court my name is jeffrey giles and i'm the attorney for the town for nats i'll be very brief i think i've put everything i can in the in the papers this is a situation where the review by the backers of color palette was just  denial the motion to amend rehearing the argument for the fafsa is irrelevant here and i frankly don't remember precisely what was said at that argument i know that the argument here so that's about all i can say there was an insufficient record here for the vast make the determination the proof of ownership was just a vital aid and the rehearing was entirely proper for the judge to deny it because while researching it asked for thirty days to produce his materials that took some ninety days to do so and that's just not grounds for it here i reserve the rest of my  must disclose the price purchased in order for that claim to be allowed in bankruptcy court that's what was argued at the lower court level that's what was argued outside of court and that was what was argued at that and so i was the one was somewhat surprised that now the issue is kind of changed from whether you have to disclose the purchase price to pay that was insufficient records i just want to address real briefly the issue of the the november transcript we in fact requested all of the transcripts and it was simply not available if you take a look at the x server the record provide all of the transcripts related to us for whatever reason they again gave us on five thirteen you'll see two entries doc in about forty two a number forty three you'll see entries of the transcript from one thousand and two thousand and two and entries for two twenty six two thousand and three the page before that we've already ordered in one thousand transcript is simply was not available and we don't know why but it simply is not available it regardless if it was really not important and i think  page eleven of my brief ten eleven explain why it's not important one is there was no finding the facts and conclusions of law there was no argument counsel even transcripts from all of the lower proceedings for whatever reason we did not get that november twentieth hearing data did not come back the bank was fine in the bank the court level yes so it just simply was not available the back did ask a question during or arguments about that and we explained that it was not available and again i think that the key issue is the appellant's themselves admit and i can quote my recollection of the hearing  he did not allow or searching capitals counsel to be heard in any meaningful way i think that another issue that needs to be to be looked at is yes the issue now suddenly is not whether or not we go back to even whether or not that's not the age of the issue no longer is a do you have to disclose the purchase price what about the fact that rule three thousand and one half says that approve of claim that is we filed our affidavits showing this is what the claims are is actually about six hundred dollars on a given you're talking alst less than what they schedule in the petition schedules they're saying that they also more than what we're saying they house and so i don't think that that's really an issue to disclose what register region paid for which probably was a discounted price correct and that was that was the whole issue and it always has been the whole issue and now they're saying hey there's not enough here so let me point out why even if that's not the issue any longer why the claim counsel saying hey we object there's no affidavits no evidence no documents attached nothing there's no evidence of simply a mere formal objection and there never was any evidence eighteen a this is why we is he doesn't think of the bathin which is now public opinion is very helpful to the debtors which he represents because now there is a published a full already out there in the ninth circuit that says there is no obligation for entirely issue the issue here of payment how much people paid for these i did not make that argument i did not play well at the back and i did i did just decide i wasn't going to make that argument here and there were there was no point in doing so what are you asking us to do reconsideration and that's the dissent judge wright athlete points out the the rules are just were not followed there were no grounds for this to be reconsidered and and granted we have case follow that says that if you don't raise issues of issues i mean you just completely shift the grounds again why so if you might you're right that that's not what you told us this appeal is all about a well and in the bankruptcy court you disclaim to any interest at all i decide for a fee no case