that you'll get three minutes uninterrupted will then sort of take a deep breath and ask my fellow panelists if they had questions and then i'll ask them questions perhaps as well and then we you know if we run out of questions and you have other things you want to say then that's fine we'll let you know one minute before you get to the three minute mark and want to be in before you get to your resting mark that's not a lot of minutes i guess in total so you get three minutes uninterrupted four statutory interpretation of the appellate literally asserting that the statutory interpretation and meeting are heavy burdens here requires this court to turn a blind eye to text and legislative history under quote in the pendant avenue close quote of statutory interpretation federal arbitration act explicitly exclude some claims from arbitration yes it does is this claim on the no it's not it's congress know how to exclude statutes claim perpetration when i want to yes it has done so explicitly in a number of instances though the bankruptcy code party's policy arguments after completing a similar analysis on texas legislative history and the purpose of the st part of the bankruptcy code cannot be one unique purpose that overcomes plain language of the federal arbitration act particularly after recent supreme court decision repeatedly rejected bankruptcy code purpose based argument as a basis to depart from statutory tax now if i had more time i would you know with three additional points st that the district court misread macmahon that clearly our patrol that's the only way to are to interpret statutes is that your view well let me start that or you can either yes or no as well no i think i well i actually would like to clarify exactly what the question is because anderson tells me that i'm stuck with that and you're telling me that that notwithstanding that finding that sprinkler dictates to me an epic another case that i have to ignore that inherent conflict and look for the statutory and that assumption could never come into play in anderson because you couldn't look at the statute to find out what it said and so it's a highly stylised century is there any argument you could make on purpose underlying section one hundred and sixty four c so both mcmahon itself and the sites are basically talking about affecting the indication and looking across all three of the factors we say if you take that you were in contempt of the court discharge order so let me make two points st is that you know we just had a discharge order case go to the supreme court and  what this means and goes to the statute so i think that renders this order somewhat different than others the nd is i think you know the definitely the statutory case i mean if if you when you go down to the basics you know my client originated credit card debt pursu conflict and hasn't this been decided already and the question as to whether the andersen case controls has to be answered the negative are two reasons one is ethics systems another trust of the supreme court requires congress reach a decision of spies twenty four claims such as the one that we have here federal courts respect that and preclude subsequent bankruptcy subsequent efforts in bankruptcy court to seek contempt for his lawsuit is really a contest proceeding about one judge's order that simply should be heard by anyone but the bankruptcy judge but that argument doesn't work for two reasons st the plaintiff seeks to represent a class a former debtors whether its core not core doesn't really fit into the analysis of what the analysis is is there or is there clear and manifest congressional command to exempt a statutory claim from the  of used to being twitter you have any questions you know i have a question all right judge what city of any additional questions i'm good thank you so i guess i'm i'm curious as to whether you think it would make a difference if this was just you know basically about one order from one bankruptcy court not a class action would be now has been different i think you that was that issue was not very clear anderson and i think that's that's part of the issue but if this were also i would say further just so even if this were just a contempt order we may be closer to to the to the case that you had on honour's this case is really governed by anderson anderson found that there was an inherent conflict between the f a a and the bankruptcy code in this very context and that places the palin's in a think a logical box i think pointed out or suggested by judge wesley basically what they have to say here if you say one of two things here number one you should overrule andersen as a co parent of the same circuit or number two even though anderson found this court held the mandamus pending the decision to manderson and then after the decision anderson said we should go back to judge bridgette to reconsider in light of andersen case law clearly acquires it here is th panel unless there's an intervening on bank decision or supreme court precedent that clearly undermines the prior decision that is not the case here what they're asking you to do is to overrule andersen and mended complaint is incorrect if you go to paragraph fifteen of the amended complaint you see the same languages and characteristics of the st complaint and we also say that the expressly that the defendants conduct is in contempt of  dollars provides a statutory injunction is still contempt of the discharge order and andersen itself says the fact that five hundred and twenty four dollars is uniform throughout all the bankruptcy courts does not render the inherent conflict does not make the in conflict we brought this case is a contempt for one very important reason bankruptcy judges understand the impact of creditors violating the discharge orders and bankruptcy judges are best suited to decide what the proper remedy order and then the discharge and judgments are entitled to the close of affected you can argue that they say that that makes that that's clear indication that it's not exclusively for bankruptcy judges you said bankruptcy judges are best suited to decide their orders that i mean tend to agree with you with that but congress has decided to cede some of that the state courts have that what do you what's your answer to that well there's one very important distinction to ignore the courts do not have the power to enforce their orders to find a party in contempt and to render contempt remedies for violation of the discharge order all the state courts can do is to determine that a death is the subject of  defense if the debtor does raise the discharges of defense or even if the debtor brings a declaratory judgment that that that is the strong all the can speak or can do is to determine whether that that has been destroyed what a state court cannot do and by the way anderson clearly says this and this was the very issue discussed in the oral argument of the andersen which i argue is a state court cannot enforce the integrity of the bankruptcy court orders it can only make a determination as to whether  in the scope within the scope of the discharge or and we suggest that the legislative history particularly fourteen deaths as an act in one thousand nine hundred and seventy which says that a state court it for example a state court in a stick or a creditor assumes that court and then if the debtor does that the debtor will be bound by collateral estoppel with the decision that the debtor get but the debtor doesn't have to do anything in state court the debtor can ignore the action and the debtor can march into  when when the creditor suits them for said judgment and they do when the creditor seeks to force a state court judge the debtor marches in the back of the court and hold the creditor in contempt for going to say court and getting in and getting a order i have to answer the question i have a couple of job sullivan i mean it seems to me there's a class action brought in the bankruptcy court in white plains i may have to have a nationwide class of debtors whose debts were discharged in other bankruptcy courts all around the country and so you're arguing that basically judge drainer the bankruptcy court here can be holding people contempt for violating court orders and