individual case and the conditions existing in the local market. That $199.00 was deemed a reasonable fee in the metro politan markets in Southern California or Denver, if indeed that is what the other courts determined, is not dispositive in this District, or even in the Boise area. Moreover, while not cited to the Court by Ms. Scott, it appears various We the People operations have been criticized, and even sanctioned, for engaging in inappropriate practices and for charging excessive fees by the bankruptcy courts in the only reported cases that the Court could locate through its own research. See In Re Boettcher, 262 B.R. 94 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2001) (fining We the People franchisee $2,000.00 for engaging in unauthorized practice of law.); In re Evans, 153 B.R. 960 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1993) (<HOLDING>). Surely, Ms. Scott would not want this Court
holding that fee charged by a we the people tampa franchisee operating in pennsylvania was excessive and reducing it to 10000 under 11 usc  329 holding that a conviction for simple assault under pennsylvania law does not qualify under 18 usc  16b by way of 11 usc  1101a43 as an aggravated felony holding that pennsylvania law determined the rights of a hypothetical lien creditor under 11 usc  544a1 holding that chapter 13 debtor lacked standing under 11 usc  548 but finding limited authority for the debtor to avoid a transfer under 11 usc  522h holding that a state is immune by virtue of 11 usc  106c from money damages for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 usc  362a