to reserve five minutes for rebuttal i'd also like to start off by thanking the court now i take it your source of your statement about the city's purpose was to not pay the judgment was a statement made by the mayor yes i mean among other things yes there's a record  i to hear you saying it is implied that the mere fact that a city does that regardless of your negotiations you have no right to number one if they do something bad happened i don't quite understand what's going on here in your argument say now that they're filing and seeking advice on nine was something of a wrongful purpose if it complies with state law you're saying they still can use chapter nine they can't use chapter nine for the  california in your view a municipality case quickly court money judgment may not file chapter nine that's where you read it in california for the purposes of getting out of the judge in fact the only problem i think our standard they don't have all the schedules together they don't have all their information and so forth but the one of the requirements are quite specific they're supposed to be lengthy and full ask the disclosure of so forth discussions before they ever file we've got over here this bad state you're arguing dismissal here arguing with the judge rules i don't think that is you must stay here unless you're saying you don't qualify entirely to stay in a limited basis to a just that they request that they got the relief that any understeer creditor in a bankruptcy case could ever hope to get the right to sell and liquidate their clients to the point of judgment but to come back to the bankruptcy case and have those claims treated with the other creditors of the any arguments about what the talents are are not entitled to get in a bankruptcy case are going to be sorted out by the bankruptcy court in the context of confirmation that said plan and that's down the road in order to confirm a plan for the city the bankruptcy court what the appellant don't tell the court is that in fact all of the federal bankruptcy decisions are contrary to their arguments as you might expect even though chapter one cases don't come up all that often section four three seven three nine and five three seven six zero that's well established that those are the authorizing statutes that like california municipalities go in what can you get out of bankruptcy what can you get out they paid on the dollar to be determined right now but what we think we can get out of bankruptcy is putting more of the maximum possible revenues to solve the problem that the city's in the problem of the teeth in right now is a judgment i believe that once the denial of the finding occurred the state program that was going to operate the funny kind of glass the way it's not something that can be cured now such so the dealer again so that's not a money question exactly you know why would the bankruptcy state car operate to that part of the bankruptcy court didn't say that i think it's important to note that despite some of the language in the briefs the bankruptcy court did not future that resulted in a claim against the city and that was subject the automatic say that they had to come back and he also noted that if there was an injunctive relief order he'd resolve any dispute about the state in a very short time and that in court but it was with that in the back of the city's mind that they were petrified frankly that the accounts were going to shut down the operations that it faced with that the city believe that it really had no choice but to go ahead and file