How do you know this? The amended filing corrected glaring errors like buying cat food without owning a cat but there are things we know he owns (wall of DVDs for example) that were not listed anywhere in the paperwork.
She converted his case to an asset type, remember? Not long after, his Chapter 7 was approved. Seems reasonable enough to me, given that she knew about stuff during the 341 hearing that he didn't list, that she discovered the extent of what else he had, and, understandably, reasoned that he wastes his money on bullshit.
It's not like he has anything of value, after all, we talked about that at length at the time. Nancy knew his income was a lot higher than what he admits to on stream, and when she saw his PayPal records, she knew surely knew that something was fishy in his expenses claim. Like I said, Phil bitched about having to explain things further. I don't see any incentive for him to throw that out there as some bullshit for sympathy over detractors disrupting things, he's dumb, but he's usually stupidly admitting things that are true when he gets so specific during his rants. Especially when he's up to some shit and detractors are getting in the way.
Why would he be asked for more details unless Nancy found good cause to trust in whoever was clearly informing her?
She did though, she has the ability to convert bankruptcy from Chapter 7 (liquidation) to Chapter 13 (repayment plan) or vice-versa over Phil's objections. All she had to do was say what we all know, that gambling on his personal iPhone on his own time is not a deductible expense, and it would have invalidated his claim to be eligible for Chapter 7.
I get not wanting to admit it but Phil got away with his fraud because the trustee was lazy.
You have to think about the cost of doing that, though. I don't know what it would be, but Nancy surely would, because I seriously doubt that Phil is the first deadbeat she has dealt with. And if she didn't understand how unique he was in that respect, I would assume it more likely that she would go with that option. I feel comfortable positing that she understood, to some extent, because who else has come along with over a hundred grand in annual income, and the kind of weird financial waste Phil considers normal?
You may be right, I just don't find it likely that someone who did what Nancy did throughout the whole process suddenly went "Oh, okay clearly your story makes sense" at the end when she found nothing she could sell and Phil gave her whatever bullshit story he could come up with for all those iTunes charges. I mean what the fuck could HE possibly have told her that would work on a person who knew to bump him to the end of the line at the 341 hearing before even asking a single question and then asked for six months of PayPal records, admitting that that was unusual?
I'm not pretending to know Nancy, I'm acknowledging that we all know Phil through and through, and it's of course difficult to fathom him, of all people, being able to successfully pigsplain his way out of an uncomfortable line of questioning coming from someone so armed with information on his financials. It's like believing him when he says that his mother is always wrong and stubborn about it, when we have so much evidence that's he a fucking imbecile, a liar, and a narcissist, and therefore 99% likely to be projecting.
