the first point i'd like to make is that the record is it is clear that there was no opposition to our motion down at the trial court level this is basically an unopposed motion to vacate the judgment in those enforce proceedings that were going forward mr roberts and i who was co counsel at that time he actually filed the motion we actually opposed called opposing counsel that we had served and asked if they were going to file an opposition and they stated no that is appears to motions well taken so the matter before judge group appeared unopposed i mean it proceeded unopposed so i would submit that some of the novel things that have been submitted here on appeal such as waiver and the fact of some other actions that occurred aren't really properly before this court i think i know that this court is frustrated that many creditor attorneys don't don't like to show up at trial in bankruptcy court but they love to file appellate briefs and refer to one of the court's decisions in one of my earlier cases in right land l a amas last name where there was no opposition until we got to the  of appeals and then there was all kinds of briefing and new legal theories being but then i think that the bankruptcy judge denied your motion yes but i think that the review should be on the record that was presented before that judge and that i shouldn't let you just take with the bankruptcy judge stepdad that's what i'd like to do and i think the proper focus is what actually happened in one nine hundred ninety nine what we have here is a novel invention of some unspoken on written record the judge proved recollects to try to save this non appearing on opposing creditor from his own and i refer to it very simple extra to write records eight we refer to judge groups decision where he finds that the judgment pla s manipulated the funds from the sale of this property in such a way that it prevented the creditor well the creditor from enforcing the judgment under california from that that was the value of the judgment that's not true well that's what i understand this time and that's that's what i understand now that's the why is that wrong then find  part of the record prior to two thousand and two which refers to that and i refer you to the creditors own trial brief extra terrestrial i was going through that no seriously  problem that we have with the discharge ability and money judgments on the reason the courts and our money judgments on discharge ability claims is that the state courts you cannot perfect arena with take court judgment during the pendency bankruptcy because the automatic stay but it's not unusual for bankruptcy courts to enter this charge ability judgments that also have been hatched to them they can comment money judgment doesn't mean it's a double recovery it's an expansion and enforcement of the state court judgment now that just turns the constitution full faith and credit and the rest of the u s code on its head you know this this is what i don't follow about your argument you know it would be if there were a judgment that was in contradiction to the state court judgment one  say well that that offends perhaps the full faith and credit but here is actually an attempt by the federal courts to effectuate the state court judgement so i don't understand the full faith and credit argument there's no conflict and having an additional saying in this case there is a prior existing state court judgment that has now expired it wasn't up for renewal and that what the judge was asked to do was make declaratory relief and even though i believe he was in error on that he  before because all the bankruptcy court judgment was at the declaratory judgment regarding so just charge ability of the state court judgment and that's all that said in the record and to correct your honour's this alone the prayer that would have spoken to getting a new federal money judgment and i have to remind you understand debtors have no rights in these they don't have the right to trial across complaint they don't have a right to any serious discovery they don't have a right to a jury by trial no matter how many tomes talk about it i didn't turn a for over twenty five years filed over ten thousand bankruptcy cases and the debt has never been given the right to a jury trial in any of cases i've known about  so what we have is a very brief one hour hearing one and a half hours where the judge this judge takes a dislike to this debtor and says the judgments nondestructive will now let me let me tell you what would have happened if lot about it but is it realistically as you sit down if you talk if the theory is if the judge found here found rightly or wrongly that was a damage judgment and not any reaffirmation aren't collateral money judgment organised difference seems to me your central argument that is that's not what happened he did it but if it is what happened does that change your argument you know well then i still say he had no power to do that as a bankruptcy judge and that's not what he did but i know ninety one so you're going my question because i said i understand your argument that he didn't do that i'm asking hypothetically if he did it why do you think you'd lack the power to do that he lacked the power because  based on fraud that's entirely collateral entirely different excuse me to the state court judgement thanks the court can do that there's nothing that prevents that from there's no state court judgement your honor they can or even if there is they could look behind it to find the facts of fraud you're right that this is not a fraud case well ok he's a fraud allegation without any time your petition the bankruptcy courts seem to be a little that austin you may be right but  i just have a very difficult time understand your full faith and credit argument for this reason if your argument is true how would the bankruptcy court have the power to destroy just a court complaint judgment in the first place because all your dischargeable and secure debts are destroyed because what you're saying is we're not going to go full faith and credit to this judgement in fact we're going to wipe it out we're going to make it the whole way that's why bankruptcy law