pereira's and the supreme court has said in chambers that the trial court has inherent power inherent power not the contempt to impose sanctions were noncompliance with  is there any reason why the bankruptcy court could next assize look inherent power here well as this court has repeatedly how when you analyze something it is based on the characteristics and not only placed on yes but but the but the that that you tend to make a right would make every punitive sanction a criminal contempt sanction and this court and every of the circuit has specifically held that that's not so that the arrow is a group of punitive sanctions that walk in many ways like criminal contempt science sions by heart because there are inherent power sanctions and you simply refuse to recognize that category but that refusal but i notice that there is a penalty for performing an actor or for engaging interaction so then you're saying to exercise the inherent power in the example i gave there needs to be a  a party can violate a court order with impunity unless the court has specifically said at some earlier point in the case now counsel i want you open know that if you violate any of this court's orders  i'm going to take some without any particular notice the court has inherent power to enforce its own orders and and one way you can do that is by sanctioning noncompliance these non co i mean there's no question about not fact there there is no question about that all right and the fact that it that that there was an effort made to remedy the violation after the fan can certainly be taken into account in determining whether  sanctions should be imposed or what the sanction should be but it doesn't cure the fat that the core to what it was violated in the first one i agree and under the circumstances of this case this  specifically referred to those circumstances he specifically in his in his words admit that you the bankruptcy judge wasn't very ethical but he specifically said i understand your circumstances i'm going to give you  compelled to was to enforce this order on everyone and there is nothing that says that in this particular circumstances that the court cannot choose to simply say this was the first time this debtor has been before this court for any sort of transgression i understand that it was an inadvertent oversight there was no intention there was no no intent to defy a court order this was a low functioning trying to save his house and that based on the circumstances of this case no sanction was appropriate if they were what is really you think strictly fixated on the idea enforcement over something like this you don't want to me or you just you just want this to stop happening in one doesn't take a lot of time if i can just address that i again i think a letter going out further from the trustee to the council council has no way of knowing in any particular instance which doctors have complied and which have not well we may do our best efforts to try and ensure that we can track those things there  some debtors that respond directly to the trustee bypassing our council there are some that go through their council and so if the trustee were even to just say i mean this were a discovery violation lawful orders there's no dispute i don't think in this case that the particular order that the court issued which was voluntarily agreed to by the debtor by using the local form plan was an enforceable worker once it became part of the confirmation order as it did the question that we have is if a debtor does not comply can there be a remedy imposed by the court if the debtor  so you're then left in it could have been that the district court could issue a policy that your office is always going to incur at least one hundred dollars in expenses by one of these things so as a remedial sanction but clearly the judge didn't do that here he went out of his way to say he wasn't so that having these kind of closed off you in this case although the judge could deal with other cases otherwise you're left with inherent power i'm having trouble finding any justification parent power without a finding a bad day it seems to me most of the cases say that you need that pay in my am i wrong on that in what with respect your honor if my cell phone went off right now there would be you makes a very good point about how inherent the court has the unstated inherent power which have for a long time and i want to know if you can point  very thing that i might do if my phone went off without my intent without my bad intent i think that the perfectly reasonable thing for a court to do the court hears but see with the little cell phone line you can use civil contempt because by posting notice think the court has the power to impose an ad hoc penalty for whatever deems reasonable and the penalty has to be reasonable because the bankruptcy court has limited powers we understand that you can't impose the literal death penalty upon a debtor no matter what that person might have done but it can impose the death penalty on the case they can dismiss the case and remove that person from the protection of the say and from the eventuality of receiving a discharge are you when you say can dismiss that case whether or not there's that faith sure exactly and part of material compliance is making plan payments and part of providing tax returns the reason why they have to be required is a statutory basis for section five twenty one f and there's his law requiring it the debtor griese to do all that and so when it doesn't for whatever reason we're left with two possibilities either the bankruptcy court can be powerless to do nothing up and do nothing about that or it has to dismiss the case unless there's a third way but are you aware of any authority that would require the judge to put in the record that the violation was material you know i'm not i before issuing a thirteen zero seven sanction right and you know it has to be material and they better makes the point here that the hearing i made the comment that we don't really want to dismiss the case and the judge made that same comment what we really want is for people to comply time have their cases dismissed with an absence of bad faith when they're required to make payments but they don't they don't and sometimes they don't make a payment because they're bad or they don't care about the process but they lose their job but and that's not bad f many many cases where that happens it's a bill that the better yes the better doesn't stand on the principle here that he doesn't have to file a tax return the debtor has to file a tax return and if the debtor wanted to say i'm not filing the tax although i would argue for dismissal of a case like that now the court in an earlier case asked one of the litigants but if that remedy of imposing a sanction is not a good remedy then what would you suggest counsel that counsel didn't have a good answer this one consider that but again with respect to this court the bankruptcy court that i'm talking about there's only two judges it's a small place and they can exercise of their case management for their cases in their small part of the judicial system a remedy that i proposed but that the court has opted and it's it could it was the basis for the common knowledge if that can substitute for notice that that it's going to be two hundred dollars well there's the fact that i filed  motion and then there's a hearing a month later so the debtor surely has notice and this case is an excellent example of that because the debtor not wanting to be sanctioned heenan argued against it and the court in its discretion decided to impose a lesser fine it could have decided to impose was no remedy proposed within the statute and so what hat became commonplace would be i filed a motion to dismiss the debtor would show up before they hear him say here it is and i have nothing left to say there's no sanction is no other remedy of his couldn't be dismissed because they did comply the court had a hearing of the debtors bar there was three different occasions where the debtors bar it's a relatively small bar maybe thirty or forty regular practitioners came to court and to g c the same judge we had here we rarely have a visiting judge but so i can't answer that specifically but the two sitting judges who are there all the time if you sanctions routinely on request with you process notice ok thank you thank you  think there is nothing in the record that anyone with placed on notice that this was going to be a policy that the trustee argue that what constitutes notice and due process is that he put it into motion this is after the act had already been and it isn't a key until policy where the court has the notice outside the door that says if your cell phone goes off this will happen in this particular year the only people to know about the sanction policy were those who committed the transgression and have the motion filed and there was no way to escape it at that point there is no implication of that i think in this case anywhere mr and one that didn't require a monetary sanction thank you