With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ark. 2014) (disallowing exemptions for fraud without addressing Siegel); Woolner, 2014 WL 7184042, at *2-4, (limiting Siegel to surcharge context and applying Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4003 to sustain objection to fraudulently claimed exemptions). 6 . While the Court appeared to temper the impact of its pronouncement by limiting its application it to federal exemptions only and leaving intact a bankruptcy court's discretion to consider a debtor's misconduct when dealing with state law exemption claims, at least one Court within this District has suggested that such a concession regarding the Court’s authority to consider the intersection of state law exemptions and misconduct on the part of the debtor was "far less meaningful” in the First Circuit than at first blush. Mateer, 525 B.R. at 566 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the Debtor is not

A: holding even though debtor would have been entitled to iowa homestead exemption but for former spouses iowa code section 59821 lien debtor could not avoid the lien because it attached to the homestead prior to or simultaneously with debtors acquisition of the interest in the homestead
B: holding that even if massachusetts law recognizes a courts equitable power to deny homestead protection to a debtor engaged in fraudulent conduct with respect to the homestead property the united states court of appeals for the first circuit in patriot portfolio llc v weinstein in re weinstein 164 f3d 677 1st cir1999 has instructed that such power is preempted by federal law in the event bankruptcy ensues weinstein appears to slam the door left minimally open by the supreme court in law v siegel
C: holding that homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were  living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title
D: holding that the federal habeas courts task is to determine if the state courts decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court of the united states
B.