use your eight minutes and then toss and you can use your eight minutes and then i would have is it mr hall respond to both of you or do you do you want me to split it  favor of the bankruptcy trustee against one of the master on the case a money judgment arising out of several transactions and a turnover order involving two large diamond rings and some other jewelry  that decision to the bankruptcy appellate panel the trust you exercised the statutory right to have preferred the district court to consider the appeal and the district court denied and just missed the appeal based solely on the jurisdiction over the underlying merits and client to do so and so i want to deal briefly with the fugitive dissent title meant doctrine first i think the controlling decision on that is the u s supreme court's decision from feel there is a remedy available to the courts even though the the appellant is outside the jurisdiction and not so personally the jurisdiction of the courts and the second is whether or not the  the subject of the bankruptcy court judgment part is and neither in the possession of the trustee or or within the jurisdiction of the choir not to my knowledge and there's certainly nothing in the record to that effect but what was clear was trustee value the jewelry collection of in return of the united states an amount of excess three million dollars or as the money judgment was approximately nine hundred ninety five thousand dollars and the turnover of the jewelry  jewelry that were transferred into the l c y l l c trust the jewelry that was returned it was a collection that vastly exceeded that there were quite a number of diamonds and other things it that were listed i district court in reviewing a decision the bankruptcy court did decide to address all of the issues that were before the bankruptcy court that was not the case here the only case we've been able to locate that involved a situation where the circuit where there was a first there was a subject matter jurisdiction in which the bankruptcy court decided in favor of jurisdiction and then the merits of the underlying case involved a claim by the debtor against the housing authority for the refund of a return each on a construction project it depends on which point your honor there were really thorough items or four components of the court's decision that were fueled by mrs master or judgment was entered against her in the amount of approximately ninety that mrs master had zero to do with that friend's action there's no documents that show she had anything to do with it and the closest any document has to her involvement in that was the fact that the gold was to be delivered to the master residence feet tension of mike mastro but there's no evidence this is master was involved there were two others there was a rolls royce transaction which is discussed in our underlying brief again there was no damage the bottom line is there is no damage to the estate so the argument on appeal is that there simply insufficient evidence in the record to support that the third involved nine hundred ninety five thousand dollars that was put into a bank account pre bankruptcy by my master who control and you  that she were on the talent and her role in post bankruptcy and dealing with that so that and then there's the issue of the property issue on the rings and whether the prenuptial agreement and i think this is a next question  qualify as separate property and the bankruptcy judge will that they the master of abrogated or abandoned the prenuptial agreement and didn't consider the two items of the two large items of jewelry to be separate property the judgment is not satisfied this is mastro and her husband were pursued literally across two continents and many things were covered but the things that were cover were not but the what's their value to the two diamond rings you're talking about no one really knows that one has been sold and i don't know what the net proceeds were from that and the other has not been so but it's worth considerably less million is independent of the value of the jewels or the rings or the household goods no matter what the value of the jewelry in the household goods in the rings she still another one point three million and judge perec are specifically ordered her to turn over seven very valuable pieces of jewelry that were placed into the l c y trust no right well i hesitate because i think that the district court ordered her to appear so she could she could discuss these things but i will say that the there's no finding beyond that your honor she's correct but there is case law where the courts have recognize that the defendant who flees from supplemental proceedings but that you can't take their depositions you can't question  we wonder if the trustee have property of miss masters that's not part of the bankruptcy judgment that exceeds the value of the missing property and so she was found in europe with stashes of jewelry nobody was even aware of we know specific pieces of jewelry were in the stash she was caught with in europe and we know she continues to live apparently in luxury in europe from some undisclosed source of funds but we have not recovered assets that should be applied to the one point three million dollars judgment that would even begin to satisfy that we do know that and i will say this the other trustee except the two rings because it was forfeited to the u s government in a forfeiture proceeding so it wasn't available to satisfy the judgment against mastro but if it had been available it would not have counted