. Q: Since the "et al" part of that party is the DOJ, how are we to proceed in light of the fact that the Obama Administration has instructed the DOJ not to defend DOMA cases? A: Participants are free to use any and all relevant information regarding the position of the Justice Department including all comments made by the Attorney General.
Published on Nov 18, 2012