behalf of miss marshall agrees concerning the issues that she feels should be reversed by this court as to what occurred in the district court of the district of columbia marshall had a case style and we believe that the court did not apply the correct standard or the legal standard in which it dismissed her case and we felt that there was sufficient evidence in the record doesn't really care of us thing ender per se but if you want to say it had a standard i don't think is a strict or it is narrow as a district court applied in this particular case because in this particular case when i read the judge's opinion and never landed it appears that he had a very narrow interpretation of how to apply  marshall and as to the facts and the events that occurred in her particular case it appeared as if no matter what evidence marshall presented to show she had no intent to  file schedules then they were required to be filed in the bankruptcy in the evidence she presented to show that she was not deliberate or had any intent interpretation or meaning of deliberate it with me and this is a bad half a marshall that she would hand knowledge of something that she had to do and then purposely didn't do it i think no she did eating cat i was in that category because i think when you read her transcript from the hearing that she had an issue with the trustee of her thing and i think you can interpret this was that because it she didn't understand something because she didn't do what she was supposed to do and we don't demand it is to the scandals but what happened was when she did her hearing with the trustee he apparently had to marshall did not get a copy of this but i will tell you this that i took upon myself to investigate to try to get a copy and the trustee told me that those herm files had been assured because after three years he's not required to keep it virtually all the circuits and that's the test that the district court you're probably followed it looks at whether there were inconsistent positions in looks at whether it led to least one court being misled it looks at whether it will allow mr marshall to obtain an unfair case right here the significance of this world disclosure and whether the district court properly weighed it so certainly deserves it doesn't get you to far well certainly there was no moral the soldiers the most why it wasn't that the key issue here at least it is for me the disclose you have absolutely assure that this was in fact a mistake which if it's a mistake may have legal consequences for the judicial stop here absolutely roger i think what the district court looked at oral disclosures or oral conversations of the type that happened here are not enough to overcome the bankruptcy court rules which require accurate truthful and complete we can surely circuits that feel differently than that right you've got three circuits but took a broader view because in that case the plaintiffs begetter upon the omission being discovered went back to the bankruptcy court reopen the bankruptcy court proceeding and fall corrected schedules and the bankruptcy court also refile corrected schedules and this circuit joined a month number of other circuits and said we're not going to countenance such efforts because not only tells people to avoid doing it probably the first time until they're caught and then are being forced to have such a  form and it was incomplete but then on the other hand you have this testimony that she told the trustee about it we're weird is the district court way that because that's what's going on or most is making a decision you see claim was not sufficient to correct misrepresentations in the petition and then they cite cases where we have entered numerous other cases in our brief and one of those courts find is that creditors and the bankruptcy court rely upon documents they don't rely upon a conversation that happened between a discrimination attorney and the bankruptcy trust the courts of a bankruptcy trustee secretary anybody trying to find out if miss marshall had asked her would have looked at the bankruptcy court pleadings that she filed if you charged i believe there was a changeover in terms of who the contractor was this was a government contract and there was a change in who it was one company that took over for another company and they were perhaps operating under a sub contract for a third company and that's why there's three separate charges court the oral communication that her occurred between mr marshall and trustee and the subsequent conversation that occurred between her employment attorney and the trustee secretary again what numerous courts have found is even if those communications occur they're not enough to overcome the the obligation to complete the forms an incorrect the forms even if here's a hypothetical even if if miss marshall had omitted information from the forms initially as you alluded to earlier she according to the bankruptcy court pleading she was assisted by an attorney a an individual who was experienced in completing bankruptcy court forms this was her second bankruptcy and she according to her own testimony took her several months to complete the forms and this wasn't something done you know overnight over the course of a weekend in i believe that that what that form indicated was that the individual her sister her in completing it was going to make a claim somehow that he was entitle to renumeration in that amount for his efforts as use consistent with w sort that occurred here are not enough again to overcome the right to complete and update those forms because the forms are what ultimately when you fast forward this two three four five six months and then it's being represented that there are no assets here it is the forms that the creditors look at it is the forms that the bankruptcy court looks at they don't look at slips of tell of alleged telephone conversations between secretaries and other attorneys that have been somewhere in the ether you look at the forms reflects that there was no knowledge he truly was a mistake you and i think the that the best use for that is actually a case that was cited by the appellate which is the ryan case of the third circuit in the ryan case the court finds it was inadvertent it was a mistake but they find that because what they find the debtor did there was the debtor didn't include information about his federal court lawsuit or it was a company the federal court lawsuit was prosecuting but it also didn't include information about lawsuits and which ones are defendants omitted information bankruptcy you know maybe you've been terminated when you haven't yet you know talk to an attorney to find out whether in fact this is a this is a this is conduct that would violate the d c human rights act or title seven or some sort of federal so that you and then so at that point you don't yet kno of of of the debtor and your opponent's argument here is that she just be have been mistaken about what he did ministry to proceeding makes and she shows she had no ill will because she told the trustee and what she's saying there is my condo in not reading the forms not understanding what the forms required understanding the forms required me to include lawsuits in which that were helpful to me but didn't seem to require me to include it three administr filed uproar an additional claims into the court and some of those claims were then dismissed by the district court below honestly i don't have any right here now awareness of what specifically happened to the charges and when they went away i do  not really concerned about the well concern is that by the time the as i understand it on the on line by the time the age discrimination charges are filed the is already she's already marshall's claims of discrimination whether it was the multiple charges the original claims in the charges amended charges or this lawsuit and i think that's one point of clarification for sit down i want to make sure it's clear miss marshall had a conversation with the trustee about the one charge her attorney says she had a conversation with the secretary about other charges and brought them up to speed there is no evidence that the bankruptcy court was aware of these charges or this lawsuit at the time it closed this case as an asset case there was a suggestion earlier that the trustee acted upon this information in an end and alerted creditors to this case and creditors were aware of it and therefore no harm no foul there is no evidence of that in the record the evidence of when the creditors learned about this case was four years later after the district court here of course mr marshall to go back to the bankruptcy court and the and the trustee was then substituted and then the trustee probably and this is if you want to see this it's in the record page three twenty nine three thirty this is the trustee actually now for the first time telling creditors there is an asset out there is this discrimination lawsuit i'm about to give an up let me know if you think you object to that but back at the time mr marshall originally filed for bankruptcy and prior to the time the bankruptcy court and this structure cases a case even after these conversations nobody in the bankruptcy court and none of the creditors there's no not one document and this gets back to why communications aren't enough you can't you can have these all communications but if the creditors who are not standing there when the communications myself on behalf of marshall did not inform the trustee as to the filing of the just age discrimination case clearly there was my affidavit that was the midden this case and this part of the record shows but anyway what i wanted to say was the secretary called me a couple of times the trustee even said to me let me know when you file the a z t any case we only file the age case because there was a statute of limitations issue effort when her affidavit she did say she had a conversation with him because she talked to him more than i i don't talk to him that went on but and i think you have to check the affidavit without me going through that but anyway i understand his office had knowledge