and even in this case it's a little confusing doesn't because we have a cross a pow if you have fifteen minutes on a side you have to deal with both sides here argument during your allotted time  proceed the court's indicated they've you are you familiar with the briefs so you know what the facts are you know that the debtor was really disabled during the entire period of time the subject of this case that the court found him to be merely disabled to the extent that he court erred in not considering the context that use that list was used the fact that that when he was running his corporation and using his name his face his voice his webinars to sell these products he was according to the plaintiff in the in the pleadings was the product he with that's what he was selling and he made a lot of money and they made a lot of money on his name and on his brand on his product and when instructions but then when he went through this period where he was just mentally out of touch with virtually everything he was asked to value that is part of the bankruptcy procedure and he contact d someone that was in this internet field that marketing field the snitches he was in the field at marketing and ask him for the value he gave it he gave him the value we put it down at a at a per a person name and email this value and the value is always a one million dollars versus seven hundred and eighty three dollars so if that's what i think it really bothered the court but the fact is that the court didn't consider that that at the time of the bankruptcy filing that list to a rd party that wasn't able to use his name his face his voice his and he had his products was just a list of e mail names so there was there was going to be a substantial difference in value from from when he gave it the st time and when we put it down in the petition and based on they had that caused the court to believe that he was trying to defraud the creditors but from the facts of the case both from my paralegal was very familiar with and this young man had a terrible terrible time just understanding the basic instructions he was forgetful erratic confused like focus unable to think logically and  to connect the dots and this is the evidence that the court found that to be persuasive with the other two items a rolex watch that was about one hundred dollars and a bitcoin account that was forgotten the real mitt it and not put in the petition e mail lists put unknown as the value for the list i'm sorry why did you just put unknown or evaluate the list i thought about that once i saw the the court's opinion and the newer forms actually have a block for that  i never put down unknown on a on a bankruptcy petition because our trustees just don't like to get away with it you've got to put somebody you know the trustee is going to say tell me how much is worth give me some idea and you know generally speaking we truck and his tools so that's why i think we didn't that's why we didn't do an appraisal on it in hindsight i would have so many things i would have pumped into his case to make make it clear what we believe happened well your position is that the valuation that you used on the schedule was a good faith estimate of what devalue was under the circumstances it was no the problem is we have a rd party that i've never met never heard of until going to write a trial no value to anyone else that's just the way he was looking at it but again we're talking about him now said in a in a corporate bankruptcy not an asset in his personal bankruptcy that is correct but he was an insider he filled out the schedules he was the  personal system basically from his business that was trying to help him prepare the schedules to work closely with my secretary joanna who's the best one i've cited in the breeze you out of work closely with him so he had people assisting him getting him gathering information putting it down just getting him to the appointments on time was part of it was a it was a challenge well you know that the court made a finding of intent to conceal the value of yes can you generally draw an inference of intent from the parties motive and didn't he have a motive to assign a low value to this so the trustee is more likely to abandon it nearly impossible for him to to plan and ferret that kind of thing out he was planning to go out and start a new business in the future using the same method he started this st one with the affiliate marketing to get these affiliate marketers to market it and  he pays them half of the proceeds if the product sells so that he done it before he knew how to do that that was not even in the cards and there was never an issue of him you know using this email list all the way through from his old bank old corporation into the new corporation it was only after this was abandoned months down the road after the chapter of the corporate chapter seven was filed did he use that list in the court found that that was kind of a badge of fraud just using the list after witnesses the psychiatric witness that you had in terms of his mental state so how can we find error in what she did when the credibility she basically in the opinions says that he's not credible credible because he believes that the list has has a lot of value for him but a lower no value for anyone else so she's saying that because he believes that there's a great discrepancy value that's not credible that's the main reason she's used as in the opinion and that's the side i think that pass your question on a different subject  as i've gone to the record i can't find a single piece of evidence regarding the value of this property that would have been properly admitted had someone he objected to it why were there no  opinions were for what they're worth i mean he never said it was a one million dollars list well he said that he got in a basis for his value from some rd person that would not be admissible mr sure nobody had any expert witnesses to testify about it so it seems like the better value is the is and is a legitimate value what is the evidence  because he knew it would come back to him was there some evidence of that in the case not zero but it did come back the only of the only evidence that it's tends to focus on that is that the court pointed out that they had a large discrepancy between the one million busy references a presentation that the doctor gave where he the e mail list is valued at a one million dollars this would be admitted