how much we don't have anybody here so you had fifteen minutes i don't think and fifteen judge kurtz i believe you were on the panel of the previous decision so i think i'm hoping you remember this case a little bit this is  appeal from a motion that i filed with judge a from skee asking him under rule sixty to remove from his original sanction order a suspension he had suspended my ability to practice law in the bankruptcy court for all of the courts in the northern district until i completed twenty four hours of c l e credits i didn't just get a whim to do that i was left to leave it alone but what happened with his order is that it's calling me to chicago and follow me to arizona and it's follow me to new york when i applied for admission in product liability cases involving a product that's caused severe injuries and burns and deaths product i've been working litigating with the other coun for twelve years over that court took judge of fred's keys order and particularly the portion of his orchard order that survived the appeal the suspension and initially the defendant's move to revoke my admission with it initially it was denied so when judge friends issued his ruling he pointed out that it was denied and maybe it's just inconvenient for me but that's just too bad he used his discretion and said i'm not going to call and to amend it it's incorrect i'm federal bankruptcy procedure section sixty be the court has discretion to go back and revisit its original order and has i think section b five in fact has the ability to change it for any reason as justice stated your grounds for the appeal yes that's been decided adversely that's right ok so you can come in under rule sixty that's right and argue different reasons that's right but none of these reasons because those reasons are now cemented in the case pealed determined decided over so if you want to make another rule under rule sixty you can i suppose but you've got to come up with interesting issue and it's probably something we should briefly touch upon all the civil divisions of the federal courts have i been involved with including this one it's letting the bat they don't have this rule on it i thought that you said that the ninth circuit decision was clearly  us because you can to they said that you continued to violate the electronic filing rule after being told that it was a rule that you should follow i said it was clearly erroneous  this court's own role in this court's own decision was specifically found exactly the opposite of it this court was correct about that so let's the clearly erroneous case the judge frankly cited us versus c one forty seven f three d one one one one one four and a whole series of other cases dealing with clearly erroneous this is the case where that this is absolutely the case with your you want judges to tell the ninth circuit the judicial hierarchy completely upside down if you read his order and see what he has to say about it in his own words i think he thinks the same way i think they should really care are you talking about this is the document number three twenty five the one that's the order has been appealed he talks about the clearly erroneous standard he acknowledges his ability to do it and then he says he's not going to do it it's on his order i can read it if you like but it's on his or her yeah there's r sixty and yes there's this i'm going to go as far as to say there should be no procedural impediment at all for something like this when it's brought to a judge's attention at any level at all levels that there's something in the record that's clearly erroneous to where no other judge would disagree with it and nobody would disagree so what is the clear error tell me that error was brought to shelly's attention yet you continue to violate the rules that's what you told about that at a deposition and didn't you continue that practice for roughly six months thereafter isn't that and it's not in the record that way that's the whole point it's not even in the record that way it's not a judge affirms his order that way it's not on the back of the baps decision it's not even there you know what the bab said the bat said correctly accurately bankruptcy court did not find shall be acted knowingly or intentionally these factual findings demonstrate that his conduct was neither in purpose nor substance now let me let me ask a question will differently the judge  and this is suspended me based on bankruptcy local rule nine zero one one dash one which it's got nothing to do with what the ninth circuit said going to do it and then he went on to say and the reason i'm not going to do it is mr shelby has some inconveniences he has to explain to some judges some things in chicago and new york and other places too bad and then he says it is for not and he knows that they didn't revoke my admission and therefore it's harmless well he's wrong because after that it was appealed and that entire court system in chicago illinois which i just see is the presiding judge for the federal circuit all they state the action after seven months of state watching this waiting to see what happens here i got an order to show cause pacific to judge a friend is really the order to show cause want to do explain this whole issue of the suspension the suspension can be used to revoke my admission in that court and that case is huge in the sense that people have died and people continue to die a piece of your tack on the suspension is based on that rule you just cited a minute ago right my attack on suspension is procedurally based o sanction rule nine zero one one is that there's three there's the bankruptcy there's a civil and there's the local rule that we all know what that is if you are you put a motion under rule sixty four nothing that you said about it in that appeal or in the original motion is now on the table so we got this tiny little bit of jurisdiction for relief from under rule sixty which has to be new stuff different stuff right what is that the new stuff the different stuff the brain use thing is this statement by judge sitting thomas in there that says that this was brought to my didn't happen in the middle and didn't happen in the initial it's right to work through to correct the thing that happened up here you go up here you don't go down here again not just on that issue because i think you brought that up three times and i'm really concerned about it on that issue i'm going to ask you please read that part of judge from skis or why how are how yeah it's there and it's clear and says you know i had an appeal from a ford motor company case it was judge felt in henderson and we had the same issue came up he had issued a ruling it was clearly erroneous and then ford motor company appealed it under the clearly erroneous standard it's the same thing we have wasn't allowed to use the electronic system until he took some very small amount of c l the classes minus a suspension across the board i couldn't file a bankruptcy entirely in any federal court in the northern district until i completed it and he actually tied it into what really upset him what's the new stuff the new some talk about rule nine a one one it's a big deal for me it should be a big deal to the court under rule eleven or under f d r b p u nine one one this court is correct you have to have willful misconduct  has been knowing and it has to be intentional this court explains it correctly and it's back to session and the reason for that is you have a rule eleven motion you've got a twenty one day safe harbor provision person looks at it says i get it i'm going to that's not new you're tracking the nation validity one it's abrogating will level if you have the legislature going to the trouble and say you've got to have willful misconduct element has to be there you can't have a local rule that says you forget that let's just do it under local still attacking the validity of the original order and that's not new it's been decided ok that includes everything that was already used or anything that could have been raised or should have been raised so i don't talk about new stuff you're saying stuff that's happened since the order was entered and they understand the court is saying there's no new stuff under rule sixty and i can't get really procedurally i understand the court is saying that the clearly erroneous standard is not something judge of fred's he could do it's something that's already a done deal i respectfully disagree i think just the frames i share what i believe he is stating on his order which i think is different and as far as rule sixty i've put down the authority and what rule sixty allows the court and if if rule sixty doesn't allow the court to fix a problem like this especially will sixty five that i'm not sure how reply otherwise i appreciate the court's time thank you very much thank you very much for your argument today thank you for this matter