good morning everyone and welcome to the th circuit and judge it and i are pleased to welcome judge dorsey a district judge from the district of nevada who's come here to help us out thank you it's my pleasure we will take the this is the rd appeal to the th circuit under a similar caption so i just wanted to go through how i will refer to each of those cases during my argument i'd like to save two minutes for rebuttal as well wisdom one was policies from from the bankruptcy estate and his bankruptcy wisdom to which is this case which is a little out of order because there was a there was another one but this this is the appeal of the turnover motion that was heard by the bankruptcy court and denied and then heard on appeal by the district court in the district i don't know who subsequently also ordered attorneys for your ward still a live issue or is that also resolved that's still five issue but it's seems to that it really goes to whether or not  the the attorneys feel ward was proper same with the three to twenty two ruling because the district court the bankruptcy court st applied the law the case doctrine on the three  dollars issue as well as the recusal issue that were raised that were raised in the in the turnover motion and they looked at this court's decision in wisdom one which i looked only at the  idaho code banquet exemptions not at three hundred and twenty two in fact you know for the sake of clarity could you just list out for me what issues you think are still alive yes or the may twenty eight decision this year yes so the the only issue that we care about is the attorneys fees award by the district court i believe that the the failure to file a notice of appearance is just one of the many mistakes that were made by the trustee in this case and that mr wisdom used his time and energy to point out to the bankruptcy court and then the district court and now this court to show that the the bankruptcy trustee is being held to a different standard than mr wisdom was although none of these issues affected the outcome of mr wisdoms case in other words he didn't get his insurance his life insurance  policies back he but what he did do is one on the i don't know code exemption issue that i don't legislature changed that code to remove the  section ten that that this court recognized had mr wisdoms attorney not messed up at the early bankruptcy stage and cited subsection nine instead of subsection ten he would have it would have preserved all of his life insurance policy and there was a legislative change that you attribute to this lawsuit is that your yes yes that happened while the st wisdom one appeal was was pending and you made an argument has taken he has taken a no stone left unturned approach to this litigation as a pro se litigant he has achieved things that benefit the public well is that i'm sorry you know it is there any relevance to the fact that the attorney's fees are word in the adversary appeal or affirmed by the panel i don't believe so because on different issues i understand it was on different issues but the difference and this is called out in the panel's opinion is that on the adversary award of attorney's fees the the judge carved out fees that were  incurred arguing about the defacto trustee which is three hundred and sixty two and in the district court here carved out one of the issues the only issue it carved out was the issue of whether or not a notice of appearance decided by the district court in a previous matter and decided by the th circuit in wisdom one which just is not the case and unfortunately i think this grows from what the  was the basis of the district court's ruling that they were frivolous actually the district court looked at wisdom one it did not look at the adversary proceeding but it's at it was pending right yes yes and so  fact that that was pending and it still the main opinion was an unpublished opinion so it's not even the law of this circuit it's the law of this case but it's not it wasn't it was an accepted law in the th circuit and frankly it still isn't another a litigant could bring up this this issue and it wouldn't be bound by the wisdom case that i guess i'm going to say my last minute months later on may th two thousand and sixteen that mr wisdom in the guise of a turnover motion raise exactly the same issues you've already raised regarding the bond and regarding the recusal again and he lost on those issues this court issued its decision on those issues this last may and so what mr wisdom did it has done again and again in this case is essentially to raise the same issues over and over again simply in different settings and the field order entered by the district court was on the appeal not necessarily the underlying  substantive issues but on the appeal itself because those issues had already been decided in the adversarial action but rather than allow that process to play out mr wisdom again made the same argument simply in a different setting so  i'd just like to use the rest of my time to just ask the court to consider the the things that mr wisdom has pointed out in this lawsuit albeit maybe not the most efficient way of doing so he pointed out that the trustee had not filed a bond that it's required to do it's clear under the bankruptcy statute he pointed out in wisdom one and this court acknowledged it that the trustee sold assets without filing the appropriate or without providing him with appropriate notice required under the bankruptcy missteps taliban can i take you back to the fia ward issue of course so if we agree with the district court that mr wisdoms appeal was mostly frivolous what other points has he raised that we can now consider about that fear ward that mr wisdom has raised yes so if we agree that most of those issues were mostly frivolous what what's left for us to to grapple with here well unfortunately not much the  facto is that the district court looked at wisdom one to determine that that it was frivolous and it would the outcome was obvious and that was in error and that stems from the the fact that the bankruptcy court and made it in footnote four of of its opinion that was appealed to the district court that the court concludes it acknowledges that there are issues that are that are arguably characterized as distinct this isn't applying the law the case doctrine but then it says the court concludes that  the devotion of time and effort to parse and compare the allegations that this stage of the proceeding is unwarranted so it was applying the law the case doctrine without even looking to make sure that the issues were the same and so that's what the air stems from mr wisdom was penalize for that fact in the district court just adopted it so the primary concern here is that neither court did its duty in viewing what was