if there were an objection he was  well because we have separately gave on that on that issue we arguably also have a list already because we were in a joint venture with them so you know our need to impact value well it's certainly more than eight hundred dollars in terms of the disclosure to the trustee he discloses it as being seven hundred and forty dollars that only in order to win the you need to prove just that it's where more than eight hundred dollars or do you need to actually establish a value because it's your burden of proof to establish the false oath and in order to establish falso if you have to show that he missed you know improperly valued the asset but if it's worth nine hundred dollars well i think the trial court got it absolutely right talking about when there's an asset that has a range of values you can't pick the lowest and you you have to at  least you know what would be in that point and valuation which is what she discusses is that the rule i thought the rule was that it had to be a reasonable estimate of value i think you have to give fair disclosure to the trustee and the creditors and whatever that amount is it's not seven hundred dollars based when you're running around telling people you think it's worth a one million dollars your actual belief is a one million dollars and then you turn around and when it's a bankruptcy suddenly it's seven hundred dollars because somebody in nigeria helped you you know the lip well let's  let's put it in context the st was not not an asset in his personal bankruptcy right not claiming he examined this did it and his corporate bankruptcy and list is in the corporate bankruptcy so whatever the value is it's something owned by the the trustee is that correct whatever the value is it's something on by the corporate trust and so the trustee is free to sell it a band in that he's making no no other entities making a claim of ownership on it sekret it has and and and that's right so so it's there are some reasons to discount the value right discount we're not saying that it needed to be recorded a one million dollars but seven hundred dollars doesn't give anyone fair notice as to its value and that was borne out as the course when he started his new business with this list that generates over six figures in sales based on this list and he received fifty seven thousand dollars from this list for him for him because he was the person who was doing the selling probably probably or his company you know or his company  so how does that indicate the value of it in the hands of the trustee doesn't have him the debtor to do the sales but the the trustee could have spokesperson potentially the trustee but didn't the trustee have the preposition tax returns and the trust you know how much that are had made from the l a p d but would have necessarily known it with it was from this less that's only were seven hundred dollars i'm not sure how much insight you know it's guess let me change the topic a little bit to the intent question i'm struck by the fact that the judge and i'm paraphrasing here basically found that he didn't have the intent to defraud with respect to the watch because he had these mental issues but he definitely had the intent to defraud with respect to the list even though he made those disclosures that essentially the same time and presumably was suffering from the same mental problems that those just don't line up for me well i think that the assesses knowing what that in the right hands it's worth a one million dollars if you're selling the right product so so that's one answer the nd answer is given the magnitude of this over two years because that's the issue what's the what's the value of the list what's the value of the hands yeah yeah and and any of that there is no reason to think it's worth seven hundred dollars explain to me why it's worse less than this one is worth twelve thousand dollars and that was that the transaction where you couldn't identify the parties that's potentially i mean you're right you're not and you would concede that evidence was not it if a properly objected to  would not have been admissible i'm not sure i don't think i can say that trust me but that's what he was was offered him for twelve he turned it down he later heard from somebody that somebody else had bought it for twelve yeah so why is it not reasonable to say that in those hands on the petition date without the assistance of the debtor without the face of the principal of the corporation  exactly what he said it was because the trustee could find somebody else could even potentially negotiate with the with the debtor himself you know it's the product wasn't jordan scholz it was his ideas on how to make money on the internet and coaching that he would give somebody else to do that but also encumbered by where litigation about on a ship right true but still it's a cloud that has an impact on value yes but as the court found worth more than seven hundred dollars is it is a troubling or should it be troubling to us that the judge kind of did what you did here today an argument which is basically saying given the fact that it's some point in time he speculated as part of his salesmanship that his mail list was worth a one million dollars with him under those circumstances with him selling at that somehow it's got to be worth more than the in the hands of the trustee has got to be worth more than he listed it in the schedules is not just speculation what's the basis what's the evidence will basis for that because if this email list now so you can bring that up t but didn't your guy i remember correctly testify that he did not know of any list selling for a one million dollars we're not suggesting that it's actually worth it to the trustee and nine dollars i thought that's why you're holding up that objections have been mabel we're not going to do that the evidence that was admitted that she valued way that she believed that it's worth you know some midpoint higher than seven one hundred dollars and was lowered in order to live in the trustee based on you know tax that he had told our client that you never going to get a dollar ok based on the amount of times he met with her paralegal eight times the number of amendments that were made th size of this asset he must have known he did know it was worth more than seven hundred dollars he didn't tell anyone that because he was trying to get it through so that nobody bothered him and