took me so long to get up here i'm a little stiff quite all right mr jenkins we like to reserve some time for a bottle yes you're under six minutes six minutes very good go ahead please let me start by so you how good it is to see you again judge  harris and i'm not sure but i think you may have been on the panel in my insta laurie case i think it was the st all female regular back judge panel yes yes good to see you again your honor i don't think i've ever met you but it's a pleasure to do so  let me start by telling you as a citizen as a lawyer and as a small business person i love stare decisis i like the stability that it promotes the predictability that it promotes  as among others judge kozinski once observed and i think the united states versus johnson sometimes it is necessary for the courts to take another look you need to do that carefully and you need to do that with great deliberation but sometimes it is necessary and there are procedures for that and this court has its own panel for that just that purpose but you can only reconsider your own precedent the th circuit has its own on bank panel and it can consider its own precedent so let me be as honest with you is i think you're going to be with me i don't really expect that where you are i wouldn't do that not if i wanted to keep sitting there but my hope is that it's some level i am going to get some recognition that there is a potential problem with the case in my wildest dreams and what i would get is the decision the published opinion that starts with if we were writing on a clean slate it some level though if you would just express some concern about the legitimacy of de mer and let me explain why i have a problem with it and of course one obvious reason i have a problem with is because my client has a problem with it but beyond that  and i know you do a very good job on statutory construction and b and one of the things i appreciated about your ed no fee decision was that you in addition to the money that it made my client you in my opinion fairly well debunked the notion that is a beat up on the dead or statute and that anything that involves not beating up on the debtor has to be carefully scrutinized i really appreciated that as a lawyer who represents a lot of debtors but they didn't really go through the normal protocol that you go through to analyze in that issue and the thing they ignored the most the biggest thing they ignored the most was the legislative history and i i honestly don't believe that congress put all that legislative history in the record explaining to a debtor or the debtor's attorney exactly what needed to be done to protect the debtors right to pursue rights under seven hundred and twenty four and five hundred and twenty two i just don't think they put that in there just to send the debtor's attorney on a snipe hunt i think that they put it in there because the debtor has a legitimate reason to do that and as far as the statute that says that it exempt property is still subject after the case to tax liens that were properly recorded my analysis is that based on subsequent explanations by this court and the th circuit of the effect of writ of avoidance and preservation that the analysis from in america doesn't quite fit bankruptcy code and congress intended the bankruptcy code to bring that destroyed leaned back up out of the ashes like some sort of legislative phoenix i don't think that's the way it works in subsequent authority   th circuit has held that when you avoid a lien and preserve it that whoever's benefit you preserve it for becomes the owner of the lane so the lane still there and i'm going to sit down now let me  just have one you or you agree that tomorrow for our purposes controls the outcome of the situation at this stage unless we're willing to tell the th circuit they were wrong yes your honor as i indicated going to be as honest with you as you're going to be with me so the question i have is would it be in congress if we were to hold in this case as you suggest that if the trust if you couldn't in demar the debtor couldn't avoid the lien and then claim the exemption for the non compliant peculiar tax liability that was avoided then how would it be that if the trustee avoids it in this case the debtor gets a better result than when they did it themselves your honor the statute says the debtor can take advantage of the avoidance whether he does it himself or the trustee does it for him but to morrow specifically dealt with a debtor who whether themself in this case there's no dispute the trustees avoided it but you're suggesting we should find a different result and tomorrow i think that the law i think it was not properly decided so you think in that case the data should it got been able to get the benefits united states your honors at least court i think that the issue is pretty squarely presented before your honor's today united states position is that the demarc cases binding precedent upon this court what was your how is a man of few words but he chose them very well you know one other thing just as a housekeeping item judge clement ruled that under no circumstances can a debtor in chapter seven ever take advantage of the trustees avoidance of any kind of lane and he cited i don't think i think was a bankruptcy court opinion that he decided that's just wrong i mean that's not the law and i don't see any reason to beat that to death it is briefed and i have a history with judge clemente and i get along as well winter is good friends is two people who sit on opposite sides of the bench can be but i have a history of appealing him sometimes successfully and i think he wanted to put one more nail in my coffin in this instance i will answer any more questions that you have good we're done thank you very much you're welcome thank you ron thank you matter submitted thank you good day panels and recess