i'm sorry thoughts on this question just clearing my throat charge here she had a good faith basis for what she did and we tried to make clear there in the county in these numbers which judge taylor was  somewhat fixated on issues dealing with the situation where the parties that had the sort of all books transactions there wasn't any central registry where things were being paid plus the fact that the  parties that the father had paid a significant amount of money some of the way and the creditor miss kristal and young head stevens had sort of arbitrarily assign numbers to serve to certain categories and eventually the parties all parties were able to agree that there was a certain amount of money all the parties appeared to agree with them we start with the proposition that the categories as you call them which will aren't those categories significant and important because they have to be treated under the plan differently yes there are there they are they are important and what i missed when i was using categories i was talking about in terms of operating on his behalf and mrs young was you know was figuring out what he owes this amount for for this and this amount of that in the science this that and they were the parties but aren't they all domestic support for instance the issue of alum you know depending on when you know how much do you tribute to this money to alimony versus the something else that was the point what difference does it make well the convention is the is the concept i was getting at and she has taken a position of those things that those could be done from the plane and that's what we are we trying to convey  that this cruise felt that this was this was sufficient to satisfy her rob you know to satisfy your obligation but do we need to go to the exact calculation for the proposition that post petition d s o obligations had to be paid or be current prior to confirmation or as a condition to confirmation was there there wasn't a calculation involved in the proposition that the debtor was not current under the obligation to pay current there were representations made both on the schedules that were filed and in the plan that the debtor was making the d s o payments going forward post petition would continue with continue to make the payments post petitions so setting aside whatever the number is two years passed and it sounds as though based on the record that those payments were not made well your honor several foster that jail a second time because he wasn't paying those currently so didn't she know that she wasn't him to this went on for several years and there were various various things that were  going you know various things going on in various different courts and there were other attorneys involved in in some bad and she did say there is a belief she said that using the word continue was somewhat in artful you couple the word continue and then put post to gay sions in the plan that is a problem isn't well obviously just taylor of felt it was it was a problem in what we and we're trying to we're trying we tried to explain or continue to try to explain better she was dealing with bill she was dealing with a chaotic situation and trying total amounts of money resolved in a way that was going to get the person paid but there's a difference between finding out how much is out and making a statement that was in fact he was telling her that he that he was making making arrangements apparently he was making some some payments and there wasn't any registry you could go hearing and without and without notice of sanctioning her and punishing her for statements made in the argument or in the in the testimony itself on several grounds one is taylor's said were misleading or false or legerdemain and various other nouns of no notice no opportunity to rebut and we don't know precisely  a lot of what he was saying were false or really just a mathematical disagreement or at least appears that what he's saying were just mathematical disagreement but if we submit the case law in chambers question these things are or quit are there what you've got here is if you're going to sanction someone and this was a separate sanction completely separate and you've got to give notice and opportunity hereby set it for a second hearing or i i sent here these are the things that i think they're false and i give you twenty days thirty days forty five days whatever to respond to that because i'm thinking about conduct which is our ethics agency and knowing from past experience they will treated those two things differently and that's and that so there is a very significant do difference between the two  the district court rules in which we submit should trouble the bankruptcy court rules specifically specifically incorporate the federal rules of disciplinary the circuit did approve the bankruptcy rules that well yes or but but that's that still leaves the district court rules that none of the courts or not the district courts or not as i understand are not required to adopt the uniform disciplinary rules and was appealing was the contempt fighting over and also the referral issue and so it really all the really wasn't on point on this specific on the specific issue i see my time's the circuit where where under the uniform federal rules to what extent do they govern a division of the separate special division of the district