§§ 50.1, 50.2 (1997 & Supp.2004) (noting that withholding of governmental licenses, permits, franchises, etc., can be a powerful collection device; also noting that extension or guaranty of new credit is not required as part of § 524(a)’s protections). It is beyond cavil that check cashing privileges, ATM transactions, online banking, minimum account balances, and the like are widely available. BFCU’s revocation of those privileges hardly impairs the Jaspers’ fresh start. There may be something to Fessenden’s point that, absent a ruling in their favor, the Jaspers will pay slightly more for banking services, but it should come as no surprise that bankruptcy can bring on some adverse consequences. See Jamo v. Katahdin Federal Credit Union (In re Jamo), 283 F.3d 392, 400 (1st Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); In re Watts, 876 F.2d at 1094 (“[T]he fresh
holding that complaints against a chapter 7 discharge coupled with objections to a chapter 13 plan of reorganization are sufficient to establish an informal proof of claim recognizing that a chapter 7 discharge is not a walk in the park holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that chapter 504 waives the governmental immunity of political subdivisions for retaliatory discharge claims under chapter 451 recognizing that a debt ors sequential filing of a chapter 7 petition and then a chapter 13 petition is the socalled chapter 20 