we need to hear about it well we've we've submitted our letter brief and we believe that in the bankruptcy context the circuit courts take a more pragmatic and flexible approach and the the approach that's taken is one the district court said and what the bankruptcy court said but there are other issues left and this is the case where sometimes well we know that all bankruptcy is going to fall apart or some critical issue turns on what we do this doesn't seem to be quite like that and so are you i mean there are there are other issues to be decided but that as they say that the the pragmatic and flexible approach is one where it's if it's reversed as we think it should be and we can argue remember with the pleading stage and that's the important thing here is the allegations must be taken as true and simply a question of whether equitable tolling or some other reason such as failure to schedule the creditors or the reopening of bankruptcy allow the court to extend the statute of limitations if this is sent back we don't have to prove those claims under seven twenty seven we get to try all of the claims together it we could lose the five point three case it comes up here and this court could then decide well equitable tolling should apply or these creditors were not scheduled or the case was reopened and therefore we should be able to revoke the discharge and then we're back trying essentially the same fa that would be very helpful to you in the other cases all of those cases are not before well you'd be speaking to a broader issue of just the fraud that we are alleging you're speaking to the conduct of the debtor as a whole that the question is should a debtor be allowed to get away with committing fraud if you can make it one year beyond just discharge not getting away with it because you've got three other claims we do have three other claims but they're not exactly the same as the claims  that relief could be would be exactly the same view on those claims you get your money if you win this claim you don't get any money you have to go back if if we win this time you just have to go back then we don't need the five twenty three claims because there's no need for non discharge ability judgement so this seven twenty seven claim if it's valid would do away with the others so it's alternative remedies the court could revoked and not only us but all of the creditors then get to go after the debtor and the bankruptcy as if it never happened because he never got his discharge but i think it's important for this court to take jurisdiction over this as we ee sold claims to a corporation set up by the debtors attorney approved that sale the back reversed and now it's on appeal here we don't think that one is proper on appeal because the baffle verse and revenge remain in it but  the if you look at the cases there are different standards for normal civil cases out of the district court than there are for bankruptcy cases it looks like to me the closest case is a case called in re king city transit mix which i don't recall was cited by you i don't recall the case something else that was in the order that we set out to ask you to consider but seems to be the one that's pretty close i i have to apologize i don't remember saying the second important point is this case isn't about the state court case that's all throughout the briefs the state court cases on appeal it's not race judicata for anything it's like arguing the score of football game and halftime if i recall i believe u s c was behind notre dame and halftime in the recent game they are ultimately won the game so that court that's completely irrelevant thirdly we're at the at the pleading stage and based on the cases yes there are four cases in this circuit johnson void blanchard and press was that say no tolling there are two cases from outside sucka and peoples that say you should actively told the court could could we do you think we should follow the law our cases are the ones from outside well i think you should follow up people's and suffer because they're better reasons  and the reason is the court can can take a broad view here and just say acquittal tolling applies they could also take in their review and say where creditors aren't listed then you follow ford and chrysler the oregon cases we cited and you follow pierre the florida so if you take the narrow view you can say that where a debtor reopens the case because you concealed an asset and where the creditors weren't listed the statute doesn't begin to run or you also taken even narrower of human say statute doesn't apply because our clients to buy some peace and in order to give some money to creditors and this was a compromise and sale and this is what's also before this court having already gone through the battle and there's also some state appellate action pending and there might be pointed out another third appeal starting and what we're trying to do here is limit how much is going out that this is becoming extraordinary expensive and we're trying to start focusing as opposed to expanding on what kind of interest in that the bankruptcy reopened for all purposes  the record that's actually that's a routine thing you're on i mean that's not unusual my main practice is chapter seven trustee work and chapter seven trustees and that there will be an absolutely routine rolling matter of fact it probably was the court i mean that's not something the judge would typically look cost one case pointed out that tolling is not applicable to seven twenty seven looking at the cases they've cited really the only case they can go with asuka because peple or people they don't even qualify for if you look at people's people states that you have to prove that you bought the claim within one year of discovery people's hopes that page five twenty three they didn't under people's they would have had to pop their claim by december two thousand doesn't exist under seven twenty seven because seven twenty seven eight two is a statue to propose not a statute of limitations something else that needs to be said especially since judge fletcher been looking at the merits the point is if you go back and look at the first medic complaint there's no seven twenty seventy two plane here and there's no seven twenty seventy three claim here there's no order that the debtor has dissipated there's no d three claim here and if you look at the  certainly is with honesty that's the whole issue here if you disclose all your debts you disclose all your creditors you don't have to worry about whether the statute is actively told whether the case was reopened or any of that so all the debtor has to do to get certainty is the honest entirely and find that upon the reopening of the case the clock restarts as the court said in saka if the debtor gets all his rights back on reopening then why shouldn't the creditors get all the rights back and reopening that would be an easier way to deal with it and not have to deal with the