the supreme court's decision holding in the stern because it allows the bankruptcy court to exercise final dish will power that it cannot constitutionally will stern held that a bankruptcy court cannot  however the supreme court explicitly rejected that contention in stern footnote number seven in grand finance syria vs nor broke put moment of fourteen in which the supreme court said it never meant to suggest that the restructuring of debt or creditor relationships and that the public right the pension issue while also reason article three problems because before bankruptcy court and not have the constitutional authority to issue a final not an appealable ruling on what article nine section twenty four of the michigan constitution to spending clause if there were appellate review available would our argument is that matter had no business in the bankruptcy court and first place it was not related even in the course broad definition of related to owner waltman is not related to the bankruptcy at all so we argue the matter had no business in the bankruptcy court as far as a pension claim it's arguable that the bankruptcy court had a reason to decide whether pensions for you know game for the bankruptcy although we did argue  ways to go one is the stern issue the stern issues it's not involving equipment this is the threshold issue in come out of the future versus sure they put it the same as subject matter so if there was no two michigan citizens cannot agree to have a contract place case tried in federal court that has no bearing because the michigan judges would be upset and the article three judges have an independent duty to appeal and the petitioners objected to never being raised on appeal but the shore of the supreme court overturned it on their its own said you can't do anything with a structural challenge you have an individual right wellness what happened was that the when it was subjected to the it was the do noble review and the suit the supreme court heard the noble review based on the on the  bankruptcy judge about hearing it about those things but we didn't file it in the district court that's true that's all i'm still stuck on if if you raised in the bankruptcy court so you had your due process rights there  you intentionally chose not to raise it in the district court of our case was that waived and we don't take it up well it's like so what why should we take it up in the face of our well established case law that indicates things that are not raise below or wait a while because it's like this it's not there's two parts of the waiver one is individual rights and that's what wellness referred to another part is the she quoted from james madison in federalist forty seven where he said that these concentration of powers is the definition of tyranny so now we have a bankruptcy court who the congress makes  laws the bankruptcy congress apply the laws in this case and the congress adjudicate in the last so i don't think whether i did or we were raised in the this report sure the constitutional problems withdraw from by reference but the last pretty clear on that that you can't do that because that's a different issue because that's a core matter and so the it was turned down in the district court for that but this is different this is claims himself the other point i'd like to also you'll note that your red light is on i'm sorry i want to save your two minutes yes i do think it  morning honors i am john quinn representing myself let's take a look at the worst case scenario the worst thing that could happen if the district court were to consider the merits of my appeal and determine that the bankruptcy court heard by confirming a plan of adjustment that violates the bankruptcy or worst thing that could happen is actually the only thing that can happen and that is a rematch and the bankruptcy court to give the city an opportunity to address the errors in in the plan of adjustment and a chapter nine case the debtor is the only entity that can ever either propose or modify the plan of adjustment even the courts can do just the debtor that being the case unless the city decides to blow up its own plan of adjustment we can be confident that all of these terrible outcomes that the city is worried about simply will not happen if the merits of my taylor are consider because the city is the one who will be  proposing any changes that need to be made to deal with any errors the district court might find some particular proposal that would solve all of the problems that you see from your perspective as it claim here ok the first let's look at the issue of of pensions overall if the plan of adjustment simply said that the pension obligations that neither the g r s to generate time and system nor individual retirees are protected again against further litigation even though we're making payments toward this frequently therefore it's not really not banquet bankruptcy courts findings that there is a sixty percent sixty to seventy percent chance that the retirees would lose a family litigated that's a good offer it's a very good offer because the total being withheld is about fifty i'm sorry i'm taking you into different areas but just to be sure i get the question in if we are bound by six circuit cases saying equitable move supplies in chapter eleven do we have to apply that doctrine in chapter nine or what do you see as the critical difference between chapter nine and chapter eleven for this purpose there are several critical differences as i mentioned chapter knowing is unique in that the debtor has control over any modifications that might may be made to the plan in response in response to an appellant holding we also have the you have a different constitutional issue because if you say in chapter being allowed to divest the district court of authority to hear the merits of the appeal and we can't have a state actor determining the limits of the united states district court which is granted by by congress  why is that worse than having a private actor do that well it's probably not worse but least you don't have a federalism issue in that will remove this and i guess chapter now in a way gives the gives the debtor opportunities that they don't have in chapter eleven or any of