so we can see you thank you thank you thank you for allowing oral argument to users which you might do would you like to reserve some time for rebuttal i think about three minutes i'm going to go through the record as as you stated but i w you a little background that brought us here and raise some points that i think need to be considered so perhaps three minutes and i'll get to my talking points here and and then i'll take a break and let mr a bit take over ago i owned a radio station at the largest undeveloped land in the city of callus well one hundred and sixty acres of commercial property value about two hundred and twenty two million dollars i owed about six hundred thousand dollars all of a sudden everybody wanted it nobody wanted to pay local family crossed the three wanted to steal it all without payment they made a few lawsuits and prevailed st when i lost one hundred and twenty acres out in compensation whatsoever that wasn't good enough for me so they sued me again above a slander claim they made up they sued to corporations i had owned for eight years and they got a three million eight hundred thousand dollars deep vault judgment against me they transferred to me personally i was allowed to answer do anything i feel that because the of two thousand and nine so my appeal of the supreme court could run its case and get thrown out we're paying all our debts we were bankrupt two weeks later the trustee moved to convert a chapter seven intended my attorney to the point where he they said in thirty swat guys fully armed to take my station with force and they attempted to murder me that day i didn't take the bait is that a rainy weaver type situation and i didn't take the bait i walked out  and lived for another day they took me possession i was not allowed appeal i was allowed to stay trusty also one make me homeless i had a life estate in the residence as we give it to our daughter ten years prior he threatened her with prison if he didn't turn it over to present i was in and out minutes there was no motion rimm all parties were notified ownership was never established and hence to the contrary court dismissed it i fall for reconsideration in court in orders a case closed without any issues that are on appeal as they are here today once again i was denied me a hearing and witnesses on that day yes i've had to file against these criminals a lot of times  my name this matter was over in two thousand and nine when the lien was disallowed in cannot be a wrestler court completely settled as in blenheim and h s b c of all people what they do they get caught  here in montana one of their clients was just fine forty five million for mortgage fraud they're familiar with mortgage fraud again i point out ls if a has not had any interest in the forged note since they signed it back to asia if the two in april tw and comments he has made throughout the bankruptcy proceeding both the current proceeding that brought us here today and past proceedings over the years as he suggested he has filed numerous bankruptcy proceedings over the years as judge mathis in the bankruptcy court recognized all of the allegations that he have made has made occurred years ago in other additional bankruptcies that he may have filed to the extent he had any rights to pursue those claims he had every opportunity to do so in his prior bankruptcy cases they were all dismissed and none of his claims were due to get it in his state or he has continued to pursue those claims and i believe he made the comment just now that he filed this current bankruptcy yet again to bring them meaning my client to justice he seeks to litigate against my client regarding alleged mortgage fraud false forged documents these are the same arguments he has made over and over again and what is important to note here as judge pappas recognized in the bankruptcy court is that the bankruptcy court is not the forum to raise these claims and litigate these claims he has an opportunity to litigate these claims in the appropriate state court judge papiss recommend that he do so my client acknowledged on the record at the hearings in the bankruptcy court that he would have mr stokes would have every opportunity in the state court of fiction action that's currently pending in montana state court it's been fully briefed mr stokes has made the same arguments he is making today and he's made throughout the bankruptcy case and he has a forum in which to litigate his claims client ok now turning to the issues we are here for today it is solely with respect to the bankruptcy courts order authorizing relief from the automatic state to permit my client to proceed with it's a fiction action in state court and that is all earlier on in this case because mr stokes a notice of appeal was unclear as to which of the bankruptcy court orders he was appealing the panel entered in order indicating that the appeal would be deemed one of the bankruptcy court so that stay order and that if mr stokes had any desire to challenge any other order of the bankruptcy court including the bankruptcy court order dismissing the bankruptcy case then he would be given an opportunity to do so there was a date certain by which he had an opportunity to file a notice of appeal that water and he chose not to do so and i think as your honor can see from the record mr