its borders. The Trustee, however, argues that the state of New Hampshire is prohibited from imposing its laws on Ohio residents. The Trustee confuses state action with Congress’ discretion to make a federal choice of law. [T]he trustee’s concerns regarding extraterritorial effects of state law are misplaced. We are dealing with a federal statute which has incorporated state law into its application. Upon incorporation, that state law became a part of the federal statutory scheme; so it is federal law being given effect, not state law. In re Stockburger, 192 B.R. 908, 910 (E.D.Tenn.1996), aff'd, 106 F.3d 402, 1997 WL 41202 (6th Cir.1997) (analyzing application of prior version of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)); see also Bartlett v. Giguere (In re Bartlett), 168 B.R. 488, 494 (Bankr. D.N.H.1994) (<HOLDING>). “Nowhere does § 522(b) refer to the location
holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 holding that the exemption right under  522 is a matter of federal law as to applicability even though the amount and items of exemption are defined and set forth in existing state statutes holding that under code  522 the debtors exemption may be denied where there is a finding of fraudulent bankruptcy planning holding that when interpreting tax exemption statutes we strictly construe the statute in favor of taxation and against exemption holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes