exactly what this situation is resolving d after this candidly this situation deals with my parents trust and it's been going on for quite a number of years at this point and quite frankly we are in a situation where the church and it he's changed quite often has basically exhausted all the money from the us and i really have a problem with this i want to make a points on the record that this is a situation where it should not happen whatsoever this is my parents money that that they wanted to give to all the beneficiaries of this trust and it's abom what's happened with this church that they have just spent money to lure their over i'm assuming that about one hundred fifty thousand dollars over then what is on the amount they spent that kind of money and there's nothing going to any the beneficiaries and i have real issues with that particular situation a filing that i made with the bankruptcy court over the weekend mr cat has that pleading and i believe you have that pleading as well that came in yesterday if not mistaken dealing with the update of state court filings contrary to the bankruptcy court order of state by phillips which appears  quite frankly what's happened is the judge has basically vacated this organization's filings because it is just the motion to dismiss and that's what they've done so at this point in time the state court does not have the ability to go forward with respect to authorization of the x they could sure or he spent a lot of time talking about this but i don't understand how that impacts it what we're doing which is reviewing the decision based on the record before the bankruptcy court that's in the rear  necessary has been requested by the preamble is that anything that disturbs what's happening in this appeal has to be brought forward to you and that's what i  without this ability the ability to file once this is done it's gone because the state court has dismissed the court and what's happened is the court has put both southern california conference and myself out of court and what we're wanting to do is once this completed our again i'm stepping up about four horwood but quite frankly with not having this ability to either vacate the arbitration or allow the situation you've got to go to state court state court has done so at this point that it's not happening and i'd like mr cack to go forward this appeal regards whether the art of french an award entered in in the arbitration between mr caucus and the southern california conference   th day adventist was properly written by the bankruptcy court and whether the bankruptcy court was a direct in making two clerical errors to that arbitration award the answer to both of those is yes on the record right when i say on the record it's the record that counts in this case and the problem that we have three mr coffin's is that when the matter was presented to the bankruptcy county superior court that filing was appropriate but mr klock ans wanted to have a held in the bankruptcy court and he filed to have a hearing in some leadings and did some things to get it into the bankruptcy court once it was their party stipulated that the bankruptcy court which year and decide all issues and that made sense because the bankruptcy court approved the compromise that led to the arbitration and it included by the way that compromise was listed at by the dep torre's bankruptcy attorney is necessary to be resolved by the compromise so that they could go forward and file a plan when they file the plan that compromise was approved a nd time we call that the stipulated settlement and so then the question from that point was well who's going to be the arbitrator when is it going to happen and that proceeded exactly the way it was supposed to the arbitrator made his award there's one little edit that the arbitrator made to it that's when it went to county there after mr caucus wanted to go to the bankruptcy court and the parties stipulated in open court to get going before the bankruptcy court which is frankly worth long anyway bankruptcy court hears two issues two separate protections one is to edit the to correct a couple of errors in the arbitration that is absolutely allowed under arizona law the parties have never disagreed that arizona law applied in fact to the debt or is now saying that it shouldn't has something to do with the probate action in california we'll get to that in a nd but it was so painfully obvious from the transcript that we produced that the arbitrator was clearly talking her earlier date that had been placed in the ward that that was a very simple one and the change to the correct statute was also simple because it's the statute that applies by law in arizona and when it came time for the hearings and decisions by the bankruptcy court mr caucus didn't oppose in his response a pleadings and he didn't have to take a position in front of the court when we had oral argument that's what we call a waiver for through just walk ins you can't just sit back so that orders fly now we go to the next one and that's the one confirming the arbitration the problem with mr caucus position is what i stated at the start he has to prove his case he went before the bankruptcy court and produced no portions of any transcripts nor did he produce anything of merit that would show that that award shouldn't be confirmed the bankruptcy court was very specific in its findings on the record and went to detail and we filed that record with the done in my mind i'm going to brett is misquoted what's going on in this case his position his major position is always been that the arbitrator was supposed to rule on all issues of that document and makes the claim that the arbitrator was to decide all issues that's not what it says and i