the other chapters to assure us because they have complete control over to be safe to say that because of these concerns that you're raising that might suggest a greater weight on the question of whether a state was requested before the district court in connection with the factors that we traditionally use for equitable in this case i don't think it makes a difference because i did what i did request the state from the bankruptcy court not not the district court in not i don't think it was your concern isn't what happened so much of the bankruptcy court as it is and this argument that the district court is divest appeal is monetary in nature i do not believe i would have much hardly any chance at all of obtaining a stay in the district court and i didn't think it was worth top worth my time the city's time and the court's time to l sure but on the other hand the doctrine of equitable mootness has three factors the first of which is whether you request to stay and it would seem that it would be important to meet that factor the that if there is no stay the reason there is no stay makes no difference a stay requested and not granted is no different than a state not requested for purposes of acquittal movements so the question of whether a state was requested and of course a stay was requested in bankruptcy court but the but that was clearly under six circuit precedent not a major factor beyond the significant significance of requests of the state of course is if there is a state you're never going to reach the issue want to go back to this question of the relief that you're seeking because i freely admit i still don't understand it in the district court you seem to be asking to for instructions that the city submit a new amended plan that includes a more equitable method for collecting a s f recruit recoupment is that correct i don't think so you didn't say that the room for my bridge could be wrong but i don't believe that's a relief i just to the bankruptcy court so that the city would submit a new plan and the new plan you contended had to include a more equitable method city in the bankruptcy court could modify the plan not file a new plan modify the plan to address the rather narrow issue is that a reason why instead of a new plan you wanted a modified plan that before the bankruptcy court that's great only the city can file that that's correct you have any reason to believe that they were well i suppose the only the only reason they could offer the bankruptcy court for failing to do so is that it cannot be done that asking the negative and asking the positive is there any reason to believe that if you got that request you just saw before the district court that the city would file and then to the point where yes there is if they had been they have been informed by the district court at that point that the plan that they have already filed in that has been confirmed is based on erroneous reading of the bankruptcy court it violates the bankruptcy code and so they have presumably they wish to comply with the bankruptcy code to the extent that that's possible impractical and so they would i would make every effort to do so and if they found this a s f recruitment again what what was the violation of the plane how did the plane and violate the bankruptcy code with respect  particular class s f recoupment applies only to some creditors in class eleven the majority of creditors in class eleven are getting a four point five percent cut in their pensions for cook people are subject to the problem ration sick predators i should say claims and see the problem is that class claim is too broad in other words it includes some that didn't that didn't participate in the annuity plan and some did so those that did g t their pension gets further reduced because of the record i'm not challenging the class definition excepting with laughter laugh class definition i am simply pointing out that however you define the class you have to give the same treatment all claims within that class mean there are only two ways to do that it seems to me so tell me why i'm wrong either then you either the plan would have said that those pension years that didn't participate in the new eighty would have their pension reduced twenty percent even though there's no need for that or it would say those that the plans to just got money they weren't entitled to with a seven point nine percent guarantee they wouldn't have to pay that money those are the only two claimant consents to lesser treatment than it's permitted all the city has to do is as i mentioned earlier they have not given anyone a release as a result of make making these payments on a s f recruitment they they say we all bou twice as much as they're taking from us if they simply said take what's in the plan if you get a release anybody who accepts that has agreed anybody who doesn't accept then g r s is perfectly free to pursue claims against those individuals if the claims are valid as the city maintains and is in the bay for up she said it looks like they've got a sixty percent seventy chance of being right the lab and the problem you're saying isn't that you're you're that group of people had taking a twenty percent here compared to the ones that have a four point five percent haircut the problem is that you still have hanging out there the potential liability of the remainder the remaining amount between one hundred eighty million or whatever it is and the three hundred eighty million racial that's not the problem it's the solution in a way because the buy one on what do you think about that because i may be the only one having this problem but i don't it's hard to figure out from your pleadings what you want ok i'm sorry you are not one maximum of twenty percent to be reduced is that not part of your goal not precisely or the girl is that the would anybody ever agree to because they got a release from the remaining liability which detroit filed bankruptcy and obtained confirmation of them point of adjustment that impaired our pension in quebec approximately seventy thousand dollars in the annuity savings fund but i interrupt you just as i can right from the very beginning you said you adopt the position taken by quick side from trying to figure