is that the district court in an in an incorrectly ruled back to bankruptcy stay didn't the didn't apply to there were a consent specifically were specifically about the governmental exception applies which would that you know and you would feel that perhaps then he complies with the order in order to get out of jail but one doesn't move this appeal the reason it doesn't move the appeal is the purpose of the bankruptcy stay is to and you have a choice you can appeal and you can fight and you can argue about it or you can say i'm taking those peeves out of my pocket and i'm now going to comply but i don't see where you get to do both he is which he did to get in south africa but he also has the rights under the bankruptcy to be completely and utterly clear of the district courts any further rulings from the district court or any further callao one of the rulings of the district has there been any further effort of the any further order of the court there's no further order of the district court but anyways i mean if there is you can appeal that i suppose but i'm i'm still not seeing what is left of the will that jurisdiction over him when the bankruptcy state's business records thinks it has jurisdiction and it may be wrong i don't know whether it's right or wrong i may not have jurisdiction to decide whether the district court was right or wrong about that but the fact that the so what is the dispute that's a live between the parties he made a promise he made a deal in order to get out of jail instead of pursuing the argument that he should have been in jail in the st place  and there was a motion this court right for immediate release which was withdrawn so instead of pursuing that he made a deal why isn't he bound d by that deal if understand that i understand that because they should protect him from further use of that gun he shouldn't have to be under any jurisdiction for the court he should have to answer any additional discovery and you had every right to pursue that just have jurisdiction so that if you know that's the we don't have to deal with this issue again issue but the the state protect america different people have a different question about what's happening in the bankruptcy court in the bankruptcy proceeding bankruptcy is still proceeding there of the know like part of one of the issues that came up is whether this was a sham or not and nobody at the at the bankruptcy level whether it be a trustee or any of the debtors has filed saying it's a sham part of the issue in the sham w that the district just just just focused on the fact that the address was allegedly wrong which is a venue issue and nobody including the trustee has challenge the venue is right i think so the answer is the bankruptcy court certainly has not ruled that this is the to the trustee at the creditors hearing now which is what you all think you should be doing right you should be pursuing all this in bankruptcy court for absolutely and also you can go back to the district court and ask for some modification of those restrictions based upon what you're saying either so this is what he agreed to in these new circumstances you never presented to the district court right i agree yes the restrictions there's friction that issue but once again my my position is it's this the stay stops all he should even have to worry about whether or not someone's going to come back and just the court right now if you have a rule that it's not right we don't know the district court would have to rule st and then we'd have to go through the same process again  it actually becomes a real case it will come back to us again if it doesn't it won't but your honor i think i disagree with you on that point it is a real case now the state part of the state and there's all kinds of case law that talked about all pursued in the bank i did not receive full compliance however i did not bring that up to the district court i have been dealing with the trustee in the stipulation and it's improper for that reason but i have not done anything yet and i don't believe that i'm in a position it is one of the do or the order says until further order or agreement the defendant shall reside within one hundred miles of the courthouse and though if he went to visit his parents d he didn't need permission of the court do that  also indicated that he finds that it is a violation and is a thing of the court order this is exactly why the purpose of the stay is to stop stuff like this so what i'm asking we're asking the court to do is  is to let the state have its full effect which means a coworker order indicating no further collection efforts through the district court and we and we have serious concern about that and whether even if we don't have seriously concern i would argue that the state itself is supposed to stop even the idea that it's going to happen and in this you know somewhere where it's not a it's not you know an issue that may nation a lot know it's a real issue he's a step itself as opposed to put hi