stokes is perfectly capable and  intelligent enough to file pleadings he's done so repeatedly obviously in the bankruptcy court and in this court he chose not to pursue an appeal of the order dismissing the bankruptcy case the bankruptcy judge judge pap and a scheme that mr stokes under took over the years in repeated bankruptcy filings solely to prevent my client from exercising its state court rights to st foreclose and now to seek possession of the real state through a through the current proceeding that's pending in montana state court the record is very clear and judge pappas ruled and entered that relief based on  minson own admissions in which he stated repeatedly before the court he was filing these cases as he stated again today to bring my client to justice ok but section d for provides for relief and stay with respect and preventing my client in this case from getting section three hundred and sixty two d formally leads to respectfully an absurd result because what it what it does is it gives a debtor more power and more rights under the bankruptcy code when the property has already been foreclosed pray for closure three hundred and sixty four d for relief one question would be available but once foreclosure  so a owner at that point that is already for close that was clearly secured creditor as the statute states would then be on able to obtain that relief and have to continue to deal with additional subsequent filings  bankruptcy a rd party had by said the property at the foreclosure sale knowing it came out of the bankruptcy and that these were all the issues to thank that person that rd party purchaser get before relief to use one i think that's a very different situation i think it's a great point your honor i think it gets the same thing because he bought it from the foreclosing creditor so i understand that certainly that argument could be made and certainly if i were representing an owner in that situation i would make that argument but i do believe that situation is distinguishable from a situation here where you have my client who has been the secured creditor throughout this process and was prevented in numerous bankruptcy cases as a secured creditors from foreclosing let them it was able to foreclose and now is continuing to be forwarded by dish of bankruptcy filings and to have a result to suggest into those circumstances that my client has no rights under three hundred and sixty two dollars d for i think would be unfortunate interpretations that you wouldn't use it would be absurd and it would it is that really right i mean that once you're the owner you have access to rights under state court remedies to state court and  much more powerful and much more expeditious then a foreclosing lembit right i mean could congress of logically said well once you're the owner you've got these other bundle of state rights and that ought to be good enough not true distinguish quite that much this case that a fiction case has been pending for quite some time and mr stokes likes to file pleadings and likes to appeal and so i would respectfully disagree that that process particularly under these egre obviously a precedent from the bankruptcy appellate panel that such relief is on available to an owner and i can't dispute that that obviously exists and i would point the panel to the case ellis versus you panel is bound by that decision but i will know that judge pappas the bankruptcy judge here is the author be half of the bankruptcy of help and of that opinion so judge pappas was well aware of the law and three  d for in his interpretation of it when he granted my client section three hundred and sixty two d for relief and i find a hard time believing that the judge simply forgot about it i think obviously judge pat this is well aware of his prior decisions and his president yet still leaves you create just circumstances granted my client their release so i would respectfully request your honor that at least certainly with respect to the dea wanting to to really keep you as a moot should be dismissed  stokes you have about five minutes left if you wish to respond certainly i think  you have to have reading glasses i really can't say that we are your faces very well right now but thank you for allowing me to respond i'm not familiar what the four can accredit relief is but i'm kind of old school that didn't show up i wasn't allowed to call in was my understanding of basic motion rimm you don't name all parties and bring the owners into the courtroom my wife wasn't named she owns the property she bought the title from the bankruptcy court this case should have been over in nine but what they do they just keep forging new assignments a new assignment a new assignment you get close to consume somebody else owns the assignment and as far as litigating in state or federal in state court for summary judgment i asked for a large amount and they can't do anything because i file every move to the federal court under the rico statutes they haven't answered they've admitted everything everything it's been over a year they now so say this is pending ruling in lake county district court for summary judgment which i have requested oral argument on and i'm going to subpoena these guys and get of there if we don't wrap this up here and we're going to get to the bottom of this