bankruptcy court to the court of appeals or the district court to the bankruptcy court i believe there is case law under that section where an appellate court can transfer to a district court and vice versa and i'd be interested in that but the other point if you want to send  we don't have the legislative history in that section do we that we have here you know we only have the bankruptcy court specifically removed from being named in this section is not correct that's correct beginning with congress added it then when the supreme court struck it took it out so doesn't that communicate us from statutory history that at least district court under six ten does not include  because the reason the bankruptcy courts were taken out is because they know it was no longer necessary to include them because they knew the reason they were taken out was because of northern pipeline and they didn't have the jurisdiction to exercise on their own ideas  mean i think that's a very valid interpretation i was i was on the panel and schieffer salt and it certainly is consistent with my recollection of what this is all about but  than pipeline not withstanding bankruptcy courts have this power by taking them out and maybe removing them it's very difficult to find interpretation i think other than that removed they don't have this power you know because when the new make of seeing court was constituted it wasn't constituted as a separate court it was constituted as a unit of the district court and so there was no longer a separate bankruptcy institution if you want to say it's within the district court but i would respond to wouldn't that be a logical thing after more than pipeline if bankruptcy courts had to have this hour for them to have said working in say the judges are the judges who are judicial officers of the district court who who do the bankruptcy law i have some statement that this hour is there i think that it no longer was necessary because under section one of the confine that when congress decided to give transfer for want of jurisdiction authority to the list of of any nice inst in six ten and we compare that to where we are going to transfer authority for with that the power of the district court referred to impose sanctions to do what's necessary to manage a case before it this has to do with transfer and that's what happened here the cases must file in bankruptcy court because these claims were part of the bankruptcy plan and because the posies were going to go into bankruptcy and state and be distributed to creditors that way that a l matter correct the power of a bankruptcy court over this proceeding involving third parties who are have hauled into court after the pipeline to bankruptcy in the first place and this sort of segues into a sort of a scene but slightly different question one fifty one makes a bankruptcy court in a district court but it can only be a unit of the district court for that purpose when it's acting found it wasn't properly referred because the bankruptcy court determined that it didn't have some tech managers technology so there's no but that is the whole point of section six hundred thirty one if a court determines that it doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction it doesn't have jurisdiction court with no jurisdiction to transfer a pace so any court without jurisdiction according to the sixteen thirty one and transfer case it's just one procedural matter that the court does instead of for want of jurisdiction under under the statute you're relying on i mean that is not it makes it also a little bit more complicated than the typical transfer were for want of jurisdiction i accept your point that that's the amount of the goals of that jurisdiction and that's what the bankruptcy court found and they've been going back to shape or saw this court held that it is a unit of the district court for jurisdictional purposes and instead and she first thought there is no separate court  for a minute and then it concluded it said we will reach that question we find that although bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states within the meaning of section four fifty one it is a unit of the district court which is a court of the united states and that's the bankruptcy court comes within the scope of section work with the wind and if it is a living for that statute i don't see how it cannot be think the unit of the district court of bankruptcy court and that's really what we're that's what our focus is here what is the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court i believe the issue is whether the bankruptcy court is a court as defined in section six ten that's incorporated into section sixteen thirty one your answer i know but but that's why we call it argument but that's what the statute  says is whether and that's what the courts have the jurisdiction of the court comes from the district court grant right and we have a situation here where that district where he said i didn't really refer this to you and i have no jurisdiction that that's a problem as well as jeff's rock when it then we're going in circles again the yes i said but that's the prerequisite to invoking section six hundred thirty one is that court says i don't have any jurisdiction but it really boils down to whether or not the bankruptcy court is a court within the definition of six ten and it was court said that it is for sex and there were fifteen one then i don't know how this court can say it is for this statute but it's not for that i don't think you're going to ha because of what your honor said have pointed out that section one fifty seven and the standing order of reference allowed bankruptcy courts to issue thank sions under section one hundred twenty seven and that it didn't raise any constitutional concerns under northern pipelining in having bankruptcy courts exercise sanctioning authority in cases over which they had bankruptcy jurisdiction that is  fundamental distinction between schafer of salt and this case because this is not a total of one case over which think makers court has jurisdiction or any authority to act how do you are twenty seven authority in that case was something that could have been referred to under one fifty seven so in this case if we look at whether transfer authority was something that could have been referred to under section one fifty seven and the happened because you're asking us to not reach the issue of whether bankruptcy courts or six ten courts but i'm hearing you saying is you folks for me to worry about that focus on the absence of a proper referral or bankruptcy court on the operator under one fifty seven orders or a fall if that is missing it can't happen no matter what the task at hand is that your position correct yes it is your honor if if the case was referred and bankruptcy jurisdiction was subsequently rotten i think it's important to certainly as to the first point three vs three bankruptcy courts were included in six ten and in response to northern pipeline they were moved that was the same situation with the fifty one and section six ten of the restructuring of the bankruptcy court that instead of having them separately constituted they are indeed units of the are going to strip court you know if we look at what section six  speaks to six ten doesn't just apply to the transfer statute it is contained in chapter forty one which speaks to the administrative office of the united states which potentially but i would submit that the complaint would need to be amended and where is the bankruptcy court authority to get them we have to run that and given that it doesn't have any jurisdiction over the case appendix the bankruptcy court at a value weighted that issue but we did is we didn't plea diversity jurisdiction in the initial complaint because we believed for the reasons i stated because this these claims were set up as part of the plan and part of the recovery of the estate so we just pled bankruptcy court jurisdiction but we submitted a proposed amended complaint that we would file in the case were transferred to the eastern district of pennsylvania and the officers objected and said there would be no diversity jurisdiction and judge kerry did conduct an analysis a four page analysis of whether or not there would be diverse nature stiction between the parties  bankruptcy bill but one fifty seven in the standing water referral delegate authority to the bankruptcy courts in the district to hear title eleven cases as well as any and all proceedings necessary to hear and decide those cases and that was the basis in shit for software are saying that if they ever have the authority to impose sanctions here how is it proceeding necessary to hear and decide the proceeding necessary to adjudicate the bankruptcy estate because these monies were preserved as part of the estate that's where the trustee got his authority to bring the claims within the bankruptcy plan that was approved by the court and also again and shape your she saw the bankruptcy court was allowed to hear a motion for sanctions which is a substantive motion all we're doing here is asking for the bankruptcy court to have the opportunity to transfer case of which it has no constitutional authority i think seventy eight and then in one thousand eighty four there was another bankruptcy act palm out in large that set up the bankruptcy courts that in response to whether pipeline pull back on bankruptcy court jurisdiction and the only limitation that seems to be have had been imposed is their ability to make final education claims and that was what the supreme court said and stern marshall they said they were every time the supreme court has considered this issue it's been very direct about the fact that it is stern holding and that the stern case didn't change all that much as to the jurisdiction between the district courts and the bankruptcy courts and then the third i guess that's that's on my second opinion my second point was that again the lack of referral means that it was lack of subject matter jurisdiction the district court found it had referred the case because the bankruptcy court found that it didn't have subject matter jurisdiction because this case wasn't related to the