the lower court heard by ignoring the appellant seanie a lien that was granted in the final debtor in possession financing order in the bankruptcy case and the second is whether or not the lower court in denying the appellant's claim to the garnish bank accounts at wells about eighty three thousand dollars subsequent to that those two entities filed chapter eleven bankruptcy petitions in delaware in that case what's important is that a debtor in possession financing order which i'll discuss was of the issue that's presented before us is well your honor first of all i did i don't think it actually is a good faith is a requirement under maryland law with respect to the particular issue in front of this court and second of all the good faith to  a bankruptcy petition is different than the good faith that was found specifically in the debtor in possession order i'm referring to the district court order dismissing the bankruptcy petition you know i understand you're on a forgive me if i wasn't clear what i'm suggesting is that that the standard for dismissing a bankruptcy and whether or not it was filed in good faith has no implication on whether or not the debtor in possession order that was entered by you or me you're trying to distinguish today relies on good faith although the district court found that from other other cases particularly in california that good faith has a requirement i believe that the appropriate standard that the court should be looking at is whether or not my client has a properly perfected lien has a valid lien on and good faith as a requirement that i believe the district court eroni slee imposed on my client and in reaching its decision i would say your honor that even if that were the stand i believe that we still meet that test because of the specific language that was found in the debtor in possession order and i'll go through some specific examples but i don't think the fact that the judge dismissed the bankruptcy for lack of good faith impacts on the debtor in possession o think that's the issue before the court i think not the issue but the fact that it for me the fact that there's a it's a contempt of court it's a punishment for contempt of court  seems to me like that needs to be employment while you're on i sorry i don't disagree that the court has powers that it could enforce to focus on that contempt but the issue here as i tried to tell  judgment city in the lower court was not where the my client according to that judge or according to the happy leads done bad stuff of the last ten years the issue here is simply do we have an appropriate affected lean that comes ahead of them do we have an entitlement the right in these specific proceeds there's no argument and we're not having a debate about whether or not my client may or may not have to pay that contempt order that eighty three thousand dollars the issue is are these eighty three thousand dollars that are in this particular gone is bank account are they entitled to that and we would respectfully submit that the court heard in finding that they are you gonna do you have any evidence that the d r p order was ever actually litigated that was ever eveleigh to gated yes your honor well let me determination your honor i have to two responses to that one respectfully and i've been a bankruptcy lawyer for thirty years dippold years are not entered into just as a matter of course ok so do you have any what is your support for that because most of the cases that you cited were in at the well i would be happy to go through your parties the pardons are different well you know one of the cases that i cited which a fourth circuit cases when you say the parties were different have ruled for grace duty cut a purposes that if you're a party in interest and this court has ruled that if you have a peculiar the interest in the distribution the creditors like the conclusions of law that after evidence that was presented and often any objections if any were filed in a penny file to file an objection the court made findings of facts and conclusions of law and how the court distinguished between the stipulations that were between related entities which were the debtors and my client and had a reservation close in the deporter that reservation close said that if anybody had any objection and had any issue with respect to whether or not that preposition loan had been made and was properly secured they had until october to file an objection and if they didn't they those claims were forever barred and waiting to come back to appoint a judge king made  feud over this franchise agreement and attempt to retaliate in every way possible against mr sure for trying  collect on the contempt judgment and and on the and to follow through with the jury's verdict he in his own way and his favor on the franchise dispute and it's all it's the discretion it seems to me to accord priority to the attempts at evasion of judicial process and that's really what the cases kind of about as to why the courts of law can enforce the integrity of the legal process or whether it's going to be subject to an endless series over they say the efforts and that's what ever any evidence presented to the district court that any money actually changed he ends between j j f n r a w a on this belatedly recognized how many years after the fall no that have anything to do with the debtor present in possession now your honor respectfully if i may disagree it does have something to do with the debtor in possession order for two reasons number one just with respect to after we had the hearing when the judge a that these loans were supposedly made ten years ago but they were never never collected on and then all of a sudden they become d and it's just the timing is just odd in the extreme of a district court said i don't think these loans were ever made and it's it's odd to loan someone money and wait ten years your parent to subsidiary loans so there were insider deals so this something it every financial transaction that's being described here is a basis for your position of priority or ability to intervene it's all they're all fish either because here in sattar jobs over because they were loans from ten years ago that were never pursued and it's that there's something fishy about every single financial transaction well your honor i disagree because i again if you look at it but let's set aside the prefix because i see i'm running out of time i want to focus on even if this court had an issue with the preposition loans which the district which