is there anything that was not clear or that makes you be as a dated or or a new you wonder what was my purpose of filing i think everything was pretty much clear i have got it so what my arguments were based on they can be it's it's numerous there's a lot of things going on absolutely yeah and you do want to specifically say i can there articulate every single motion i wrote in general i can tell you before anything in motion i was doing the st you didn't even bother to respond when you can confer by not responding i have not really not really understanding whether they agree or not so i was bringing the motion and motion was denied and regardless whether i agree or not or if  you have the right to contest whatever you like and she rules it's the point when you seek reconsideration and really gauge in the same issue several different times after you've been denied that it becomes a question of whether that's whether you're doing it for harassing purposes or whether you're doing it because you're unhappy with the court's rulings and you just want to continue that bottom of the court and in the end the trustee and counsel that's the question and whatever that's what i lawyer and the reason i was doing those motions with the same arguments in order to eliminate the the fact that it could have been it should have been done differently again i have no experience no education as a lawyer i mean i have a lot of reconsiderations i i might have been also off with reconsideration but i think that i it was my understanding and actually you know i'm not sure that they agree with those arguments i think ricans before addressing the those issues on the the negative thing i think your time is more valuable than another court and i think the motion for a consideration should be less extreme than appeal i might be wrong on this but it seems to me that it makes sense that the judge either would or anything of that sort and because i'm going to be appealing as you saw my efforts to appeal before we will know whether it's correct or not and keep in mind even if the are not correct it's clear if there is a but it's not a full story it was a result even before they asked to enter that order that order is absolutely not necessary it was close to way before lott absolutely closed but there was no action and those there was a final order an and i was because i was appealing that i wanted i raised the issue to not to allow those evidence to be to be entered in that motion actually that motion was filed before the final judgment by the decision was up you have any more outplaying every single motion that i file every single them imposition of a pre filing order mr carr the received an opportunity to be heard before the orders entered the order compiled an adequate record for this court to review in compiling that extensive record the bankruptcy court explained you know her reasoning and her analysis you know much more thoroughly than i can do i did want to address the request for a bag level order to protect this estate from further expense this panel has know a baseless assumption that when the trustee closes this case the circus called it will appeal you know virtually every non final water that was issued in the bankruptcy case and there's nothing that you know that i can do to protect this panel or any other panel from from wading through those appeals however this panel can protect the state from the expense of responding to the appeals by imposing the framework that is  that's essentially issuing an order suspending the deadline to to designate a record or file and happily brief ending the batch review of mr chris call those apple appellant's brief and record to determine if if briefing is required i will say that you know this panel at this point can see that the bankruptcy court you know thoroughly explains her reasoning in writing such that apple briefing may not be required  know i will say that you know that this profession we are cautious and you know that that that's a that's a risk that you know is it is not something that you know we necessarily want to do  having his you know his arguments heard i'm just asking that before the trustee or the estate spends you know spends the resources and in responding to them that this this court decide whether they believe it's necessary  d i would just note that it does not impose a burden on mr chris caldwell whatsoever and you know instead it actually seeks to conserve the estate which you know is something that mr bush called the has expressed you know a desire to do that to pay off his creditors and i realize this is you know a highly unusual request but i you know i do believe that the circumstances before this court you know warrant this relief so unless the the court  as part of the vexatious one again formulation and that seems to be at the core of it but what was it was it frivolous and if so why one line statement of existing representation and this matter does not merit further inquiry or examination so that so the issue i think was the that the that was that was out there was was was that was that the the mr bush called i had done nothing about it for over two years great and i think the press you on this one but i am because it seems to be the crux of the so i the her the judge's analysis points out there the basis for the argument for disqualification was based on conduct that was approved by the bankruptcy court conduct was there actually is a decision because i thought it was unopposed and therefore there really wasn't any any decision so it's so if you're talking about the employment order that's correct no party opposed the appointment order what i was what i was referring to was the basis for his motion to disqualify the factual basis that the court concluded that it was done with with court  approval or done by parties other than the firm or that serves his interest and so you know as as i think we've discussed you know one of the things he identified was this really from sta related matters are also of our resting including the challenge of the compensation related to the the challenge for the removal of the trust the nd application all those matters that follow that because fox was appropriately employed so it doesn't just require a little more examination well i mean i my my my reading of the the decision there was that it's in the context of the  of the entire argument you know when when when looked at in the context of all of the filings that mr cash called it has has made in this case when looking at many of those what do you mean this is a fairly vexatious determination especially when some of these are are in response to matters raised and therefore generating out of objections objections to the claims settlements all of these this is not a person going around and filing lawsuits in different forms d different states like bertrand tang well or you know some of the others that this court has dealt with this is contain it seems to be largely related to one item which is all measure relating from seiko absence well i think that there i think that the that the with with a secured credit or but why why is an opposition like that the basis for a vexatious determination i mean all right so a pro se didn't have the best reasoning and wasn't a valid basis for for you know the nile of the compromise again i'm trying to spin why is that so bad that it requires a bar order on the bankruptcy well i think that in terms of the opposition what what what you can see from reviewing the docket in this case is that miss christian mr fyshe called it has you know opposed all of the administration of this case you know from the from the beginning  point out you know that that you know initiating a contested matter you know should not be treated as as distinct from initiating a war issue you know in terms of evaluating whether or not i mean he under the pre filing order he has the ability to to request permission to file that i was not it doesn't that doesn't that doesn't explain while that pre filing order is correct why it was so frivolous or so harassing to merit a bar order have thank you very much i think something that may have gotten lost i should introduce myself as a new are all our henry david on behalf of seiko epson corporation and epson america order that this was the result of a cumulation of things any one motion may have been frivolous or merit less but not sufficient it was when it got to i believe she  accumulation of his conduct and her viewing of his conduct as a whole bunch of had more evidence early on she may have had her suspicions about his motives but she was not prepared to go there and in my view really so but  not thought about that issue in that context can you give us the status of the of the decorously proceeding in terms of has there been a final accounting file with the bankruptcy court stage are we close to being completed with the with the administrative case or is it still have a ways to go oh i would defer to the trustees counsel on that but i can say for sure there's no final report there been no objections to claims  castaldo i believe was confused with respect to the discovery motion and he was confusing is motion just strike our supplemental production of documents that was  president what is the most and now i guess best case for you know your side where there is a similar situation involving that or defendant as opposed to plaintiff your honor i have not found a case with a better defend then but we did cite and i didn't find a federal case but we whether you can i mean the question here i believe is the whether you can find a similar case where there were no any side chick is ations nothing nothing no threats nothing from me even close to that nothing but respect they had to this but that's the course the time can impact my right to raise that argument if it is going to be found that i am using that i was intentionally using that time to to damage the firm but other than that the time is now it's like if i can jump through to a matters would have helped us not to sit here with these orders and i mean my i don't mean it's because called are you are you arguing that by by raising the issue that the orders weren't final and having them remanded from the bath back to the bankruptcy court that was improper after the trustee was engaged because we should if they had been opposed then we would have allowed an  point was that right now we don't know there is aleutian over those main issues with top structural being employed and without that resolution all of the further right now it's on that's a salary so and i'm trying to find a way can you allow me an extra minute that go ahead yeah i guess what i'm trying to say is that unfortunately right now christy holding her hands the time when she can file a final report and as we can see it's not going to be filed for another year or two it seems to me i'm very very certain in my arguments i'm going to prevail on that but the problem for me right now is that the trustee all the time when i can bring those actions and