i'd like to reserve five minutes because i don't know where we're going on this in terms of there seems to be a lot of threads out there and the first thing is that you don't have to go to law school to know that the man who represents himself has a fool for a client but i'm not really the client my client is jed barnes who's a seaman over there and i believe that it most important thing is that i need to express some sort of sincere apology to remove the ill effects of my poor behavior from the consideration of my client cause of action i mean it's a judiciary is a house of cards in that feel you're to show respect for a judge anywhere from the supreme court of the united states to justice the peace is never forgivable another case or so i looked at the buoy as well you're not here an expert on the prove he well the the something that is not exactly in the record you have to pull it out of there today is eighteen hundred and nine days since the vessel exploded and my client was pulled from the water with blood coming out of his head taken to hospital and dick is bleak maritime lien and i think ok so first we file a complaint it is verified barnes lives on the big island this isn't like he's you know down the coast we can give him a bus pass and come over and verify it's an issue doesn't have a place to live we got to get him verification we've got to get him over to in order in you something else this is a case about from my perspective it's about meaning secure and this is it's not a high end  but it's something myself and my people that i work with his about five families depend on the fact the constant since your time is limited if i can get this your argument on the maintenance and cure and for a moment now the yes your honor are there remaining factual disputes asked to make minute amount that you're seeking in other words i'm i'm wondering whether factual disputes are pretty much been resolved and now at the summary judgment stage the court h set maintenance amount or whether there are still many factual disputes such that you know you need to go further perhaps into a trial proceeding before the mouth can really be set what's your view on that my view is your honor that we came in with a wheelbarrow full of evidence and showed the guy was in total about sixty eight hours a day judge came a determination he said oh absolutely that sixty eight dollars he has shown his actual cost was that a request for an interim determination of actual latter that's all you were seeking with as in terms of the amount it's all they were seeking then we're claimed to be a failure fruit but there really is a failure of burden of proof problem you're claiming plate of comes in there were able to show hey this is what it cost me to go live in that house and eat at that place while i'm getting better with that doctor and we showed it to the judge found it there's a conclusion he he he partially granted the motion for saying for for maintenance a cure he's a seaman service the vessel got hurt on this day maintenance is zero and we come in there say it's sixty eight bucks somehow it gets turned around i'm supposed to show what an average seaman living on the big island would it cost now i have a problem with that in terms  because i'm showing this is what it actually cost it seems to me that the vessel owner should come and say well that's not appropriate or reasonable seeming this and they can put up the five grand that it cost to get that in a form that it's presentable in this complaint originally yes and then there was an amended complaint filed that was not verified correct and how that came about is that in the process of working the case we eventually got the coastguards report and it showed that the plane the thing blew up because there were vapor in the builds and there's a vapor detection system that's required by the coast guard it's required so we decided well we're going to add a motion for summary we're going to add a claim for strict liability because that's cuts right to the chase we don't have to do all the stuff we get we put in there we won that by the way we know because it has been decided in this case that they were negligent strictly eg legit my clients we just cleared the way we're trying to get the guy maintenance in cure that's the first issue how do you get him supported while he's getting better so when we file it now that the the claim that we added is a jones act claim it is not sound you can't make the jones act claim against the vessel itself  against the employer and until we actually got the motion for you know we didn't know who the employer is you know you've got a man you've got a boat and you've got an l l c but you only got one person there but there are three potential defendants and there you know there's the two of them go this little business but the law that we're going to get out of this has to apply to mattson and people who are making one hundred fifty thousand dollars just as it applies here so we everybody can see that the only thing of value is this inflatable hard bottom zodiac it's worth approximately thirty thousand dollars so when you're talking about the jurisdiction of it it's some point he declares bankruptcy and we have in the record testimony that the reason he did it is because he saw i couldn't settle the case now we believe we had a main we had a maritime lien from the moment the vessel exploded that's not how it works for refrigerators and land based liens and i think chandon says two different things by the same name and that's where it sort of gets blurry about jurisdiction in terms of the vessel i believe that the controlling law here has chandan it's already been decided in this circuit wages are not covered by the automatic stay now there are some refinements of that and i just went you know  harden versus gordon we mean in secure is not a tort it's part of your wages so it's clear that shandon applies to maintenance and care also a mystical dance in he'll argue does he well that's a chapter case it's not really another kind of a case and compare for new the difference between a seven eleven and thirteen except you know and but  point said in another part should this part of this case because it's spread out every time we wanted to question something from bankruptcy it creates another something that's going on and he said it depends upon whether or not you rea ordinarily and when that idea was interesting just into this proceeding the same chins and the tsunami that was heading our way stopped until we figure out whether or not mr barnes has a lien because if he had a lien then the filing of that verification is window dressing i thought i was facing a jury trial i'm looking for some cheap evidence and an easy thing to do is get the guy to verify the complaint it's a sworn statement it goes to the jury we actually thought we had a jury trial here and we were days away from it when the bankruptcy move happened how much saying that a person doesn't have a right to declare bankruptcy and that creates a system