out what that position is i understand that but what you say in the court of appeals is you want the  recruitments struck only as it pertains to you and your call pal that's different than what quinn wants and it's different than what you asked for at the district no it's not different than what b s sport the district cour bankruptcy court rules or the statute that say everybody in the same class which quinn says he's not challenging and you're adopting quinn's position have to be treated equally because we're the ones who are appealing the other people have appeal you can you can then be treated differently and that you know you're these briefs and you don't seem to contest this say that without that one hundred ninety million dollar recruitment they have to reduce all of the pensions by thirteen percent instead of four point five percent is that right or wrong well you're and i don't understand how that does not compromise the point because he talks about seventy three percent voting for it the difference between in the weighted value was only about six percent so it wasn't an overwhelming majority like sequence well that's why you're in th side that voted against it don't like right so you're asking then that as to you and your call appellant that the word be permitted to suit correct and to the extent you're doubting krenz position you're asking that the shortfall that then results in the general retirement system because they're just an administrator right arguably but under senior writer this spec who is up because the city's contribution doesn't come and if the g s doesn't have any money then the pensioners don't get anything and some of that's a good idea zero us has money around and they've invested that money and that money if i remember right in the p of their assets and support for about forty percent of their obligations i think it's closer to sixty five so somewhere in there ok well i might have my forty versus sixty mixed up but in any event they don't it's nowhere near one hundred percent funded plan court mark swanson on behalf of the city of detroit your honour's this is a textbook case for the application of the doctrine of this no stay was obtain no stay was diligently pursued there can be no question that this plan has been substantially consummated and make no mistake the relief requested by the appellants will cost the city eight hundred sixteen million dollars in outside funding burden the city with more than three billion dollars in additional debt compliance the city back into financial chaos devastating its residents and returning them to the quote inhumane and intolerable situation as judge rhodes found that existed prior to the petition they that this is soon as then that the doc trend of equitable moves has a valid at least as applied in chapter nine cases which the cases from the sixth circuit are all chapter eleven cases so why should we import the doctor in the back of a move to this new area well i think this court should look at the reasons that it has adopted out while moon is set forth in the united producers case and united producers this court said that is designed to present a remedy to problems the first problem is the difficulty of unwinding a consummated bankruptcy plan and the second problem is the harm and the unfairness that doing so would cause on people who have relied on the plan ok so those are what we might call equitable reasons but don't we have to have some kind of a statutory basis or are you saying this is completely a judicial doctrine with no more in the bankruptcy statutes it is a a a judicial doctrine your honor and and it was inducted originally in the chapter eleven area because of a couple of sections in the bankruptcy code that pertain only to chapter eleven and not to chapter nine really three sections that were focused on only one of which is applicable in chapter nine as i understand it your honor i'm not clear which sections you're referring to but the argument has been raised and you might be referring to the argument in jefferson county that because the bankruptcy code  substantial consummation and section eleven zero one and substantial consummation is of course a second element to determine whether a plan is actually moot that the bankruptcy that court should not apply at will move this in chapter nine due to that definition but that that reasoning is wrong and incorrect for a few reasons first the bankruptcy code does not define substantial consummation for the purposes of determining the scope of back with us but rather for the wholly discreet and unrelated purposes of determining cause for conversion or dismiss bankruptcy case and terminating the period within which a plan of reorganization may be modified ok so so that the basic question though is is there any provision in the bankruptcy code that allows for a court to say this provision indorse is or leads to the doctrine of equitable moodiness in the chapter nine area so in other words i'd like you to tell me what sections of the bankruptcy code support the importing of equitable mootness to chapter nine well this is not defined in chapter eleven or chapter seven or chapter thirteen of the bankruptcy code it is a a judge made so there are no statutory sections that you're going to point me to that that's correct and just to make sure i'm clear on this there are many statutory sections not just with regard to chapter nine but with with regard to chapter eleven that's correct yes although the courts that adopted equitable mootness relied as i recall on three sixty three am and on eleven twenty seven b as the statutory basis for the doctrine of equitable movements in the chapter eleven area well three sixty three section three sixty three of the bankruptcy code and the section which authorizes sales of property of the bankruptcy estate outside of the ordinary course of business and and section three are limited to chapter eleven no your honor that applies to  why would it apply to nine if if if the bankruptcy court is not authorized to require the sale of c d s as well in fact parties have argued that because section three sixty three limits the remedies available on appeal that that is an argument against that will move us generally but courts have routinely rejected that argument and that's why i will move this is followed in every single circuit that hears bankruptcy court appeals in chapter eleven case yes and the ninth circuit back up and the ninth circuit have applied will move this to chapter nine appeals and those courts have looked at the problems that i mentioned earlier that after all moon is is designed to address the difficulty of unwinding a substantially consummated plan and also the harm that doing so would would cause the people who have relied on refuse to exercise your jurisdiction that you have in other words limiting prudential doctrines that had historically been shouldn't we examine carefully the doctrine of equitable mootness as applied in chapter nine case when we don't have any six circuit chapter nine cases so we're free to do what the law requires and the supreme court in cases such as lexmark are telling us don't say as a matter of prudential consideration you don't want to hear this case well to begin with  those considerations would apply equally with in chapter eleven and chapter nine there's nothing in chapter nine which would which would allow this court to place greater weight on those considerations and although the appellant state that that this is somewhat of a recent development there's also cases one one that was cited by the appellant cohen b virginia eight hundred twenty one and a u s supreme court case federal courts have no more right to decline jurisdiction than to  that does you know a case which which goes back several hundred years so i i think it's inaccurate to say that that there has been some sort of recent emphasis on jurists under stiction and the principle that court should exercise or jurisdiction is hardly absolute the doctrine that will move this is a well established example of when courts may decline to exercise or jurisdiction the supreme court and asked to employ it's historic powers as a quarterback witty and as a supreme court sad and young that's exactly what bankruptcy courts are they are courts of equity and but another problem i realize i'm taking you into many different areas but that's what this case does another problem is that the doctrine of equitable luton is here means that there is no article three court that ever considers any of these issues that i entirely up to a article one bankruptcy court to decide how a city's bankruptcy should be resolved well and judge mckeague stated earlier the appellants have have contributed to that the appellant's chose not to pursue a stay in the district court they chose not to pursue a stay in this court they chose not to asked this court whether they even asked you agree or disagree with well and this court's previous precedent as indicated that the failure to diligently pursue a stay ways against  it could implement the plan and that created reliance interest in the process because apple moon this is after all an applicable doctrine the failure to obtain a stay and diligently pursue a stay is had requested to stay from the district court and it was denied and from and it was denied what what argument would you make then well the first factors whether states been obtain obviously a st would have been attained but if if the appellate and had diligently pursued a stay then i think more credit would be given and maybe that factor wouldn't be conclusively decided in in the city's favor here that that didn't happen i mean they didn't diligently pursue a stay they sat on their rights and they took the chance that the plan would be substantially made and has been substantially consummate a consummated plant should only be disturbed for compelling reasons as this court held in the united producers and this rule makes perfect sense it's hard to imagine that a bankruptcy plan whatever go into a fact but for the rule of a woman is until all appeals have been resolved no court has ever entertained an appeal that would so significantly disrupt a consummate multibillion dollar bankruptcy plan this court's previous decisions demonstrate that this court should not disrupt the plan and has dismissed peals as actually moot based on for less  of your opponent's claim is that it really wouldn't if we granted the relief they're asking for it really wouldn't disrupt the planned materially your honor i respectfully submit that that argument cannot be be credited the a palace are attacking the heart of the city of detroit's bankruptcy plan the heart of the plan was the grand bargain and the grand bargain had a few components each of which the opponents attack billion dollar issue it's not a small issue it's not one that can be trivialized one hundred ninety million dollars in a s africa and over eight hundred million dollars in outside funding would be lost palace relief was granted and the basic question is whether the the merits of their arguments should be considered by an article three court an article three court might well say the bankruptcy court was exactly right in fact more often than not district courts and courts of appeals a fur what bankruptcy courts do but why shouldn't there be that consideration of the merits when it's such a major case well this court has always applied this as a threshold matter we can go back to united producers  merits and that that approach makes perfect sense because if this court were to consider the merits first it would inevitably find itself issuing advisories opinions this court could certainly find that pilot's marital argument had merit but that the case was never the less equitably moved and it would have issued a opinion upon which no relief could be granted so this court takes a very prudent approach and first considering whether the appeal is actually moot and if it's not a plea moot that it moves on to the merits and again the palin's have the opportunity i've repeated this a few times but it's very important they have the opportunity to seek article three repealed and they chose not to they have the other way to to look at this question that might or might not to dress the question judge moore asked did have freedom and have the discretion in your opinion to find that this case was not equitably moot and reach the merits yes i mean he could you have had a buyable appeal from the city standpoint assuming there was a way to get it here if he had found it was not equitably mood i'm sure the city would have appealed that determination if the court found it was it was not i guess what i'm getting at and i mean the framing this exactly the right way is this is part of the answer to the question of whether an article three judge ever reaches this to say that the article three judge had the ability to reach the merits had the discretion to do chose not to exercise that discretion on the basis of equitable move so really we're reviewing that i would assume as an abuse of discretion clear so you mentioned that there were vehicles for the appellants to obtain article three review earlier and i obviously one thing that we've talked about is to seek a stay in the district court or here but putting that  what other vehicle would have allowed the appellant's to obtain article three review of the decision of the bankruptcy court or the key decisions of the bankruptcy court the district court and then the city moved to find that the appeal was was actually moot if the question is but you said there's some other way they can get to an article three court and i just want you to tell me what is the way so you've told me well there's going to be equitable moon as to the way you were thinking and i said to put the state in the side and you started to tell me about the stay so what what how i mean i'm seeking information from you how could they have gotten their concerns about the article one courts to determine nations whatever they may be reviewed by an article three court they could i suppose interlock atory review is there some provision then that you would  your honors i wouldn't next like to address the stern arguments that were raised by the first  means that we can review for plain error so why would that not apply here to the stern argument while i think if this court can review forfeitures for plainer than that it would apply but as wellness and at both the supreme court level in the seven circuit level if a pallant doesn't present a stern argument that it is a personal right and that it is waive a ball and can be argument below do you think that that means then that if he forfeited it he could not have it had any consideration under plein air analysis while the seventh circuit found that he had forfeited and did not consider the the the issue and dismissed the appeal that's what happened afterwards that's what happened afterwards and that's the same exact thing that happened here and also to justice alito and the current concurrence and while that's also held that stern arguments are just like any other arguments on appeal and that those come before if it is and that's exactly what happened there and that's exactly what the court should find here the appellate fail to raise that argument and it should be forfeited and even if the court were to consider that argument it doesn't have any merit  claims adjusting claims against a doctor are at the heart of bankruptcy if the bankruptcy court cannot adjust claims against the city that it could not do anything the next if i understand part of the argument was there the board of trustees and this court in stern the supreme court how that article three requires the adjudication of a common  bond claim not to approve a settlement of one at stern held that in an article three court is required for the judy cation settlement here we had a a settlement of claims and as this court held in the mammoth field services case nothing and sterner this court's decision wallman a fact that the authority of a bankruptcy court to a approve a settlement further your honour's the  did did any case involve objections of some people to a settlement even though the majority of the people approved the in other words what i'm trying to put this in not so technical terms but as i understand it these a parent's represent some people who are objecting to the agreed upon settlement certainly and it's very common and in bankruptcy courts to have objections to to settlements and the bankruptcy court under bankruptcy rule nine hundred nineteen conducts an analysis of those adjudicators to decide claims submitted to them by consent does not offend separation of powers so long as article three courts retain supervisory authority over the process so that would seem to be suggesting that article three courts should have the your honour's granting the a palace demands would leave the city without a viable plan of adjustment forcing the city and the bankruptcy court court to dismiss the case the city would have to figure out how to onlin the transaction to claw back fifty five million dollars in cash nine hundred ten million dollars and bond that it distributed to creditors refund two hundred twenty million dollars to the state the institute of arts and other charitable organizations somehow reverse its irrevocably transfer of its our collection to the to a charitable trust and then the city would be in an even worse financial position then it declared bankruptcy it would again face race to the courthouse lawsuits and crushing debt so so another question would be wouldn't those be factors that would have to be evaluated in deciding what the remedy would be if there were a determination on the merits that the appellant's had some merit to their case when it so aren't the factors you're raising going to what the equitable remedy in the end should be no so so a court article three court could say hey that there's been so much that's happened here the remedy that the article three court picks for this so you know the assumed wrong that the appellant's are raising should be tailored to the facts of this situation well your honour's in the united producers this court held that it can that it is to consider the relief requested by the appellant not some portion of the relief or or or a different set of relief so if the that the court has to consider the relief requested by the appellant so no but i was skipping ahead to the idea that that in article three court was considering the merits and that yes the points you've raised about having to claw back large amounts of money and unwind various transactions are very serious points there are very significant points and that those would guide and court in equity in article three court in equity in deciding what the appropriate remedy for the appellants asserted wrong would be yes i mean here i'm skipping over equitable you want me to focus entirely  but saying that maybe those factors that are serious factors about the amount of things that have happened already those things should be weighed in deciding what the proper remedy at the end would be for an article three court to order if an article three court said there was merit to the appellants arguments and if there's merits if there's merit to the apology argument applies equally among all claim holders so there's not a specific relief that we can grant to the appellants the city is only entitled to file one plan the city cannot file one plan for the a palace and one plan for everyone else as these apologise which are three claim holders in one class or a part of a very large class that has to be treated under bankruptcy code eleven twenty three for the claims in the class have to be treated equally the holder of the claim agrees to a last farewell treatment so granting the palace relief would destroy the plan the city cannot have one plan for the opponents and one plan for everyone else and since the portions of the plans that the appellant attack are the cornerstone the grand bargain it would destroy the plan plunges city back into financial chaos that does though bring up another and i know your time is up but it does raise another question which has been raised by the pilots here which is that it in fact in their view because of the requote but problem all of the claimants in the  this particular group have not been treated the same and what is your response to that well that's incorrect if you look at bankruptcy code eleven twenty three four it talks about against the city so the bankruptcy court properly found that a s africa meant constitutes no part of the treatment of class eleven claims and that it's separate and that's the court has any further questions we do not thank you count thank you saying what our point for requires so they're competing the pension system for twenty twenty four that would be similar to a individual declaring bankruptcy getting a fresh start and saying you know what your honors i stern said that that it's not truly consent because you're forcing people you know there's no place else to go the only case where there was a public right decided by  you i did find the language about what i requested of the relief i requested in the district court in response to judge mechanics question when they requested was removed in the case to the bankruptcy court to give the debtor an opportunity to file not another amended plan of adjustment in the bankruptcy court an opportunity to review of the amended plan to determine whether it complies with sections nine forty one in moving to three a four i'm a question of the city being on the hook if the if g s ultimately can't pay what it would be required to pay under an amended plan at least on the theories that i have put forward the city's de to g r s and to retirees would remain adjusted precisely as they are adjusted now so the city would not be on the hook for anything that it's not already on the hook for and i should also in terms of the funding of g r s i should mention that although dearest is not receiving any funding from the city until two thousand and twenty four it is receiving funding from the other participants in the grand bargain and the state of michigan the i should i'd like to point out that at least two other circuits the second and the seventh have adopted the the practice of considering the the merits and then if marriage is found addressing the perspective of good administration of justice the since the courts have a constitutional duty to exercise the jurisdiction that is granted the or really assigned them by congress exercising their jurisdictions means they consider the merits of cases that are before them but then after they have considered the merits and me they address the question of remedy so i think it's from the point of view of the proper administration of justice the question of iraq atory appeal the rules from which we are appeal appealing appearing only in the bankruptcy courts final order confirming the plan of adjustment they court you cannot appear from a ruling that has not been made yet and so no there was no opportunity for interlocutory appeal the whether the court can grant relief other on appeal can grant relief other supplied in this circuit which it borrows from the from the circuit does allow for the consideration of alternative remedies the court is well aware that this is a very important case it's the largest bankruptcy in municipal bankruptcy in history at least so far and it's inevitably is going to have a major impact on the development of chapter nine law for some time to come for that reason it's important that the issues that have been raised in these appeals be resolved by it an article three court if the article three  avoid the task of addressing the merits of these appeals because of a speculative concern that the fine remain and the bankruptcy court and the city could not deal with the truth cannot handle the truth of the truth is that the appeals have merit then we will not know whether the bankruptcy courts rulings on these issues were correct there will be no law on the issue and it's much needed and as if we choose to get to the merits of this case and know that regardless of the route that that takes does that require remain and back to the district court or is it sufficiently briefed that we could reach the merits that you're complaining at and reach no the city's argument regarding innocent third parties is wrong the third party in question here is the g r s general retirement system they've had every opportunity to participate and chose not to further i attempted to participate we participate in what and chose in this appeal i attempted to persist in the meaningful manner in the bankruptcy court but oh my motions to participate were denied specifically for this case and would like to leave at this point i would ask you to do this quietly and expeditiously as you can so that we can proceed to the next