a bankruptcy court by the way in the order of dismissal not in the deporter in the order of dismissal the bankruptcy court noted that in the joint pretrial order to which apparently was a party there was an charge interest on alarms to find out what the status of the learner is and all of a sudden when mr schwartz files for real of garnishment lo and behold the loan resurrection itself after ten years of dormancy as a basis agreements were executed prior to the gone it's been proceedings excuse me but second of all even if you set aside the pre partition loans you have the debtor in possession loans with the bankruptcy court made a finding that they were extended in good faith and the amount  those debtor in possession loans exceed the eighty thousand dollars that are sitting in the bank account accordingly even if this covert look at the preposition loan and for some reason ignore the bankruptcy courts findings the fact that in all tend to look at the dismissal of bankruptcy positions not they don't realize the civically and better position orders they will lie on party participated in i don't know why mr adverse any sort of adverse mynor on the issue of the superiority of a loan that resurrects itself curiously after the dismissal of the bankruptcy protection as it has the district court no ability to protect the process from that kind of what almost looks well i think the bankruptcy court called it abusive your honor i have ten seconds ma when they can come to this court and ask about the contempt sanctions they chose to change forms go to delaware and follow bankruptcy it was judges have said the surgeon because keep in mind two thousand and seven three judge allowed twenty nine two thousand and seventeen just under thirty days after the contempt order was entered and on june june twenty ninth a contempt ordered you that this is a fact our appearance we listened on the phone we followed the case and then a member of the public who we did not enter until after the d r p final order was in around august thirty in september well our expectation we would get fully paid no matter where they were in the bankruptcy or not and the d i p financing was simply to to finance the bankruptcy but then it became clear on the first of august that the purpose was the terminator franchise and certainly after that your honor we entered into it and participated so the arguments  that mr election sign is making that we participate in the ip hearing is just completely non factual it's not in the record it's not true we listen we follow but we didn't participate we weren't there was a litigator after that we found out they weren't in financial distress after that we found out they had lied to and withheld information from the expert mr mooney who testified in support of the ip at the motion that court found again that this was a continuing effort to terminate schwarz all part of the pattern in maryland and for circuit and she threw the case out and in the course of the underlying nine that without this the ip new money they couldn't keep operating that was found to be false and that was the very court they were trying to tell you or your honour's who order has been given sacrosanct authority or it itself was found to be a fraud on a court and so we are reduced to a situation where they're arguing for protection here effected found and described by judge missouri this case involves an insider consumer bad case consumers hatred who had thrown out within three months of of mr lichtenstein you have some time for mr wilkinson i wanted to ask you the same question i asked mr simmons what is the standard of review here on a standard a review is the and why would that be that would be for for a couple of reasons your honor it's what happened here is the judge denied the motion to intervene because he treated my client as an interested party and then when we had a hearing we had a hearing on the merits of do we have a valid claim or not the cases that mister pelly cites have nothing to do with the abuse of discretion and the cases that judge mazetti talks about talk about whether he has discretion to do certain things but that's not has nothing to do with the standard of review before this court in dallas seem to be touched on here determining whether or not a district court abused its discretion if it has that discretion  has that discretion no your honor forgive me if i'm not being articulate but i think we're talking about two different things we may be the best record may use its discretion but when this record reviews that if the district court has come to used its discretion w don't respect order i absolutely agree with you but that's really not the issue that was before the district court or before this court today in fact at the hearing the judge said to mr simmons maybe you need to file a motion to inforce a contempt order that's a whole other issue i'm not arguing with my client should have complied with a contempt order or not that's not the issue before the court on this matter i'm to stand there's a long history of litigation between the parties but it's a very focused one issue before this court today my client i certainly wouldn't want to suggest how mr simmons should go about seeking to enforce his contempt order against my client but there eighty three thousand dollars that just visit he gave to punish your client no you're on a it's not my  and trick or didn't believe it was you know it it's very hard to give your client the benefit of the doubt given this pattern of behavior that i've lived with lien gets to be valid because there is something wrong with every one of these the lien is a product of the loans and the loons all had serious enforce its own orders garnishment is an equitable proceeding as i understand it and there's got to be some discretion in a in a district court to equitably subordinate the effects of lean is going to be equitably subordinated to the attempts here to enforce the courts all orders and to prohibit the invasion continue honor i think it's important for this court to distinguish between the preposition loans and the debtor in possession loans and as i said even if this court thought that there was something fishy about the preposition loans notwithstanding the bankruptcy courts findings necessary there is a budget attached to it which shows that there's a need for three hundred ninety thousand dollars which is attached to joint appendix by the size of the bankruptcy court dismissed but the deporter had a provision saying it would stand even in th