of rights in the creditor or the debtor excuse me in maritime law the primary high pinnacle of it everything is the semen his right to in bankruptcy the trustee is the ward of the court and so if we're looking at the only thing left is this thirty thousand bucks or whatever that vessel's worth who gets to go to the trough first because whoever does everything's gone fees i assure you far exceed at this point how much we could get out of that vessel even with selling the permit and mr barnes it eighteen hundred and nine days far exceeds the value of all the assets in this thing so the attitude has been so what why are you still doing this you know mr barnes feels like a victim in this he came to me because he was hurt nobody else would touch something like this without insurance we figured it's a no brainer it's maintenance and cure for god sakes the guy's hurting we have ok i wind up having to get it in the record  twenty five hundred dollar expert witness report because the judge wouldn't accept the expert witnesses opinion of how much it cost the semen to live on this island i had to go get it on another island i had the same guy do it  at that at the hearing for my narrower interests was that judge k believe that there was a factual issue to be determined and that he needed a an evidentiary hearing or a trial issues and perhaps the first one that should be addressed is the issue of mootness that is the vessel as it were the raft has been sold pursuant to an orderly bankruptcy court there has been no stay while mr free time appealed from the sale of water he did not obtain a stay and the court had certified the sale order pursuant to three sixty three m of the bankruptcy code which makes it determines that and certifies that it is sold free and clear of any means as a consequence we think that yes there is no i mean it can remain against it for that independent reason independent of dr kay's ruling that the appeal is moot and if the court were to distributions have been no distributions from the estate in this case the court had previously determined that for reasons i can break down and there has been there was no time to appeal from either of those orders so i think that is a settled matter in the bankruptcy case in the bankruptcy proceeding but  fact that all parties appeared and litigated the case for about eighteen months waive any objection that could have been asserted to that no and the reason is because at that time early in the case we were not involved that that was part of the vessel as it were situated in the state of hawaii but that wasn't until eighteen months later so i'm sorry that wasn't until eighteen months later when the answer was filed to be amended questions clearly enough when the original complaint that was verified was filed in january of two thousand and thirteen and the court never completed jurisdiction by arresting the vessel right and the parties all appeared in the litigation went on until the eve of trial that was when the amended un verify complaint was filed and the answer was filed raising the jurisdictional issue for the first time so my question to you is during all the time between the filing of the original verify complaint and the court basically handling the case without vessel as well under the next rule i think of the supplemental rules plainly was not arrested but but in ram jurisdiction initially was established by the filing of the verified complaint i just ask you one question so i think initially start talking about when the lean attached us and i had to be it would attach when the come complaint was find of a verified complaint that's correct and that's so  but he was entitled to it did not change his claim but it basically vacated i believe the attachment and it may or may well be but we're really only talking about arresting the vehicle of the vehicle that's what we're talking about it's analogous to personal jurisdiction it's not subject matter jurisdiction right supersedes and will that are being treated there for as long legs as is the point of fails to include dismissed claims in the amended complaint point so they're saying the lacy could not assert claims against thomas and in that case the consequence of the prior as i understand the plaintiff has to do undertake to arrest a vessel and then it is an expense for the plaintiff that's the consequence of the arrest process but it's not simply a requested the court will order it but then the plaintiff has to carry out the duties of getting marshals to serve the vessel and and to take action to take custody of the vessel and those are the obligations as i understand it  in the first complaint also the use standard objects and i used to work for those guys they hired me at a law school we were told you always object because it may be something you so and your honor when it's that the damages and that can be absurdly expensive to what it cost per day to run a mattson vessel if i'm paying for all this money and i'm betting my house on it that's why it's like lloyd's of london consequential damages not only to the the claimant libel and mr barnes but to me because i use those processes this goes back to before there was google when you were on line guys in england he owns a boat it's here in hawaii someone delivers a bunch of apples to the boat they don't pay for it guy goes into the court in hawaii and says i want that boat to leave they owe me for my hundred bushels of apples now it's not enough just to say it in the lawyers pleadings someone has to swear to it it's you know why verify it's because somebody is putting themselves on the line they're swearing to the court they only for those apples now we also did this you know all the stuff about supercede complaints made day how it was at the end of the trial and my guys work for the boat because they couldn't keep the boat at the pier without people being on there and moving it when the coast guard wanted did so those were post wages mr barnes not only had a claim for meaning secure and respectfully it goes way back this is not a refrigerator we don't have to file a lawsuit we don't have to file something down it at the when you file liens inland from the moment that it from the moment the deliver those samples from the moment the sting blew up and mr barnes was taken to the hospital we've got a lien on that boat we don't have to do anything about it now also the idea that the bankruptcy court has the power to sell it  clear of liens for i'd like to go there you know i mean separation of powers the bankruptcy court can't apply those supplemental rules and you don't use bankruptcy sale techniques ok got it right so and then  about the objection to interim why this is not modally ha even is that we not only filed that complaint but in that period of time until we filed the first amended complaint i litigated to try to get the guy a what's going on here and i wanted to get that line and leave you laughing i think that we thank you for your argument thank you counsel we appreciate your arguments in this