were i don't i don't understand anything we can say ok this judgement that doesn't run against him now runs against him you can argue that there perhaps a district court shouldn't have denied a claim against him but i haven't seen that singled out although i confess there are so many different appeals and briefs i may have missed it but what is it that the district court denied that you think that we should send back and have them do it again so now we're just down to the question of the of the is it just the discharge of henry by the bankruptcy court that we should be considering now i believe and also how  appeal we should focus on because that's what you'd like to achieve but i didn't see anything and don't know of any law that supports the proposition that a judgment for maintenance incur is not subject to not just the similar statute for maintenance in care with leniency here is really no doubt is there a statute that says that maintenance in care is subject to discharge well then that distinguishes the alimony situation pretty clearly doesn't it if it takes a statute to say that alimony is not subject to this charge  suggested there is not such a statute for the death that your client is trying to pursue it is subject to this charge seems to me i'd be happy i sympathize with her but i haven't heard an argument that is right for resolution on appeal has the discharge was properly granted at all and the question whether the discharge operates against the liability of henry that it gives barnes a remedy isn't a reason for saying the district court was wrong in his determination that it does not run with the vessel so what was wrong with that the terminations it was based o the state views this as something that is not attached to a bessel is not something that automatically transfers with a vessel is issued to a particular licensee in this case the company over there is six different feel numbers on who's going to go over and summarize them each one real quick so you understand what's going on well i i think we have a sense of that ok but i mean ultimately like when you when you get t you know is going to be a groupie transfers it to a oh we with the same shareholder simply to avoid a judgment from barnes against a charge well i think the and he was it is even anybody he's in his mind he probably didn't realize the importance of distinguishing between and then change verses oh no it's actually a new legal entity i don't know if he is like a one page y on that stop stop stop stop stop because it the transfer came based on a statement which you seem to acknowledge was at least incomplete so why is it is it the responsibility of the state to dig into the effect of your client's incomplete statement when on the face of it the promise of the transfer approval in the st place wasn't accurate but you're saying your clients and title hold on to it and continue to use it despite the district court's order for months thereafter really no i mean i'm saying the way we interpret it is just as courts order was that it was something that they'll work to decide whether or not there was definite so language in order that we thought was kind of big and not and you're appealing objecting to the action which you say actually wasn't in the order because what you told us you're appealing is the order to transfer back which you're now trying to tell me wasn't actually there which goes back to the question my colleagues have raised op could this possibly be an appealable issue at this stage well after the facts we realize to the order and complied with it the sanctions or a yes is an on going on you know to has your client now that you understand that the order of the district court was to transfer it back as your client with fact clarity actually done what it was directed to do no because the court later in a subsequent order said that we don't have to do it so in a subsequent order of the courts and you know after all this is not in anybody's interest for the permit to be transferred from  way ality at this point is that probably even mr barnes is better off with some income continuing to come in through the operation is allowed to proceed because of the against there's only a judgment against as h r but that that's the whole problem with the transfer with all due respect counsel to you know your are all answers here it's it's actually prosperous to believe that mr henry didn't understand what he was doing and why it was well part part of it your honor i mean you have to look at that in this context he was you know he was trying to keep the boat going keep cash flow going so he did continue to and i know you're not the right party to ask but how is mr barnes going to get my he's entitled to six hundred or five hundred thousand whatever the amount is and with all due respect it appears that henry is doing everything in his power not to  arns money that is rightfully owed to him now he may be able to do that legally i mean that's for the district court to determine i don't think that issues before us right but this issue has been raised before us  henry continues down this road you know that's going to be noted for a prior appeal some day that is going to get up and if we have to retain jurisdiction not that we want this case but i can guarantee you that mr henry is not going to get away with these shenanigans so put a stop to this ridiculousness and figure out a way to get this money in the hands of mr barnes to where rightfully go how's that going to happen the problem is your honor we have mr henry personally who has no i understand the problem and i understand that he might be legally at this point able to get away with this but i mean the permits were thirty five thousand but it sounds like over the long haul you could actually get more than that might be beat maybe yes maybe no there's a lot of questions there is on current state of operations but the law is sort of it  mean it's a little bit disingenuous but i want to ask a question about the heinie there's the heinie and then there's the permit so that totty at one point was also transferred to two  appeals are resolved ok we can handle that part of it but when it's these appeals are resolved then the sale of the tawny will go forward d presumably yes and who will get the proceeds that with the money yeah what thirty thousand or forty thousand ok i forget with that and i get your commitment that there's not going to be another appeal where henry is trying to get out of sending whatever proceeds it is being used on another vessel perhaps ok although that's not part of any of the record that is before the court right now you know i hear you i hear you were just trying to profit yeah we don't want to trust me just like you want to get out of this trust me back down will get done with these appeals and that your client will act consistent with the district or and not try it on why with regard to this commercial firm that's does seem to be the only asset heard for example the argument that the corporate veil of sh are should be pierced to reach your client personally is that issues still pending before the district court has it been resolved by the asking for that relief but we don't have that issue teed up yet the reason i'm going to this trouble is that i want to underscore what judge nelson has been saying we anticipate there may still be fights ahead although the level of combat here for the stakes that you're fighting over makes me question the cost analysis but in any event anything that can be done to to get to the end result