to hear the ship with son's case against the georges for a number of issues including sexual harassment and civil rights violation something that didn't belong to him and that is three years of jurisdiction that legally rested exclusively with the bankruptcy court by doing that and in order to do that he misconstrued fundamental core bankruptcy law but we're back to the california appeal although in reading the appeal and reading all the other documents related to this case it appears that he was very uncomfortable with that because he along with everybody else in the case believe that there what happened in one proton in actuality was that the state court never addressed the issues on the merits but in a non proton fashion went back to october of one thousand nine hundred five and made a determination that the automatic state terminated then i don't think there could be any or is not a court proceeding so we don't get to take a second look at what they did doing it is a corporate shooting because it impacts quare bankruptcy issues of this charge the effect of the discharge and the application and the scope and the extent of the automatic stay and i don't think anybody could argue that had in october of one thousand nine hundred by the state court judge declared deprivation of or opportunity to them to get this important right she had but then after that not these claims these illicit progeny of this great judgment coming down against her for attorney's fees and serving as the basis for the malicious decide all the issues regarding those other clients and then you can bring the record back to me and all the terms of discharge ability but that can't be a relief from the state because relief from stay can only be granted under notice motion and a hearing under three sixty two d this occurred at a pretrial conference with regard to the bankruptcy court complaint regarding on destructibility moreover it's clear that no nobody knight of the and the order doesn't lift the automatic stay as to the entire complaint being heard in the state court and that's the argument that georgia's counsel made to the state court judge in order to convince him that the automatic stay had expired back in october because he ended up making into an order in a decision that stated that the automatic stay of terminated in one thousand nine hundred five upon the georgia's discharge therefore there was no need for relief from the automatic stay because he was assuming jurisdiction hundred five that's what we're saying is clearly improper and makes his judgment void and all of the ramifications after that judgment void as well including the malicious prosecution action and the cl is no longer property of state however with regard to any of the other and enumerated acts in three sixty two a the state immediately decides upon issuance of the discharge by the bankruptcy court are you rely pretrial orders and in that pretrial order to shift click on had listed forty three pieces of evidence thirteen witnesses and there was a trial date set for february the twelfth of two thousand and one court of appeals found in my favor and read send it back to state court and it was ready so one hundred forty hundred fifty thousand dollars in that area and that's the judgment you have now that's a judgment i have a lien against her you would think that she would have gone to trial especially when she already had this judgment by the attorney fees against her she would have gone to trial if nothing else just like nothing that judgment and she didn't she specifically did not want to try any state court issues and so that those would have to be referred to the district court she had no facility for a jury and the circumstances by that time had changed we are now facing these judgments in the state court and we  facing the the most just prosecution action which were unaffected by that those those judgments were still sitting out there moreover as as we set forth in our brief the primary reason i'm on th this business our own for the last few months prior to the bankruptcy court trial date and her mother became extremely ill and died at the same time and she just at that point said enough is enough i just want this to be over but it wasn't over interestingly this process went on and on and on as you can see for a number of years and finally in november of one thousand nine hundred for the first time the georges raised this issue regarding the five years having a lapsed and  things procedurally that happened in this case that in hindsight in retrospect you'd like to go back and one on one and say this with a much more efficient way to handle the problem but we're left with the fact that the state court judge usurped his jurisdiction deltic into the exclusive realm of the bankruptcy court and issued an order that is great and all the ups subsequent orders based there on the board as well and for the questions any interest in do that and i can ask her she's in the court right now but that would be appropriate