then he could use it again and  one more question with you was your client was a creditor yes and so you're suggesting that in a bankruptcy and what's the principle creditor was his partner that he could somehow effectuate a deceit about the value of the customer list particularly when it's a customer list that the partner alleges an ownership interest in how would that work i think it worked exactly how it did here he put it on the schedule to seven hundred dollars so i pulled both the trustee and the creditors including you're going well we're we're not for we were in litigation with them but you know there's other creditors that are listed well i'm like my question is that you know what you're suggesting is something that seems to me to be very impossible which is to say that he came up with the scheme to fool his trustee and his creditors about the value of his customer list when his principal creditor was his partner your client how is our concept possible because the well it's possible because the trustee you know did you know let it go a valuation of seven hundred dollars but it's gasket as to whether if the trustee had known it was well worth a one million dollars to somebody else i said i'm sorry i'm struck by the fact that your client opted not to go to the trustee and say offer you a one thousand bucks go out of that litigation over who owns a little bit that litigation involves more than just that list they all are but that's what it takes one issue out of that litigation which is usually if you get out get rid of it for a one thousand bucks that's probably a good deal good yeah you didn't do that  yeah but but that does that that should not allow a creditor to get away with not revealing the actual belief as to what an asset is worth st of all and  nd of all on our cross appeal if i may briefly the largest withdrawal made in this case was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars that was not explained other than his accountant to say it's a cashier's check and i had no idea where that was we think under seventy two thousand and seventy five when we identify a transaction and this was the most material one single somebody on their side had to inherently implausible as payments and even amounts to a vendor the trial court's order doesn't address the cashier's check and there's no explanation sufficient was that what what the trial court said was that you hadn't met your burden of proof on that issue secor without addressing that transaction that specific transaction just generally everything's explained they don't like they there's no there's no suggestion of who deposited it where it went they knew it was coming we asked them about it and deposition and at trial we didn't know it was a cashier's check and until we heard from trial from the accountant that that's what it was but nobody knows where it went and you know two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is clearly material and not being able to explain where it went fails to satisfy some tw i give you a couple extra minutes because i felt needed some time on that issue thank you very much you have more time with your first i don't know that i answered judge brands question on the credibility of the  to a year ago was when that that that video was was filmed there's a discrepancy there and he didn't explain it other than to say it was worth more to him that it was to other people that was the basis there's nothing else in the in the record that i can find that shows anything that would indicate he was he was trying to deceive or mislead the court is it is it your position that in valuing this customer last what your client was saying that it is reasonable to valuated at seven hundred dollars because absence my personal participation and association with the list it has literally no value to anyone else correct sir and that while someone could reasonably disagree with that my position is still reasonable under the circumstances particularly in view of the fact that the trustee is it like two weeks later and the trustee aband factor for doing an act of abandonment and the motivating factor according to the trustee was was the ongoing litigation over the ownership and the privacy confidentiality concerns which proceeding they were going moving under just basic we were a partnership therefore whatever you had i had a theory but it but the understanding between the parties under their oral contract was that the list was to remain george schultz and george schultz had his on stuff that struck me because that's precisely what i told my clients to do when i needed the occasional consumer case what about the the mid point approach where were the court seemed to be taking what's your reaction to that just seemed to be ok this is not a pretty business anymore it's just a list of names it just didn't strike me as being out that much of an issue and most of the the complete the causes of action in this complaint were just information and belie discuss the cashier's check the cashier's check was for an advertisement the accountant testified that as to his procedures to  and based on the debtors recollection would put down what it was for if he did know that it went into shareholder distributions which was basically not a business expense he also explained that he got all  personal and business tax returns and nothing was adeline the the the latest in the case actually testified that he had gone through the books and documents that we prepared and determined that five hundred and twenty six one thousand dollars was for advertising and in that accounting was actually this two hundred and fifty thousand dollars check it was already listed in there the last thing i'd say about that two hundred and fifty thousand dollars check is that they really never mentioned that check with any specificity until trial not in their pleading it was basically what happened to four million dollars or just a generic large amount of money he had money back then they call it a network  net worth and now he's fine bankruptcy is where the money goes that was there the gist of that complaint though that cause of action well as i understand their case it did there is some reason to be concerned well i mean that the get it but the judge resolved that by just simply saying that maybe so but i just don't have enough evidence here to resolve this issue on a on a seven hundred and twenty seven destructibility case which is a rational