think a quarter to the court i don't know if you'd like to hear it again but the pacific i dims are and they include the probate action when you look at docket three  he properties that mr cochran invested in with his mother's money and put it into his name we know earlier he said well geez really concerned about his parents money this is aaron's money that he while he had conservatorship that he put in in two properties that he placed in his in his wife's name moving right along we are looking at age six b further disputes between the parties include statement and this is the important part and other issues in the superior court of the state of california county of humble undertakes number that's the probate we go on to say that there's other various disputes between the parties under see the parties have agreed to settle this is the important language all disputes above and any other all dispute and any other just disputes and differences they may have this follows it's not that the arbitrator will decide all issues and i want to say that and i will belabor it too much it's that all issues are settled except those reserved to the arbitration and when he quotes it in court that he possibly can and i will highlight that by the fact that his newest filing in this court date of state court filings is improper from the standpoint of the order confirming that is reason for that was that all issues in the coconino county court case were brought up to the bankruptcy court and decided by the bankruptcy judgment and the issue about exits all issues that were going to be heard by the court and the two major issues heard but court were limited to correction of the arbitration  proven has presented appropriate evidence that the arbitrator did not rule in compliance with the stipulated settlement that was approved by the bankruptcy court in a confirmation order and the chapter eleven plan order you presented nothing that showed that his whole argument was that that arbitrator was to decide all issues it's vacuous argument there's nothing to it the judge was very specific a findings he went through each and every one of the things that the arbitrator was to find or determine and determine that the arbitrator did it all right so there is no basis for overturning that arbitration award unless there's a basis for vacate or the reason i say that is because arbitration warrants are very difficult to overturn for that reason you have to have substantial evidence you presented basically nothing to the bankruptcy court then go to the nd thing what about  under oath mr caucus but nothing under oath and that showed that there was no bribery frankly he chose the arbitrator not we did not choose the arbitrator he had the right to select arbitrary and used one of the three and it was someone we've never met before so there is no basis for that then when i look at it i say we're going to step in it for the most recent thing was that quite frankly the judge said that the arbitrator did not do what you're supposed to do basically what the judge said was that the arbitrator didn't do it is supposed to do what he was supposed to do was read all the issues and quite frankly mr kerik is way out of base because when this typical asian was made it was made with mr tak and my attorney it was we're going to resolve that everything and all of the thing stare is in capsulated and that including the probate action is that they go there and to give ideas as to what's happened once that was done we got  arbitration mr cack put together a bought say box probably seven or eight reams of paper dealing with the probate he knew that that was what was going to happen he knew that the would sink his ship and so what he tried to do is to manipulate this to to get rid of the probate and that's what he tried to do in the information that's prevented  both in my brief it's noted that's what happened was that the arbitrator said look i'm not so sure that i can knowledge of state court three i'm sorry he has no knowledge of what he was told to do by the fang crecy court and that was to resolve all issues and it's specifically there i've gone over it both on the the opening brief and the reply brief and it's right there in their chapter and verse that that's what happened and the all pa all the parties agreed to probate would be taken care of by the state court when  came back i went back to the bankruptcy court before the arbitration took place and i said look your honor this is what's happening mr katz wants to off the arbitration and he wants to basically send that off to the state court for resolution because quite frankly before d the bankruptcy got involved with it it was a state court and we came from the conservatorship and by the way what mr tack says dealing with my spending my mother's money is mooted you if you don't like what this situation is why doesn't southern california conference take the two pretty properties and manage in this in nope we want to do it we're going to have mr caulkins continue to do that and once he sells this because we're coming out of the recession or no way and none once you sell this then we want the money but we don't want to manage it and i said that's fine we'll do that and boom we took care of the a conservatorship and moved into the probate unfortunately the bankruptcy court didn't get involved until fifteen and we started in the thirteen my mother died in two thousand and seven so it gives you an idea letter to the from the bankruptcy court that we can't do anything we shouldn't do anything and tell the bankruptcy court had resolved well unfortunately this thing was taken care of statute that the arbitration took place and i have in my packet of information it shows specifically it was arizona