works well so what you're saying is you're saying that at the onset the bankruptcy courts have the power to say a state court judgment can be modified bankruptcy power to declare a state court judgment and i'm dischargeable there's an existing judgment and i was the federal judge when in any way in conflict with the state court judgment in this case  because there's already a state court judgment right and there's nothing or something different about the federal judgment and what the bankruptcy court was doing was either giving a money damage equivalent award so that or giving effect court judgment one of the two now if those judgments have been executed on you say well wait a man you can't get a dollar recovery might have a different argument but here what's happening is that the bankruptcy court is simply saying this that's not just charge let's assume he had a federal money judgment you don't collect that in bankruptcy where you have to go to the district court to get a really issued and you have to proceed on that question grounds i think the facts if you look at the facts in this case totality of the record until we get to two thousand and two and there's a tremendous amount of argument in two thousand and two well know what i was really doing but there's no support for that in the one thousand nine hundred one proceeding and there's no power for the bankruptcy court in two thousand and two to invent a record eleven years earlier just because you want to get this debt or that's where that's that's the abuse of discretion yes when you make a money judgment eleven years like to just one final comment to correct that this is not a fraud case this is a case about a debtor taking proceeds from the sale of his home and buying another home and the judge feelings that the state court restraining order to not dissipate assets was an inherently violated and i would submit that my getter clients generally have state court orders their order of examination is served on them by state law and about the judgments that are needed in state court and i based on the questions that were asked today i still would like to do that because i think it's very important that the court understand that the claim really was not liquidated when it was have never been tried to the state court right but it and in essence what you were asking the bankruptcy court to do was to say the state court judgment which would otherwise be discharged should not be discharged because of the fraud right  but what i'm arguing is that judge group was free if you wanted to under the complaint that was filed to find damages independent of the stick or judgment from the conduct that occurred that was not in any way dressed in the state court california under california law for that kind of conduct i believe you could if you are i believe you could have done a couple different ways one i think if they had known about the conduct and i want to talk about that in a minute they could have gone back into state court and they could have said to the state court s and you can get it you can get damages for the last will you can you can you can avoid the transfer or one thing and bring the money back and go after the transfer so what is the evidence the record transfer was p violating the second and then he goes on and i believe yes he in number fifteen on page twenty six he states the action produced harm because excuse me it's not number twenty the problem that we have in the underlying record is that all we have are the findings and conclusions we don't have anything from the state court from the adversary trial so it's difficult to go back and try to recreate what the judges find his conclusions were based on but as i'm reviewing them i do recall either a finding of fact to a conclusion of law where he determines that the transfers of the assets renders and otherwise collectable judgment uncollectable in violation of the state court i'm just not putting my finger right on it at the moment but i recall that he did make that finding that was the reason for his five point three six judgment finding intentional conduct and there i think about that the normal remedy in so in fact i found on page twenty three of the record item seventeen it says quote the result of the transfer of assets by sas and was to turn plaintiff's judgment which almost certainly would have been collected eighty nine so the bankruptcy was filed about two months after the reconsideration was denied in the second judgment was that or so the judgment if other creditors had objected to it could have been avoided under california under the under bankruptcy law because it came within ninety days of bankruptcy there are i don't believe the judgment could have been avoided the judgment would not have been a preference if there had been with placed on assets perhaps not in a preference you are when people talk about collecting a trash amount they're talking that generally speaking i find when judges refer to that they're talking about someone taking a track and putting a lien on property and getting it satisfied state court i see the court point i don't have a response because we don't have that we don't have the bankruptcy schedules we don't know what would have been objected to his father claims i can't do a liquidation analysis well i think do was look at the findings and conclusions group does find that fast and stay would have would have been a collectible judgment so if you knew the judgment would be here today remedy the the argument being from the appellant he slept on his rights that's on the appeals opening brief on page six and the support for that in the record is a letter that was sent by a former counsel for my client and the letter says opening brief and i said that was a misstatement of the record because that's not what happened in response to that in the reply brief what the mr sasson says is that it seems reasonable to assume that the court made those findings to considerations because there's a difference in difference in the dollar amounts of the two judgments and the second judgment that is more twenty thousand dollars more and that's twenty thousand reflects the state court awarding some sort of sanction