toward the one point three million because her obligation to turn that property over was independent of the minor character you know it was in fact right she had to turn judicial efficiency i would concede you have the discretion this panel has the discretion to do whatever it wants but there's an ocean of evidence supporting the judgment it's a clearly erroneous standard and it would into their ninth circuit brief but they incorporated their briefs to trusting by reference on all the other issues and that's part of the record  i can't imagine why not but if that's the case i would encourage you to go ahead and hold the decision because it's all factually based and it's clearly erroneous standard and it would be the most efficient thing to do thank you the french authorities i think those articles describe the fact that the masters were incarcerated and they were put into jail in france their apartment was basically completely searched the keys to see fozzy boxes were located all the jewelry and assets were returned there's no evidence there's anything else out there but more of the point much more was recovered and what the turnover order dealt with and that batch of assets should be more than sufficient to cover that says faction counsel commented about a forfeiture proceeding i don't believe there's anything in the record before this court that deals with that particular question and i don't think there's anything that would indicate in this record that there is an insufficient basis for the important to raise the issue because it's not entirely clear whether the court has jurisdiction decided yet or lying merits in circumstances where it sits in a reviewing capacity in the lower court never decide first instance do you have any objection borrower that he had used before but he wanted security for the friends and family program the most of all of them are unsecured he was unsatisfied with the security threatened to call his demand d if he didn't get security and exchange for not having to return mr nurse's money mester gave it to him additional collateral in his house higher interest rate and the new note had no right to demand it now what i want to do is attack seven findings for clearer made by the the trial court in the district court the first one is that the february transaction was a sham transaction decide deciding to defraud master's creditors by making it look as if the meant by dinah residence was uncovered by a twelve million dollar lame now like all of these findings of fact there's nothing in the record on this is just the speculation judges but the trustee says it's so twelve million or so much as should be dispersed so any creditor looking at the trustee doesn't notice it the size of this finding makes no sense if you're ever looking at real property you see a trustee for a particular amount of money you don't know what's owed you don't know what's unpaid on the trustee unless you inquire of the of the a lender so therefore there's no  well the money had been disbursed in november of two thousand and eight for the for the friends and family loan he wanted to dish in the security so at the closing this was close at an escrow with title insurance and at the closing the escrow noted that one point two acknowledge i received one point two million so far against this twelve million the court says that that was evidence of fraud and that there was no money advanced but that's wrong the money was advanced mastro can say for his alt ego i received one point two million actually the money was sent to a third company that's not even part of the record but they were all for masters benefit the next finding that i want to attack is that there was no intent by the delaware l l c to encumber the home now there's nothing in the record on this master didn't testify and this is just a guess by the judge and what you're looking at here is that i but as deposition sorceress testify he saw the documents at hazel riggs house there's no follow up question will how did you see the documents were they did you pick up a file folder to see what they were at trial he said they were on a  bank he probably would have said no but a legal conclusion by a lay person is certainly certainly not grounds for these kinds of findings of fact the discourse said that that there was the receipt of funds was a condition of value and then there was evidence that there may have been an intent by mr master or somebody to reconvene a deed of trust so that mr dorsey is would not have a security how is that a fact against m cers couple of the points i'd like to make we have this idea of further inquiry is thrown into these kinds of fraud cases and usually the courts will give us some analysis of what could have been discover occasionally you'll find cases where the courses go well should have been more inquiry and nobody knows what they could have discovered now for some reason mr gore says us to do more inquiry before he gets his improved collateral but what could have done dr masters banks or prior to the transfer of the medina property to the trust therefore under our c w nineteen three six zero zero two zero that transfer is void to him if he had gone to a lawyer and the lawyer says ok you've got the situation where master was doing something with his property to tie it up in truss and he's offer you a security interest she take it well that transfer is going he can ignore that he can take that security interest that's what the statute means regardless of whatever games master was playing with his asses mr dorsey was is just a creditor