question i'll be happy to answer those on why we believe these are both a noble type reviews the first one i consume of the what we call the one hundred eighty day appeal and this was pretty much a result of  justify that in the face of an existing court order that has not yet been lifted not yet made retroactive for whatever effect it might have had  error and what we have is that there was a timely remember a timely motion to reconsider judge barry russell's decision in the california bankruptcy case and that timely motion to i mean obviously a decision was made since property involved in the underlying case was an arizona piece of property he was probably better suited to have always filed bankruptcy in arizona he lives in california that's why the case was there but we are dealing with arizona real estate law the case should have always been really in arizona in case there was some kind of passing reference from the priest that dr miles counsel perhaps didn't get noticed is that where is the documentation that emergency motion to reconsider your inquiry answer my question i mean you can't just sort of say we didn't get noticed and yet but word it was submitted it was approved the judge signs the order right we don't have any evidence on the record the california counsel whomever back all right what you have is argue in california sometime in october of two thousand with a hundred eighty de barge eight which should not have been in there at the same time get to the courthouse before something happens and that pending motion to reconsider in california so you have the parties or jockey recording legal improper about what they did even though it might not right california law and i wish california consul would have also object to the form of order that was filed there but there was no she wasn't a bankruptcy attorney did not object to the form of water whether she got notice or not it for it wasn't planned it wasn't part of the record and now his docu malise fundamental right to be protected by a bankruptcy violated his due process rights violated because the judge made him take him back to that mistake through the whole timeline on the appeals but it will give you some time for me thank you and you can and if you also want at that point to focus on the second appeal you are welcome to do country must be eligible under the code definition of section three zero one in this case start your molly was not eligible to file on november thirteenth two thousand and one there is no dispute on that fact russell had inter the individual who files for bankruptcy protection who is not eligible to file does not derive the benefits afforded by section three sixty two i guess the question to me it does seem west dr molly made the conscious decision to tell his state court attorney that he had filed thirty minutes before state court convened state court judge you are now  an unfortunate set of circumstances situation where an individual has failed to pay taxes on properties for fifteen years church marler listed those in his findings i don't mean to repeat those the property was run down it was uninsured there was no plan of reorganization there is a chase or a property owner who abused the privileges afforded by the bankruptcy  chose to not disclose what had occurred he chose not to object to judge russell's order he chose not to get a stay she chose not to tell the state court judge you are now then a new case had been filed rather he i believe by hoping that he would get some relief i also think it's instructive that you look at judge russell's comments when he talks about of this because as judge broomfield pointed out believe it is the policy of this courts the united states supreme court has announced that in the morn first is georgetown case that we've cited that retroactivity is generally disfavor doctor you molly was not eligible state court judge you are now inquired is there any reason any reason to not proceed with this foreclosure judgment document been forthcoming  state court attorney that yes i did file a chapter thirteen thirty minutes ago that raced from the bankruptcy court in phoenix to the superior court bill clinton advised his attorney i filed at that point and anybody anybody would have said wait a minute let's take one step back and examine the effect of that we're not going to proceed to very darkly molly chose not to do that so in response to the court's question the concept of retroactivity should be utilized in rare unusual circumstances and when the court tells the parties that the decision will be given the application of an order on a retroactive basis and the effect that it may have on rights or positions which are in the rest of your become vested interest in this case there was a the issue s himself and i think the court properly pointed that out of tina's stay or appeal the state court judgement he chose not to appeal the state court judgement by the supreme court which disfavors retroactivity which suggests that the fire line on november thirteenth was in fact a violation of a valid order of the court it was close to being a fraud you want to act it certainly was non disclosed to attorneys who were interested it was non disclosed to judges who were interested it was stay by its very nature that is the discretion or decision it was based upon a complete and comprehensive record that was presented to them judge marler made significant findings supporting the decision we would suggest that any one of those lifting the automatic stay the automatic stay was lifted because there was no equity because the property was and significant disrepair because it was not a church because there was no plan of reorganization because everything make a final decision that's what occurred thank you very much for your time this morning thank you at which point in answer to your question you asked mr gilman we will be back in front of judge you are now on a short order asking him to enter a judgment of foreclosure foreclosure for closing all a document in in a property