the objector ...[.] Bankr.R.P. 4005, Advisory Committee Note. Likewise, the Code is silent regarding the level of proof necessary to sustain the burden, and the legislative history is inconclusive. In the absence of clear legislative guidance, courts have split between a clear and convincing standard for the section 727 burden of proof and a preponderance of the evidence standard for the section 727 burden of proof, generally applying the clear and convincing standard where the § 727 claim involves fraud and the preponderance of the evidence standard where no fraud is alleged. Oriel v. Russell, 278 U.S. 358, 362-63, 49 S.Ct. 173, 174, 73 L.Ed. 419 (1929) (where fraudulent concealment is alleged, clear and convincing evidence must be shown); In re Garcia, 88 B.R; 695 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988) (<HOLDING>); In re Johnson , 82 B.R. 801, 804
holding clear and convincing standard to prove fraud or fraudulent intent and preponderance of the evidence to prove other elements under  727 holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard holding that a petitioner must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence on its face would prove the petitioners innocence by a clear and convincing standard holding that the creditor must prove the elements of actual fraud holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence