not much ok let me jump over you want to send it back to the bankruptcy court and say do it on the facts of what you're asking i don't think we need to send back the tax court because the from the motion is considered to know the by this independently at the record does not need to consider the rationale used by either the bankruptcy court or the district court in looking at the same record so we have before us the record which consists of the judgment as well as this one declaration as well as a verify claim and i collaborate on the fact part of the place where this gets off the track is the definition of the jury instruction of malice because there's a possibility that it's intentional an intent to cause an injury but it's also a possibility of despicable during the course of several years on many repeated occasions my employer who was not only my my supervisor but he was the chairman of the company and the owner of the company  the intent that's the problem that can be no other intent but you caused her sharks that say that there could be no other intent i just islam who thinks it's going to excite this woman and lure her into his into his arms and that's that's why there are a lot of those people around we know that yes and that's why the the california case law that deals with the which was right on the district court judge erred by focusing narrowly on the collateral stoffel issue and getting that incorrect when when this court examines the facts independently and the facts are i'm just going to there's no the argument i've heard so far this morning is very interesting because if we look back at the motion it was filed with the bankruptcy court for summary judgment by ms quinn it is predicated soley on collateral style based on the state  collateral estoppel in our cross motion we argue yes collateral estoppel does apply but it mandates judgment in very stable because the only intentional toward tried by the jury intentional infliction of perfectly candid i agree with almost everything in judge collins decision reversing the bankruptcy court with one exception and i have somewhat confused by it it would seem to me that malice there are two possible definitions of als one requires an intent to injure one does not an element of intentional infliction of emotional distress as intent to injure the jury found in ver facts and circumstances whether this was well to learn because your honor i think that injury has already determined that it wasn't a jury has already determined that there was no intent by less than that and that's what's required under five twenty three eighty six based on the court's decision in geiger  i would respectfully submit that judge collins got it right in her decision which is one little kabhie and that is i respectfully disagree that this court cannot and should not conclude so he has suffered the embarrassment the public humiliation of the trial the loss of the business his father founded a file bankruptcy lost all my exempt assets recorded going to trust be the issue before this court is does the law require that he be for the money and it is not not understand or set forth by the supreme court in congress and not based on the findings of the jury tri pointed out in our reply papers any ruling on that issue that might be implicit in the jury's five was not necessary to the case and the the inconsistency that it was unnecessary to the judgment and therefore one of the five problems of collateral estoppel in which mr berry has the burden of proving has not been satisfied here so the jury ver to what purpose to either have a new motion for summary judgment hearing or a trial on the other side correct when it says that your side in bankruptcy court relied on nothing more than coroner let's stop and that's not quite correct that was the argument the evidence presented consisted of more than the state court judge well i mean what was your legal point the collateral sample rules the day that was my predecessors legal points so why should we give you another chance to them why should we turn the legal system into a degenerative disease and give you an opportunity to go back and start over you elected your approach to the case you didn't work now you want to do over well that fortunately the rule is that a decision is affirmed for any reason and we did and so even if the we also have the authority to say you had your chance you didn't take it so we're not going to turn this into a never ending a never ending game with no rules well the fact is this is rule is the power to do that but it's not a requirement well that may be but the reason exists for i mean and maybe the reason also is that you plead your case and you get to go to court and then you work up the system and you just don't get to do in this in the state court no because the because the issue of his intent to cause for harm under five twenty three a sex was not necessarily decided in the in the trial in the state court trial