thank you i made please the court counsel i see this is a rather simple matter at this point we had commenced this action or chapter eleven filing and we did i date to move to an all the state asserting as a basis of permits that you were not entitled to file a chapter eleven or i was not entitle to file the chapter and the company could not go forward on coming to the nd case that i think is quite interesting that is in the circuit from montana which i noted to the court in my reply brief this is in re crouse case which is quite lengthy and  quite in two thousand and one adopt a current version of the model business corporation which doesn't make a distinction as it's outlined in the rd case but i think it is significant here is  have them in my brief that the stakeholders the shareholder is the real party that is the i don't want to save your part in interest but if there's one shareholder then that shareholders the party and interest why is the do anything and everything is the decision of the receiver we disagree take and let me take a step back what what the apple we would like to have happen i think and correct me if i'm wrong is the process that began to figure this out the state court really ought to conclude right is not their position and if so ever i mean in that case all the bankruptcy courts deciding is well should we be in the way of this and the answer is no it's under way and stake or it's a state court issue and ought to get determined there and it's and it's kind of have articulated the exact issue in a case here and the matter is is this is being handled at the state court level the state court action was filed in tw sixteen this was heavily litigated of which mr gilliam participated in through counsel the reason a receiver was appointed is it was through this discovery process we determined that the sole shareholder used in the n t lord of the original owner she did ceased and the matter was dissolved a year after it was dissolved this new corporation was created with the exact same name which mr  is the shareholder of reason i'm covering that background is because the entirety of this action is based on a presupposition by mr gilliam that he is the shareholder which was litigated choli which just want to not be had the information for and made competent decisions that no he's not the shareholder we have a receiver appointed he may have interest r this matter was litigated in detail finally of receivers appointed the receivers trying to do their job and i think we've covered this in our oceans which we've attached to our to our brief and the reality of it is that the question before this court is a judge st of uses discretion and there is nothing at there is no standing of number two a stance a bully this chapter thirteen just this talked or eleven is filed on behalf of the number one because number one is the one that holds the interest in the property and it's the receiver and we've we've passed out so i don't want to beat the dead horse but it's the receiver that is in charge of that and the receiver has taken in under their control and is trying to do their job but we have this filing we've got multiple filings i just received in filing from mr gilliam where he's suing judge watson i think what we're looking at is one where we see ok and if we ignore that this isn't the right person to file this if we go just to the merits and we apply the standard that fairest made the right call and that's the only question for this court right now if you have any additional questions i'm more than willing to answer them but i don't want to waste your time rehashing something that you've clearly re do this matter and that's simply not true the only opportunity to do that would have been asked if the judge had permitted me to intervene in the matter and she didn't do that there was no such a terminations that you were involved in is that accurate i mean she made whatever decision she made and that's not really i'm proud of us but your point is i wasn't involved and i should have been well  essentially right now they have a case where does all corporation which has the title council just told you isn't the court doesn't have jurisdiction of that company because it was never served hard isn't that something that has to be decided in the state court i mean we're talking about issues that maybe maybe just subject to the state court appeal but we can't we can't we can't for a party to that and so i don't have any standing to seek any kind of appellate review of that aspect of the case that's why i brought action in federal district  that's what needs to be done let's say that the receiver goes ahead and does this thing right now he doesn't have to put zero dollars two cents in my bank account that's not appropriate there needs to be a determination i was in this to seri party so when i filed the chapter eleven i filed it for the dissolved company did i have the entitle them to do that is the phone cheryl i think the court needs to address that issue  the ability for someone to come back in or more or use what's been done in a bankruptcy case it still is a live issue that needs to be decided and that's release that's my position thank you all right well thank you very much for your argument and this will be submitted and we will make sure that good friends with you see your argument so that we we hope that she will be in a position to do that very