or some sort of damage to my client for the violation of the stay and that can be found in the reply brief appeared seven lines two through nine and what i want to explain to the court today is that when you look at the two judgments you get a kind of an interesting result the first judgment is for one hundred twenty thousand dollars hundred thousand principle twenty thousand interest it's parsed into four parts court had any knowledge or did anything at all whatsoever with respect to mr saxon's dissipation of his assets and what's really interesting is that if you look at judge groups just one after trial it references the state court judgment in the founders talked about that but it references a judgment with a completely wrong date and the wrong i'm out and it's difficult to reconcile i sat last night again and tried to do it and i couldn't do it on one done the math it doesn't work it's just doesn't work and that led me to think one other thing because i've also thought a lot about this case to very interesting it's got some very interesting issues what if judge group the not the best form of judgment i've ever seen and apparently you can't tell this i have no idea but doesn't appear to be any objections to it at least not in this excerpt of record no your honor and you know it's interesting because one of the cases at the jurisdictional scheme and how you raised it in sixty four motion i think what happens is you say well there's the court have jurisdiction in general the answer is yes everybody knows  fundamental problem with the appellant's argument it's not a jurisdictional issue it's an affirmative defense of arrest to the cottage that's why the bat disagreed with heckert whether you look at it from seven turns seven hundred thirty eight perspective under side will call the number on your structure i still don't think it's void under sixty before unless the court as any other questions i think thank you counsel thank you very much  that many cases but not this one and thank you for your candor on that question i'll be brief i do have one comment about the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and that is that they are very limited in the grant that is given to the bankruptcy court and we addressed that in our brief starting on page eleven when we discussed the kennedy case in re kennedy was and circuit court of appeals case saying that if it's a incorporate the otherwise language that there's this state court judgment and there's some confusion on part of the justices that somehow this just as soon things after the judgment that would give rise to judge group having some factual basis for making a subsequent fraggle money judgment that's not the truth in this case and i will i can briefly point out to you in the record that he could not and it's issued a non discharge ability order unless there was something other than bankruptcy judges can do whatever they want your honor well i understand your honor and it should have been appealed but what i want to point out to the court is that all this conduct that's been referred to in this record that gets invented in two thousand and two occurred prior to entry of the state court judgment he bought his house these acts all occurred and the deal closed in december one thousand nine hundred eighty judge body doesn't issue the final judgment in the state court action until march one thousand nine hundred nine so all judge group was know did he have jurisdiction was the judgment void and i said i understand your argument so that on that issue and i appreciated ok well your honor what i'm saying is i'm not saying let's say that he was in the judgment let me make it clear i'm not component that's what ok i guess that's what i'm saying is that that's where he violated full faith and credit yes well that's even that would have to be on the front of the fence that would have a sort of the time it seems to me that under sixty mean you claim that full faith and credit gets you there but you're also arguing bankruptcy court jurisdiction and so forth that's your that's the central part of you shaking your head i don't understand what i'm saying your honor is judge group did not issue a money judgment but he's made a execution the issue on their judgment well that i don't think that was judge group i think that's just some law clerk in the bankruptcy court stand either with the determination when he found the claim of the exemption there was i understand but he thought it was a money judgment then but what judge group was doing in ninety one by putting the money amount in was within his jurisdiction and it was in line with kennedy what he's empowered to do is say that this amount of promissory note amount is non and then he said you don't get the attorney's fees and that's what a bankruptcy judge can do we can look at the state court judgment he looks behind the judgment to the prior conduct not subsequent conduct and he said the that even though it wasn't in the complaint that the debtor in a destructibility action has very very limited rights and that's that's fair given i think you're making and seems to me on the certainly take we take the judgments as we see them mr manager looks to me  monetary judgment and a judgment of time destructibility if it were just only a judgment of not just charge ability it was the paragraph too but but your honor and it's not uncommon in my experience for a separate monetary judgment to be included with that now in bankruptcy yes but that's your argument is that this be on the bankruptcy courts power that's an issue for us but if we take the judgments phase two to reach your conclusion we have to really go peel behind the judgment which i don't think we can do on a sixty but all you have to do is look at the complaint are you saying the judge group that the one piece of paper in this record that you might be able to read is a monetary judgment is the reference to monetary amounts that's what  is the first mention that hey maybe this is a separate money judgment and that's that's were i think that the bankruptcy court didn't have the right to do that that's not in the grant the powers of the bankruptcy court they violated full faith and credit