other bankruptcy courts around the country enforce a contempt is actually a misreading of the precedents which go all the way back to sixteen hundreds in england it's the court it's the court that enters the order that can enforce it by contempt the court here is the bankruptcy court or technically the district court is one court in the united states in the bankruptcy court judge drain can enforce the order of other judges but i would also add two other points st of all anderson said and we think it's binding precedent the fact that it's brought as a class action does not change the calculus at all there is still an inherent conflict and secondly whether or not these cases proceed as a class action is not before the court indeed it's ironic that my adversaries argue that this is not a complaint because they made motions to dismiss in the bankruptcy court that the class action should not proceed because it's in the nature of a contempt proceeding which they claim could only go to the particular judge and we would cite for example that the set case in the st circuit if you reach the issue of a in a nationwide way violate discharge orders and they're doing it by different characters in different courts trying yes all but all d this all the same issue well the same discharge order and as as the court said in anderson even if it's a uniform order and a uniform statute the fact that it's a class action does not take away from the fact that there's a conflict that manderson said with virtually no analysis and just just sort of get a real quick  the discharge orders and other courts all around the country and and and they have argued and i'm sure this will be this issue will be back before the court on a separate motion that it's not appropriate for a class action but the fact that we started as a class action we think it's appropriate we think it's conceivable that we we you know that that that that a court will disagree with this so that in fact the th circuit disagreed with that in crocker that it should not be appropriate for a class action but that's not a basis to say therefore it should go to an arbitrator if this if you if you're offended by the idea that this is a class action the remedy would be not to make it a class action we disagree of course and we think the judge drane was correct that it can be a class action but that's not a reason to send it to an arbitrator we don't think it's appropriate whether it's judge drains only order or the order of all the judges around the country to say that the bankruptcy court when their own order is violated that the debtor cannot go back in front of judge drain and say look with the creditors doing judge drain has to say well you've got to go to the aaa i am i am powerless what they're saying is because the credit card companies  have an arbitration clause in the credit card contract judge drain is powerless two forces are aware that's what they're asking you don't decide think that's the issue before the court today and we think as all the judges with one exception and said that's just in possibility that's is inconceivable result the back of the judge cannot use the powers of the bankruptcy court to make sure that a creditor follows a discharge w important factual dissension in hill the court emphasize the fact that the that the the purpose of the stay was over because the bankruptcy results were dealing with a discharge order which comes into play after the bankruptcy is over that this is the critical period of time when the discharge order becomes most important that is the fresh start it's asked or the bankruptcy that five hundred and twenty four dollars comes into play it's after they get their discharge and they're trying to rehabilitate themselves that the code is most concerned in fact this is as judge graeme said this is the most fundamental provision in the entire of their crappy code because if you go through bankruptcy and all the all the problems of going to bankruptcy and giving up as he says your engagement ring to the creditors and then a creditor can come after you that the seats the entire purpose of the back of the code that was not the case until until it was an issue of violating the state during a proceeding that had long since then did and the creditor offered to give her money back and the court said what's the what's the what's the point here this case is long since older what's the point why can't an arbitrator decide this this claim that's exactly in the ending bill they said we're not dealing with  of the purpose of the back of the code will come into play and it killed distinguish the exact very case and that's why anderson the court i think was careful to point out that this is not like kill because refused to change they refused to change the credit report to show the fist that had been discharged in bankruptcy why did they do that for a very simple reason because if you even pass do these people cannot get a mortgage reestablish that on the record envelop and we had an affidavit that said if you have a past due on your credit report you can't get a mortgage so what is a person is going through bankruptcy have to do in order to get a mortgage they gotta pay the debt which is exactly why these creditors have refused consistently refused to change the crazy line to indicate that it was discharged in fact it's a form of collecting on a debt and that the so that the critical purpose of the back of the code is being deceived by say that andersen held that the purpose of a statue can create an inherent conflict and it can do that without reference to you know plain text of legislative history i mean you literally could have a situation where the statute says you know this claim is arbiter ball and you look at the purpose you say well as a conflict and therefore the purpose of the statue can override you know the plain language  to nor the i mean seriously that's not what this case is about this case about the fact that congress said nothing there are thousands of statutes there's thousands of statutes congress congress congress not permitted there are not five hundred and thirty five dollars obi wan sitting in washington thinking about every single to build it they are law that they make the question is whether the plaintext is the only way to decide whether the f a a is trumped by papers in a number of cases where you know that argument is made and that is not an argument that they're racing so having not embraced that line of argument you know we question whether the court should apply it  well you know we mean the central argument part that they are playing fast and loose your little bit with their clients i mean they really want a statutory claim and they're now saying court please help us because there's also this court order and making contempt and you know our point is ok well if that's what you want to do you want to say this is about a court order then embrace it and all that comes with it and they don't want to do that miss this notion that interpretation of the torres decision that is the basis of this complaint you know that is just fundamentally different from what i think the need of that argument  by politics council mr carpet mello said that the case came in and then usual position because it's in the in the decision was a unique and limited procedural of factual circumstances and i would agree with that order and that you could hold up the ability of someone who's got a discharge and according to court order but for some reason the arbitrator made a mistake of law which is not grounds to vacate that what does that do to the fresh start  i think i think that if something were to change is there a change in the order that would present a very different question i would say here is what that issue in our case is is damages we granted the relief that the plan to pass that's what this case judge training and the jury and then he saw all these cases and in front of judge training and the class point comes not because of the rule twenty three issue the reason that i raised the call that the plaster is wesley is to make the point that that it's integrity of a particular judge's order this is about a good effort to get damages in in a way that the plaintiff if the if the is the way that he sees most