the Court it should deny the defendant’s discharge under section 727(a)(5). CONCLUSION The plaintiff has not established a basis for denying defendant’s discharge under section 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)(A) or (a)(5). 1 . Having determined that debtor made no false oaths, the court will not address whether the defendant's amendment to his schedules erases false oaths under 727(a)(4). However, the court notes that a debtor cannot cure an intentional omission from his schedules through filing an amendment. See In re Gipe, 157 B.R. 171, 178 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1993) (stating that, "[t]he fact that the transfers were [not] disclosed originally but revealed only at the § 341 meeting of creditors or later by an amendment is of no consequence.”); In re Gorgen, 126 B.R. 806, 808 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re McMahon, 116 B.R. 857, 862
holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the district of columbia holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment holding that the fourth amendment does not require a warrant based on an oath or affirmation to revoke an individual on supervised release holding that an amendment does not expunge the falsity of an oath