of the wrong courses of action which i commenced as it turned out to be wrongfully in the central district of in the district court of central california se i claim that they have a personal injury which is separate from all of the other creditors to that extent the reason i say to the extent i'm party who is going to be paid other creditors have no interest in that in other words if that if that lawsuit against trustee which i'm trying to get get a position of the of the right to it to pursue other creators have no interest they going to be even saying anything if it's not even a possibility to benefit from that and not just benefit net benefit meaning that it might be a very small benefit but the cost to to to participate in the court proceeding might not make sense that my basic argument and that's how it is or that this is my personal you know whether you agreed or not but that's at play at the moment i'm open to it to hear that so all of that seems very unjust and wrong and they think ministration well i believe mr david will be addressing that and i believe that that went through i think mr david's argument is that a successor to rest with would challenge how it go and what had happened that can't be so so the only way to bring an action against the estate is to remove the trustee which has been sought here and then have that successor do a forensic analysis and bring an action so let's take the worst example of chapter seven trustee commits embezzlement harms the state not of the creditors and the trustee and the debtor in a surplus case could with the premise of your question that that it that under those circumstances there would be a party that would be able to to challenge that concept i think in this case mr has called a rather clearly set forth that his complaint is all about the administration of the of this bankruptcy estate that happened in front of this bankruptcy court and i do believe that mr cox called his argument falls right into the stall case that's been that was cited in the trustees papers but that brings me back to my question is be that it does not make sense for and it would have not been appropriate for the bankruptcy court to have allowed this case to proceed in a different forum you know and i do want to you know remind the panel why the bankruptcy and the court bankruptcy court is entitled to significant discretion here you know that the bankruptcy the order that's been appealed here is documentary nine hundred and forty nine and at that point this bankruptcy case was two years old the bankruptcy court i factors and you look at mr christie all those claims they all concern what happened in this bankruptcy case and the bankruptcy cases administration in front of it in front of this particular bankruptcy judge  and for that reason it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to litigate those claims in front of another judge in another court i think that that that the shiny case you know sort of stands for the proposition that bankruptcy court you know if you have claim related the administration of the bankruptcy court they happen in bankruptcy court not in a different court to counsel can i ask a question and that is are you suggesting that he doesn't have standing to bring the claims or that he doesn't have standing to appeal the denial of his motion to the court the bankruptcy court refused to grant him the words are you suggesting that we don't have jurisdiction and we should dismiss the appeal or do you want us to affirm the order of the bankruptcy i think that the bankruptcy court order should be a four firm based based on her and in that the bankruptcy court order doesn't actually ask the stand in question and if the court isn't comfortable addressing it you know you can affirm the bankruptcy court order you know which is an exercise her discretion it's you know she's in detail painstaking detail lays out why she exercised her discretion in denying this trick is called a permission to bring this action in another in another four the but you find doesn't the the reason that he shouldn't proceed is because he didn't say i was a crime a fish a case to be able to prove to demonstrate that there was a basis for for that action to proceed anywhere because  all of the objective factors that he listed hiring fox rock child allowing the cedar judgment to be dismissed all those rulings he had already previously made and had determined against him right that that machine the my understanding of the the order that was sought in this bankruptcy case in the order that was entered is that mr cash call that was denied permission to bring this action in another the trustee correct and and at and that is the scope of the order that that that that's on appeal you're correct that the analysis that she that that the bankruptcy court used in in coming to that conclusion was essentially that she had previously rejected all of these theories of liability you know repeatedly u nless the court has any further questions for me and i i don't have any any further argument on this matter is the only point we made in our brief or below to be honest was not so much a standing issue as whether mr coffee whether the procedure that he wanted which was he the debtor who's been denied his discharge acting in pro se could bring these claims in another form and our point was that that that's after mr called mr kushner although he would prefer that they presumably get paid and bankruptcy so that that in some ways you know heightens his interest here and lessens the interest of the creditors because they retain their rights to go after him despite the bankruptcy i would agree with the st point that i made that he has a heightened interest due to the nondestructive bill the indeed for that matter the creditors would likewise would like benefit from the estate having additional assets mr costello's gone through bankruptcy in may and may not ever have any assets if there were another  explains there's a one million dollars that the a stay could obtain if these kinds of pursuits successfully i don't agree with that but if d that were true that would benefit the creditors the i r s in the st instance and the general unsecured creditors such as absent and nd interest this is not any different in the sense that the creditors have the direct interest and the debtor if at all as an indirect interest and yet the debtor generally does not have standing is generally not given standing to pursue these claims representatives of the state are given that those rights and those claims are generally heard in the bankruptcy court and judge  within the exercise of her discretion to say it's a cost isn't the right plaintiff and another form isn't right place to do it and by the way there is no valid claim here all those were perfectly appropriate example where mr coffey says that well let's take the stipulation regarding the automatic stay yes we signed a stipulation with both trustees and both the states with respect to the dismissal of the wrongful seizure action wrongfully filed wrongful seizure action mr kushner how they went back to judge them in that eight judge they dismissed it with prejudice i don't think that's what trustee and her professionals already has been addressed by judgments and is presuming to a final order are all of them so let me ask you are all of those matters subject to final orders because i seem to recall that this court sent a number of those back when they appeared in front of us recently as in iraq a tory sir mr coffey has raised those issues so often they are subject about some of them are subject to non final orders that that he appealed in and you dismissed but then you raise those same issues in other orders and other proceedings and those were final orders so again one would almost have to do a chart of every complaint by can and cite the order but but i believe and not that his complaint was as clear that i can say with certainty i understand everything he was saying to the extent i understand it everything he did was subject to a final order as well as in some instances not final orders of those orders and they're still going to be pending for the decisions upon the final determination so my point is that i disagree i do respect the court's orders but a true disagree with that and i think that my perspective last i e honest they didn't i didn't understand your question if you can to phrase it i would highly appreciate it sure everything that you walk this through in your discussion is inherently within the administration of the bankruptcy right well to approve a settlement whether to approve abandonment allowing the trustee to do that and you have peeled you have either appealed or indicated your your intent to bring a nother appeal for those matters but at the base those are already been decided against you those are very bad raising decided and now you ask us to allow you to sue the trustee in a different court to decide those same matters but really is it the right resolution to alternately get to your appeals i don't know how it should be but if i have an opinion on the general situation i filed and of course the judge would be deciding in favor of your trust who trust you she has been doing for years but in reality it was absent lawyers who had who were present in those those arguments i was powerless at that point let me but if the absolute lawyers accept the claim the whole claim the huge claim it's not the amount that matters that bank of america has five or six hundred thousand but the rage and coming back to my hypothetical example if there would be accepted has a different interest there is no it's when you boil water and use a small small drip in something you can to distinguish anymore so i what i'm saying here all is that trustee sho