Relying heavily on Job v. Calder (In re Calder), 93 B.R. 734, 735 (Bankr. D. Utah 1988), aff'd, 907 F.2d 953 (10th Cir. 1990), the bankruptcy court denied debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) and (a)(5). Applying a clear and convincing standard of proof due to uncertainty regarding the applicable standard, the court found that plaintiffs had established that debtor's statements and schedules contained numerous omissions, in violation of § 727(a)(4), and that debtor's explanations for the omissions were "not proper defenses." The court also denied discharge under § 727(a)(5), based on debtor's inadequate and contradictory responses to questions regarding his assets. The court then awarded plaintiffs only those damages that had been supported by adequate evidence, and denied their claim for punitive damages on the ground that denial of debtor's discharge was sufficiently punitive.