and it made a determination that it if you did not increase these fees the impact would be borne by the general taxpayer and wanted to avoid that no courts may disagree with that policy decision but it's not up to courts to u given the facts of how that law was incorporated to debtors across the country by way of a judicial conference policy or by way of a good judicial conference a year after the law went into effect i'd like to get that because i think it's really important and that's why i want to address the st because i think it's so clearly unconstitutional and it's an uniform application i'd like to back an argument for going back to thank our c court prior to the certification and we looked at the retroactive application of that law at the onset and figured it was a taxation statute x statutes are typically retroactively applied against companies we didn't raise that argument we didn't raise that constitutional argument when we thought about law did not uniformly apply to all debtors and all federal districts until after the bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the revolve or issue and let me explain the reason why because the united states trustees program is not a national program it does not exist in two states in north carolina and alabama and because of that when the law rigidly went into a fact it didn't early ninety's victorian farmers looked at us said there's an unconstitutional misapplication a law because there is no us trust your program those two states so what congress did was instead of push those two states into the u s trustee program important point why crang grow couldn't have known about this there's really two issues one a seven seem to fix a problem it seems to take the issue over to the judiciary branch to apply this law real issue is when the judicial conference implemented this law it did not do so on a retroactive basis but you so you knew the you knew well the problem or you could have known as a  upheld the bankruptcy court opinion was issued a week later so this had already been fully briefed and argued and we were sitting there waiting for the court's opinion it came down a week after the conference about this it only applied that law on a prospect of basis the call to all of those debtors and you are presuming the it would have certainly been the opposite and if it were we wouldn't be arguing about the non uniformity problem in this appeal record but this is the proper venue to raise that because we couldn't have done it before you couldn't stop it before you don't have to rely on the judicial conference to correct the non uniformity even though the conference has the authority to do s that the judicial conference has to go back and revoke this new scheme of taxing debtors every time there's some type of change but regardless of that the problem that we face today is that the law was in fact the fly differently in those two states because it only applied on a prospect of basis but not the way the law applies to cram growth or any other debtor that was in the system themselves because there was also discussion about well maybe it's not fair that this law is retroactively applied to give some type of notice so let's give them two weeks the bankruptcy administrators put them on notice two weeks later on october st and we're only going to apply it it's been implemented is unconstitutional because for any case that was filed prior to october of one there is not consistent application of the law for us all states and if you go look at those the notices which are in our supplemental appendix states and everybody is just ignoring that decision whether or not ignoring it i think everybody assumed that it was fixed because ace unless implemented by congress as a result of the victorian farmers case so what i really don't want to be on the u s trustees program let's let the judiciary branch take care of it and they can implement those fees and if the judges in those districts would rather work that way and implemented through the judicial conference sure fixes the problem and it did fix the problem for almost to death until now so and i'm sorry i didn't get to the revolver question it is a very technical revolver payment issue is double tax a desert with a revolving line of credit it is taxing money when it st comes in the door for crime growth and it taxes that money when the when the money leaves disbursement so let's take a look at one hundred thousand dollars payment for cranberries that payment from a customer goes directly to the bank group can use it that money is recycled through that revolving line of credit dollars but it's a different dispersant but i think the distinction is disbursement is a tax on the debtors the funds it's using those funds and consuming them to buy products or pay for something one dollar dispersed really continuing the revolving line of credit is a continuing process your other money comes in and it is automatically recycled through the revolver and spit out to grow for its use during the normal course of business anything you don't want to talk