the proposition that if bankruptcy trustee does not have statutory authority under the bankruptcy code to receive a claim from a third party to pursue against another defendant there was  number one you're on it was a mistake assuming a personal capacity number two it was the this intersection of if i understood the argument he was saying i'm suing not as a bankruptcy trustee and soon as a credit greater understanding still interesting understanding and i should say still the current problem and you only have a point problem well that's a separate issue that it's not a separation it's because he was never not a in one motion which was in capacity as a bankruptcy trustee y c l t says i fundamentally mis characterized how i understood he was suing mr bush said in the no case in a legal implication of that room seeking the the court which was frankly would have been challenging if not downright impossible to see from the bankruptcy court in montana within the fourteen days which i had and will twelve to file any compulsory counterclaims and that i have minute and forty five seconds left on reserve you could give extra time file well sure i mean i want to argue with him but surely if you're required to go get leave of another court as a condition for doing this i beret again for the dress the we have to put this into context and we can't lose sight of the context this was a nine billion dollar counter claim six billion dollars completely basis on which the sanctions were issued that's correct your honor but it's in that it provides the context it was against the litigation trustee who was appointed pursuant to a chapter eleven plan he was only doing his job as he was required to do to collect on the notes and his alleged mr conant mr blix of our legend the very same conspiracy theories that they had already alleged in montana and that had already been rejected at least in part and this was really a continuation of that very same conduct and for mr conan to say that he is being impugned by with guilt by association is just not correct he was counsel of record in montana and he was intimately involved in everything that was going on in montana so when you add in the fact that this really was not even the first pleading the initial pleading by mr blix and in this case there's clearly a basis on which to impose sanctions under either nine hundred twenty seven or the courts inherent powers mr with filed a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint which she is entitled to do under the federal rules that was his initial pleading when that was denied and that was the kaplan  pleading when that was denied he turns around a search account that is sanctionable under nine hundred twenty seven and i think the keegan case makes that clear we're not really talking about whether a document is why don't why do we need to worry about nine seven and not but i agree with you fundamentally it doesn't matter because the standards are basically the same or very similar and number one and number two the bankruptcy sorry the district court judge in this case clearly made the findings have to put it into context so i ask one question you want to and so that's one question but i don't want to look at context i want to look at this specific issue alone if you say standing alone that's not that's fine let's go ahead and discuss something else but i don't watch the muddier the waters by brain and other things let's talk about the question that i asked why isn't the failure to seek leave of the bankruptcy court the only thing being that he brought a claim that was was not in accordance with barton because actually i i don't know that it would i mean clearly it's it's i think it's debatable in this context because here not what was it four days before the court had had in montana had dismissed the complaint based on the barton doctrine it's impossible for them to claim but the real problem was that he was selling this guy in his personal capacity which made no sense it was correct and that's not what the district court sanctioned for because he did sanction him for bringing a frivolous and stupid lawsuit against a person who was a trustee as if he wasn't a trustee recti he sanctioned him for among other things whole list of things blatant disregard for the rules and he specifically cited both rule thirteen and the barton doctrine but blatant disregard for those two rules of law and that that that's what he was sanctions along with the bad but  don't think was really their intent but he it had if they had filed the counterclaim and then immediately gone to montana and sought the relief requested and he and he offered to dr going on and whether or not the simple act of filing the case against his adversary in a purely personal capacity and in failing to go for barton whether or not those were act that i mean part of the reason it wasn't strictly procedural perhaps it was you filed it without asking permission and when you could have asked for permission you didn't ask for the permission suggesting you never you know you never meant this harass and intimidate mr person or when you look at the record in this case the only thing beyond what the on the filing of the counterpoint the only thing relative to me that would be indicative of i don't know what it's of but the only other evidence that they submitted was through the rubric if you're just on notice of an e mail i sent to a different party in different litigation that is the only other evidence that they tried to bring in with respect to me and i don't believe that and i believe the only the only other evidence be on the filing of the counterclaim in the legal theories supporting it or not supporting it was e mail relative to me because it was clear you can't sanction an attorney for the kind of his client or for the conduct of other parties and so that is a thought there was a calculation i went into mr clean mr bush's damages times of three for the record travel and that's how you get there it was also what was withdrawn offer to be withdrawn and was withdrawn in the concession to drop the saint in order to drop the sanction against me in this or books that he wanted a concession that all claimed the misreported would dismiss all claims with prejudice whatsoever and any claim whatsoever dismissed without prejudice no intention of a certain but a frankly created a bit of a conflict i thought it put me in a conflict where i had to in order for me to get myself out of sanctioned advise my client to dismiss something that he may or may not have a prejudice and so that's why that concession was not given but we did seek to amend the complaint remove the rico claim to fix the rule thirteen issue which by the way was not identified under the central district sokol rules you have to have a meeting confer identify the issues in