1325(a) is a “safe harbor” provision by which the debtor can require the Court to confirm a plan which satisfies all its provisions. It provides the Court “shall confirm a plan if,” in addition to satisfying sub ) (unpublished) (rejecting creditor’s attempt to invalidate a confirmed plan because creditor failed to properly and timely object to confirmation and because compliance with § 1325(a) is, under Szostek, not mandatory for confirmation); In re Averhart, 372 B.R. 441, 444 (Bankr. E.D.Wis.2007) (“This court joins with Szostek and other cases which hold that § 1325(a) is not a mandatory provision for confirmation.”); In re Wampler, 345 B.R. 730 (Bankr.Kan.2006) (relying on Szostek to conclude that § 1325(a) is discretionary); In re Siegfried, 114 B.R. 358 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>). Third, Shaw emphasizes the canon of statutory
holding that facts as they existed on the date of the original bankruptcy petition not on the date of conversion from chapter 13 to chapter 7 bankruptcy applied holding that  1325a is discretionary based on 5 collier on bankruptcy p 1322011 15th ed1989 which cited  1322a as the sole mandatory provision of the code regarding chapter 13 plans and other decisions including szostek holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13 holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees  avoidance power