independently by the bankruptcy judge based on consideration of facts, there is no reason for the district court to defer to the bankruptcy court in exercising jurisdiction. The Moving Defendants argue that consideration of whether their actions actually constitute contempt of the statutory injunction and, if so, what a proper remedy should be, is best suited for the bankruptcy court, which is most familiar with the circumstances surrounding the discharge and is best suited to evaluate the impact of the alleged conduct upon the intended remedial scheme. This court is not without authority consider and dispose of an action for contempt of a statutory injunction arising out of a case in the bankruptcy court of this district. Jove Eng’g, Inc. v. I.R.S., 92 F.3d 1539, 1555 (11 Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The court, however, also recognizes its
recognizing power of bankruptcy court under  105 of the code and bankruptcy rule 9020 to impose contempt sanctions for violations of automatic stay recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order