that the Debtor fraudulently misrepresented himself in securing his employment with the Plaintiff, through which he was able to lawfully acquire the lab books and trade secrets which he later misappropriated. Id. at ¶ 111. Thus, the State Court articulated conclusions of law which provided us with a clear basis on which to determine whether they comported with the standards for embezzlement under which we may find an exception to discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4). To support such a finding, we must examine the “fraudulent appropriation of property to whom such property has been entrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come,” In re Spector, 133 B.R. 733, 739 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1991), applying a preponderance of the evidence standard. See Grogan, supra, 498 U.S. at 291, 111 S.Ct. 654 (<HOLDING>). Quoting only one of many similar passages
holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied to all of the  523 dischargeability exceptions including the fraud discharge exception holding that the standard of proof for the dischargeability exceptions in 11 usc  523a is the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence