eighteen guys one five seventy three live linda smith versus the state of maine pure revenue service distinction between the property of the debtor and the debtor there or there is you know you chose and to read it inclusive of one legally distinct thing the property of the debtor but not another legally distinct thing the property of the state property it is and that it says with respect to the debt or size that you then say that's going to be really property related to the debtor then the question is is it the property of the debtor that's related to the debtor or the property of the state also that's related  properties earlier anywhere outside of three sixty two c three a that uses the phrase property with respect to the debt or not that i can think what is my problem we know congress use the phrase property of the debtor and we know congress used the phrase property of the estate there's no third phrase property with respect to the debt or does that mean only property of the debtor because you would think they would just say property  debtor does it mean poppy the estate well you think they could just help our estate and still use this new phrase property with respect to the debtor there seems hard to see how that's clear that it means only property of the debtor not property of the state what congress i think intended to do was to affect serial filers in chapter thirteen of a third filing as you know there is no automatic stay your client as the on your view did you need any of that language but wouldn't read just fine if we delete all that language and just gave effect to with respect to the debtor in the way that you want us to give  meaning but on your own account the very same provision you seem to concede has a purpose language in it so that just seems to me to undermine the idea that we have to give effect with respect to debt or to avoid certain foods because he would concede there is that isn't the inclusion of the debtors non est property implicit owners construction we absolutely think that's true there are other textural distinctions between property of the state and non state property found in three sixty two itself contrary to the notion that the phrase implicitly and compass is that property of the state because we're all still the property come from there's a sort of distinction in my mind between surplusage and reading the language with respect to the battery to mean it is meant to exclude the property of the state the following me i think so yes or ok so does the surplus argument harm the argument that congress abuse of the process and that provision excludes from that calculation earnings that are based on national defense activities if somebody is stationed abroad and gets paid army player or parent that then that  if you give the construction respect the gutter that my friend wants to give it then it cannot mean in that context that it's a situation between baghdad or in the debtor's and honestly property on one hand and the gutters escape property on the other hand that in that and go to the trouble of getting a judgment they can then make their harassing phone calls that they want to make to  is four which is where you have a third filed case and one called month period there's no i'm actually whatsoever and the onus is on the debtor or another party in interest to come in and file a motion and get the stay reimpose we believe that the construction the but instead this middle provisions got all this extra words in it and so one starts to wonder what's the point of all those extra words if it's supposed to just operate like a cleaning terminations after thirty days and then just adding that the case that most worries me is if i understand it right if you're a pro se out with it you just make a technical mistake not advised by an attorney because you're pro se under the statute you don't have much recourse would congress set it up that way it just seems odd to me that makes a little bit more sense particularly when and this is the other point that i just have a little bit worried about even from a creditor perspective williams points out that it's not all to the good for creditors to have this day blow up because then you get a free for all so would it really make sense to think that the crows are who makes a tactical mistake now is disabled from getting the state in place when they correct the mistake when the price of that is going to be borne by the free for all amongst all the creditors it just seems that's a pretty big to your clients to your question about just because they have the state terminated doesn't mean they're going to act immediately i think the idea is that it gets sent to sizes the debtor and debtors council to get their plan confirmed quicker so the money can start flowing to the creditors there's plenty of reason why cause in our mind that this may be another case where we're going to be stuck with a match stay and if he doesn't have any viable legs and we took action to say you know we want to stay terminate here we're happy to see if this plan plays out but if he says that once this case terminated you can't but after the thirtieth you can then come back and get the stay reimposing but you just filed a third one and then under that provision he then moved to say i know it never took effect but know confirm plan that could get in place and then you wouldn't contest it so what are we fighting about if you dismiss this case and then you know perhaps we would but you're leaving your options and we are we are i mean just because was filed within a year not the one that was dismissed so when the second bankruptcy was filed that petition triggered the automatic stay under three sixty two a just as it would for a first bankruptcy protection tenby a party there are parties in interest creditors can move for extension of the automatic stay and i might have reason to do so creditors might and i would say creditors in a lot of kate a lot of cases would absolutely have reason to do so many creditors particularly smaller and you know small dollar creditors may feel that they would receive more on their claims through the bankruptcy process and buy a copy of the estate and the state and remaining in place and preventing the big credit are state until such time as state property is no longer just a property but once the state is terminated there are there is no state under su