cheer the division between the different circuits and i think clearly a simple reading of the supreme court's opinion clearly states that the they never 's can be so exempted i don't think there's any question that that's their intention and eat can't question i respectfully represent that you make it very clear on the further into their opinion that their intention was to settle the division among the circuits they specifically state regretted search or are you to resolve the division among the courts of appeal whether debtors can exempt iras from the bankruptcy estate under five of clearly they're intending to make this the new precedent that iras are to be exempted and i apologize for my brief i was a little over excited when i wrote my brief because i was arguing to the court the bankruptcy court originally that even if you're not going to find that to be so let's just have a hearing to determine whether or not my client is entitle to these payments at this time because the argument from  was that there was no showing that they were required to support my client in i was trying to submit to the court that would be very simple for me to show that she had mental health issues she had family health  issues she was unable to maintain employment even though she was working at the time the petition was filed because of her mental health issues she's unable to maintain maintain employment and the court refused to even have a hearing so as a result even if we agreed with you we'd have to send it back to the district court no if you agreed with me that the case is a new precedent then i think you can direct that the court rule in  was my fall that position before that with a pension or in a bankruptcy case this is the proceed to the pension does that have to be proven to be necessary for support no no i believe that's what i guess a lot of the things i wondered why hasn't been argued here are a new you other cases that tried to distinguish clark dealing with arias clark dealt with a key a plan and those of us who remember the and roth iras knew that there were differences between carmichael carmichael after which was decided after clark and i think the fifth circuit basically said i think it probably could be i think however that clarke is no longer president whatsoever because of the supreme court because reality dealt with someone below if you know the correct right on point i already are somewhat limited in what you can put in them as opposed to here exactly and i understand from a member of the senate at the time that they were created to benefit those persons who were not in a position to get pensions that's right so that they could be treated as a pen to argue that because we have to take clarke as having been correctly decided but the question is well was it directly decided then or the intervening source is not within this know it's a statute was clearly from the beginning meant to cover iras as though they were pensions and there were certain parts of the country where that did not seem to be understood and perhaps it needed to be clarified your maybe other inf plans that's why it's consistent it was consistent it's easily coexistent you have three criteria i disagree with mr rudd who says all you need is to apply is to have that two criteria so they were over the age of fifty nine and after all of the times unlike here that's why the third issue was not could not be addressed they were only dealing with the first two and the next breast they stated that we're going to address those two ho from attachment in a bankruptcy absolutely pederson versa shumate right and if one considers that iras were created to enable those who did not have the opportunity to create a pension benefit to have that same benefit for their ongoing support should that corpus be created differently than the pension if the congress says no and i mean you can make arguments that the congress did try to do it i thought was the better thing in two thousand five but that was not what they did since nine hundred seventy and they say we're trying to clarify what they tried to do originally maybe it's twenty some years or thirty whatever number of years before had but  exempt only the stream of income and you know the language could have been made clear and just becker's decision for concurring opinion and clark brings this out that the congress did have before it the uniform exemption act which stated that all assets health all assets health payments made and amounts payable under th relevant plans with the example that was rejected and only the payments quote unquote what's the what's the citation statute which is it's the uniform exemption acts section six promulgated by the clark and in the case i think fairly clearly that that if they wanted to exempt the corpus the principle there was language before it that they considered and rejected to me that's that's a go of them i had a key out when i was in private practice and i put a lot of money in that key more than i could have put into an ira so that the purpose of a keogh is different are that's correct which is frankly maybe one reason why i really would be in because it's more like a savings account and a keel plan but in any case the courts are really uniformly ruled that that was not the case in this district and i think everywhere as far as i know i wasn't aware unaware of that one case you mentioned but all these you know if you if you if you haven't read reached pay status fifty nine and a half or eligible ten percent penalty but argument paralysing rejected it but only as a similarity and on account of a criteria for the first two criteria to not expose not address that at all with regard to th consistently applied with rousey the ralphie court specifically whether he held its judgment as a support and in fact had to because that issue was not presented could not be presented because they were over the age of fifty nine a half in this district before the reality decision everything was uniform maybe across the country things were in disarray but not in the third circuit  rule and nuance but not in the third circuit we you know we had a consistent rule and now after everything is done here the last case long after the you know the check we're going to revisit this maybe  consistently wrong at all and i would say that for a long time and i'm a private practitioner not just i'm not just a trustee i do both sides of the road you look at these cases and hundreds of thousands this i guarantee it people there and came to your office i have an ira i have a four a one k what can i do a lot in the third circuit was easy to apply you knew that if you had an irate you're in trouble you had a four a one k you weren't and now we're going to go back and say because the supreme court gave this opinion and rousey was did not even address the issue our going to say are you attorneys back then you gave wrong advice because these are as an attorney that did counsel clients not to file with irate part of the rousey decision i have no problem with you coming back and say that my advice would have to change after the rousey decision when the supreme court is saying that iras are ex t i advise my client that the supreme court has said all the circuits now have to agree that arias are exempt and i do apologize to the court i was under the impression that they were under fifty nine and a half because the court does address that they repeatedly refer to the fact that they're limited to they were also there under fifty nine to have grocers a substantial ten percent penalty i assume and i apologize for making the assumption that therefore they were under fifty nine you understand that although this may be the last case that may have this issue this is a frightfully important case to my class every cases there's no small case comes to this rule that's right thank you it may