The following issues are to be respectfully presented before this right honorable court:

In addition to those listed below, two main issues arise before this right honorable court,

• The lower court had the absolute right under the law and that of U.S.C, § 110 to lower any fines, fees levied on the pro se petitioner as the law states "may issue, "

• Any fines and fees levied on the pro se petitioner should be weighed against the ability of said petitioner 's ability to pay said fines, fees,

• ANY and all matters pertaining to the failure of the petitioner to sign off on a bankruptcy form could had easily be cured via an amended complaint; saved the taxpayers the tens of thousands of dollars avoiding all this needless time and expense.

• In addition;

1. The lack of any prior incidences, history of alleged said conduct, that this was the first (and only) time that the appellant had been before this, or any bankruptcy court regarding this matter, having no other prior history or alleged involvement with the alleged subject matter.

2. That the court refused to case law cited by the appellant that substantiates setting a lower fine amount, the inability of the defendant to pay the fines, fees requested by the trustee.

3. That the appellant shut down the alleged Google ad shortly after this matter was brought before him,

4. That the appellant was fully willing to do what it took to remedy this matter in the most favorable way possible.

5. That the appellant, being on full California public assistance, averaging a weekly earnings of $300.00 a week, would be unable to pay the $12,000.00 proposed by the Trustee 's office or pay any portion of..

6. That it would financially ruin the appellant, subject him to financial ruin, leave him with no choice but to file for Bankruptcy knowing that the $12,000.00 fine is not subject to discharge.

Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in imposing a $12,000 fine on a pro se litigant receiving public assistance without considering their ability to pay