under the holding in barnes mr smith's bankruptcy case was still ongoing on february th two thousand and eighteen when he subsequently did disclose the previously undisclosed legal claim mr smith's attorney was appointed a the personal injury lawsuit mr smith the seeking to recover approximately five hundred and fifty thousand dollars in economic damages in addition to that he's seeking recovery for not even on the damages including pain and suffering loss of a normal life both in past and future but whether we look at nuts or look at the case in the lindzen bars it's clear that mr smith did have standing trial court erred in ruling that he did and said holding should be reversed mr smith should be continue to pursue his personal unfair advantage and the integrity of the card in was completely unaffected by the attempt so in this case even if he had intended to game the system the way by which he did it never would have s purpose it would never have given him the un do advance that the whole purpose of judicial a sample is intended to pre i guess your honor what i'm saying is if we assume he was lying it was of no avail it was a completely petition that he was a cubs fan and then in his personal injury lawsuit claim that he was a white sox player for  go except for the fact that the test and seen one that was laid up by the oldest supreme court hasn't been met which means that courts can willing really determine that somebody was trying to receive the benefit even if they did it despite the fact seymour requires that apply such a harsh remedy so as to take a one million dollar personal injury lawsuit away from somebody because he made a misrepresentation in a bankrupt the seventy five thousand dollar baby of see that the the two are disproportionately this respect particularly in light of the fact that one of the pre requisites in seymour was not or threat to the judicial integrity this case is like that where there is no discharge there is no benefit there is no success there is very little if any risk to judicial integrity by mr smith omission in his bankruptcy fi worksheet for his bankruptcy attorney and then the attorney filled out that form i don't know any of this i wasn't there for it and i wasn't his attorney what i do know is that taking into it consistent positions is only one prerequisite hide play games with the system and as you point to as your honor pointed out we need to protect the integrity of the system you know if it truly was a mistake he should have come forward to his attorneys and said you know what i just remembered i filed the majority of cases about to tell to discharge for final workers compensation case but in how in the believe the timing is much different than we have in this case in holland the bankruptcy was filed and and those lies should not be approved by by any  infer intent in this matter we have two statements under oath five days apart completely inconsistent the failure to disclose even after lying under oath he waits until he's caught and then  states by not disclosing this lawsuit that makes it clear he was not pursuing this claim on behalf of the estate one of the arguments they raise is the fact the council was appointed as special counsel for the for the better i don't yours first with regard to council's argument that files documents were found in the bankruptcy court the day after the deposition those files do not bear mr smith's signature there's no indication as to when those documents were filled out it's hardly conclusive proof of any for various reasons including the fact that the the test that they're relying upon that where we have seen more there is that five of the requisite tests in those cases some of them don't require a benefit some of them don't require success in either proceeding and so to use those just hey we look back and try to figure out what could have happened or what would have happened based on speculation and conjecture it has to actually be evidence there are ways that mr counsel for the defendant could have proved by cleary who did see evidence of the outcome would have been different he could have obtained affidavits from the creditors stating as such no such evidence was ever introduced because no such evidence exists the creditors found out about the undisclosed potential asset and did nothing they didn't nobody debtor who is a debtor in possession maintains an interest in his assets to say that standing would be more difficult for somebody who has it to begin with according to the law as opposed to somebody like in chapter seven murdered by the best of its statutorily it would be completely previously undisclosed assets of the trustee prior to the closure of the bankruptcy state in this case mr smith did just that the bankruptcy estate is still ongoing and so is the personal injury lawsuit with regard to judicial trying to trying to repay over time through chapter thirteen and it will look for the defendant a complete with which is incredibly unfair the bottom line is that application judicial guidance or any decisions which would have already been decided by that state even though this isn't all that or all procedure in all indications from my research your honor indicates that yes this is a state court matter in the interplay would simply be that