problem that i have and these are independent problems it looks like either one of them is as a real problem for you is them if you got it if i understand the facts right she got her judgment in two thousand  the plan was not confirmed until two thousand and four and she didn't ask the bankruptcy court to give her some of her husband's money after she got her judgment in two thousand and two and the reason she didn't ask it was the liberal she didn't ask because she thought that the bankruptcy judge was biased against her at not there was no support for that thought that i can see from the record and it would be pretty unusual that bankruptcy judge even cared one way or the other about the persons as opposed to the law and the facts so there's no reason to think there'd be any bias it seems like either one of those was a big problem for you and you've got both with regard to the payments had been made so that it so now that it has been closed what possible relief can be granted what what could we do as a practical matter which happened in two thousand and four all i'm not going to read the whole counsel maybe this is a good time to hear from the other side and you can reserve your twelve minutes  please the court counsel i mean it seems that my represent christopher allen the confusion i think of jack when i won in this case is that she's applying good faith criteria which of the previous panel that plan a was put together in good faith you still binding because of the change of circumstance that happened after that decision which was that and as one of you noted there was in the subsequent trial because jacqueline allen never went back after she had her claim liquidated which i would submit was improperly liquidated but once it was liquidated you know and i think it was march or january of two thousand and two she should have been a judge civil nor did she should have gone back to the bankruptcy and requested the court based on her liquidated claim either a not available to the previous panel you're saying she didn't jump through the proper procedural hoops to get that issue much more of a lower court yes she should have taken the liquidated judgment back to the bankruptcy court and said judge now i have a liquidated judgment this is how much my claim is and now i want to argue that the plan is not proposing a good thing and instead i just no way that she can do that under the procedur will given this destruction so he's done everything that he's supposed to do under the plan she had a period of two years from from early two thousand and two until two thousand and four to come back ever on notice through any other device obviously you correctly showed that there was no formal motion they but was there any other way that the bankruptcy court was made aware of the state court judgment  and i don't think the court has to do it on its own it's she needs to that there needs to be some mechanism or it's brought to court there has to be a motion or some kind of proceeding and she never initiated it and they and that was the only issue that was before the fourth of march two thousand and four was is this claim of this if you're just started on you could could you tell me as a practical matter had the wife made a motion in the bankruptcy court in two thousand and two within a reasonable time after obtaining her state judgment to have amend the plan so that she would get some money would there have been some money she could get and is it the case now that the debtor has completed payment and been discharged if there is as a practical matter the money she could get i didn't hear the last part as  a practical matter did the chance of her getting money turned from a real possibility to no real possibility because to percolate from two thousand and two to two thousand and four the better during that time your honor was on disability you suffered from and this isn't in the record but he suffered from some strokes and other medical problems and he could no longer practice medicine so he had a disability policy that was paying him some money it's cheap i don't i don't believe that jack went on as a practical matter could have gotten more money if you return the bankruptcy court but she could have the realtors bankruptcy plan she could have come in case be converted to a chapter seven again because the debtor wasn't meeting the good faith as she could have left the bankruptcy judge examined the totality of the circumstances to determine whether good faced faith continued to could have brought back to the bankruptcy court and raised an issue by filing a motion to say there's something new here judge i want you to reconsider the debtor's good faith in this plan there could have been an evident through record presented in the bank created in bankruptcy court and it could have gone up on appeal and then you could have looked at it whether the bankruptcy court committed clear error by either finding good faith or not planning but she didn't do all of that she wants you to act as the would you mind if we may have heard this before with you but i'm still puzzled on the part i there was no communication to the bankruptcy court between the date of the judgment as march of zero two and