changing the subject to delivering we cited in our brief the washington statutes are cases on that the delivery is not an issue if there's been a recording there's a presumption of delivery that's of the cases say that can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence there's been no effort to overcome that this is a in our brief opening brief there's a case there's several cases that hold that if you record it that's the livery arguments i guess several of the things that i with thirty seconds left right ok i think what really happened here on the stroll million is that master knew he was in trouble he wanted a line of credit on his house so that he could because the present family is going to dry up soon as the public knew he couldn't pay he's not he lives off his liquidity that he gets for millions from his friends and family we saw spain that he's not going to like credit so he decided to use the house for a lot of credit then an involuntary bankruptcy that the note had never been delivered to him and then when he saw there was a problem with that he cannot change kids and just record had the benefit of being there and seeing his demeanor and shame actually there are two independent factual bases for judge the record ruling one is under non bankruptcy law one is under bankruptcy law under non bankruptcy law he found the transaction of the sham for a lot of reasons but the very first was no money was ever advance on this loan none now what mr gore cers does about that outside of escrow that's exactly where i was headed your and then in february two thousand and nine we have the sham transaction there's a twelve million dollar note not one penny was ever advanced on the twelve million dollar note judge correct and i know and judge  that the sham friends action the twelve million dollars transaction had nothing to do with the previous transaction in november that november no stays in effect it's in effect today mr dorsey has make a claim on is no problem it had nothing to do with the twelve million dollars transaction that no wasn't required there was no reference to the note the twelve million dollar transaction there was zero money advance on the sham say well this money back in november is the money that was advanced out of escrow you mean the earlier the earlier transaction one point two million so he's saying you know if we advance one point two million then maybe we didn't advance the whole twelve million but it says you know if this much of that is maybe advanced and if he had advanced a new one point two million or if he had said we are retiring the note in november and this is taking the place of  that maybe things would have turned out different on that point but he did he still got the oh no and the judge made a factual finding they were completely unregulated and the judge made a factual finding that escrow he provided he provided mr mastro with with information regarding his bank account in monaco from which supposedly twelve million dollars were going to be transferred and he probably didn't have twelve hundred dollars he knew from the start this paper documenting a transaction that was not occurring and could not occur and so you can go from there in just tracing gone through and we've done that in our brief we've listed about twenty factors and the worst one is it toward the end when he gets a document the middle of the night monaco and hazel ridge says sinus and send it back we need this to prop up the transaction he signs it faxes it back in the middle of night it's back dated back to before the bankruptcy so all the way through conduct from the very first day of this transaction to two who post bankruptcy again and again and again there are in isha that would have put anybody on notice even without reasonable in if she really did make that offer by an out that was a testimony i guess we have to assume that's the case second i don't think ms mesereau knows what the law is because if she does she never followed it so i just don't know  can't if you don't know if anough money or jewels have been collected the senate this judge and i suggest there's a very easy answer that it happens all the time which is whether the judgment has been satisfying is not really material to whether the judgment should be upheld the judgment is upheld anybody can go into court thank the district court or the bankruptcy court and say i have satisfied his judgment here is proof i satisfied his judgment please require the trustee to enter satisfaction of judgment that is completely independent of the issue that is before this court so i just i won't because you don't have an adequate record to answer that question when people are claiming things back and forth based on copy in his possession it's never there's nothing in the record tell us how bourse or had a copy of the note in his record the original is kept by his array or sent for him and then we have the constructive and we have the finally as delivery so i think there's a lot of evidence that the whole point of delivery is their intent to evolve there's no evidence that master didn't intend to be coursers the when you look back at this whole i mean all the things that were said in here you look at that there at the record there's little or nothing to support the theories that the trial judge came up with but we have his master was criminally indicted his or it was criminally indicted so they must be bad people so he must have been doing something bad but my client just wants his retirement money all he was trying to do was be secure he didn't want to be