to use his senses, and cannot recover if he blindly relies upon a misrepresentation the falsity of which would be patent to him if he had utilized his opportunity to make a cursory examination or investigation. Mans, 516 U.S. at 70-71, 116 S.Ct. 437. In applying these legal principles to the case at bar, the Court reaches the following conclusions. B. Is the Debt Non-dischargeable Based on False Representations or False Pretenses? In this case, Turbo cannot recover under the false representation/false pretense arm of § 523(a)(2)(A) because the allegedly false representations made by the Borschows — promising to use the loan proceeds in a certain way in the future— does not describe a past or current fact. See Bercier, 934 F.2d at 692; Jacobson, 2006 WL 2796672; Roeder, 61 B.R. at 181 (<HOLDING>). Further, Turbo listed the elements of actual
holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that a false representation of a material matter of fact is a necessary element of a rescission claim recognizing that a debtors promise related to a future action is not a representation concerning a current or past fact and therefore is not a false representation or false pretense under  523a2a holding that fraud claim requires proof that the defendant made a material representation that was false holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment