here the next case which is pursuit of things of uninterrupted before taking questions if i could please thank pelleas brief concede to page twenty nine the judge glenn never mentioned the sale order and his entire court error and dismissed the appeal writing that the transaction was immune from review because it was a sailor yes on both counts and the district court was deceived reviewed the entire record and it was sumed that those attorneys would not could allude to the other and deceive her that in fact is what this appeal is about the question now before the court is what should it do next given the fact that judge coke was tricked should he go back to judge cote to review the underlying decision to be remanded to judge when for specific proceedings i believe that is the question before the court and i'd like to attempt to answer that to get there the court needs to be aware of what has happened recently which includes extraordinary events taking place in the past thirty days that firm my allegations of improper conduct between the knops and the trustee and i'm going to ask the court to please take additional notice of these facts of these specifically the district court did not see these documents but nonetheless it went to the heart of the contested issue and corden quote pending it didn't exist would be consistent with the court's own been provided by the plaintiffs so they cannot challenge those the others are certified transcripts the certified transcripts i also need to make the court aware had been recently reviewed by the u s attorney's office and i contacted by the f b i to go over what is going on what has happened in the last month on jan two thousand and twenty one mr barry revealed to me in a recorded conversation and there's certified transcripts place as in word improv no i'm not but i'm not this judge ten what are we supposed to do with this information now i mean this is this a kind of thing that needs to you know you got to go back down to the district court or the bankruptcy court court apparently according to you is looking at it i mean none of this is on the record i'm not i can't see it or what you want us to do with it at this point i mean there seems to me that there's a legal question in front of us  is that this court has multiple bases to resolve issues but if it were to keep this case going because its fundamental basis the proof of claim is invalid the record you have proves it so i want to proceedings the mechanism is set in place because i have now submitted an application the initial stage notice to get discovery mr berry out these events which are certified and thus if it goes back which we discuss you used about six minutes of your time you had the initial three and were almost coming up very bad another three and said can i just direct you to the thing that i think would be most helpful to me and making a decision here which is can you explain how the district beginning had lain in twenty five words that i had not moved to stay the sale which good presumption to be just records that there was a sale order but there was no stay in effect thus the district court was deceived it was a four upon the court for her to believe those words and thus preassumed that they must to bid a sale or else that would have been a state or there was no state or which is proven by the conduct in the michael stanford agreed to repay loans which plaintiffs made to him and his wholly owned company stamford partners that say that really they want to impose a constructive trust on pursuit because that's where i spent my that but that was the purpose of the quit playing and they were taking it subject all of its problems which is why we didn't sell a screen clear because we thought they had a val affectively speaking the claims that are generally talked about who are more there are the if you there of the ones about environmental planes or things of that nature we did not want to get into the was done it all and drank then in good faith negotiations by definition causes it to be a good state purchased i appreciate your own to come in but that's the only way i can explain it herman but also the underlying bankruptcy court decision so in essence if there were errors the district court level and there is none if there were air support level it would be harmless error because the underlying bankruptcy court decision is clearly correct i think underlying the appellant's argument is that the standards under rule nine hundred and eighteen and rule sixty six i'm sorry client even though we had a judicial lean that that was the secured clearing that was a judicially that was twice the amount of the property at issue nevertheless we paid two hundred thousand dollars which shows both our good faith and the arms and nature of the negotiations the other relevant factor here is the likelihood of getting litigation by the trust brad franklin practically impossible because there is no interesting issue here it's just simply a matter of contract law and the court of appeals does does not review decisions that bring to it only th would bring to it only routine matters of contract law so there was no hope of the judgement in my client's favor ever being overturned in the trustee would have been barking on a fool's  interested receive notice of the sale of course that happened here and the student springs trustee and everybody was notified and there's been no contention that everyone was an out whether there was the buyer was acting in good faith this of course goes back to the fact that we take two hundred thousand dollars despite the fact that we had a ten million dollars judicial lean against the property which what you're saying absolutely that is absolutely cases this is what's known as a hybrid motion both approval of the sale and approval of the approval settlement and cruel disposition the property in those circumstances the motion is treated as a settlement or a motion created as a a real estate and then look through the order and the and try to find some sort of linguistic glitch there's no doubt that the buyer was asking there's no doubt everyone had notice if this is a three hundred and sixty three m sale that doesn't increase the trustees burden in obtaining approval you're still looking at this under rule nine hundred and ninety and all the requisite elements for as explained they said they'll play up mr barry did a year and a half ago the original delphi was the sell twenty years ago that is in the record they did it just to confuse people and again mr berry filed papers two weeks ago i want to show to the court also of mental filing waited mid it's a completely different entity so as judge parker said no it was no good say the buyer is a fake mr barry thought an affirmation essentially this is the judgment creditor but it could not be lose but that was after she dismissed that's why you should definitely go back to judge cote because she never got to hear from our son and the nd element their mission it wasn't a sale it is fatal and they do  they say judgment never said this but they argue to judge coat he said it was a sale that's a misrepresentation of important fact that's another reason the rd reason which is being missed here is that the actual monies were never given to pursuit and that is why it has to be determined through a proof of graeme window this settlement was signed off and before the proof screen began that's the whole point go into bankruptcy court mr  saying we have to go to the court of appeals wrong the trust we said of the team could have been filed and it still could be filed that's a misrepresentation of fact i personally thought that the th against a different judgment against the same asset an eight million dollars one  that was vacated we've done it before what's he to say is what i said before to go to the record the jays sites there was never a motion for summary judgment against pursuit was only gets the individual which means we never had a right with the ability to fight it which is exactly what stop they change their position put flap floppy at avoided judicial admissions and simply pretend did they move against pursuit this is simply wrong there can't be a judgement against pursuit based upon a supreme court decision that was