somebody actually was able to get into motions for reconsideration within ten days and they tried to say that you couldn't do that because the first is going to have one most reconsideration of these you know that if you get both in time the second one vote i think the potentially in this case we believe that most reconsideration of the trial judge recognized the what was going on in the lombardo case was going to impact judgment down adverse to my client interest me and the government about a motion to bind everyone to the result and the result at that point in time was if i won on the jurisdiction sedgman why shouldn't the same thing applies that there is there is no jurisdiction to continuing jurisdiction and to decide the motion reconsider i understand the question correctly as soon as the motion of a key was denied the taxpayer is given the opportunity to what he was doing next he can file a notice for appeal within like days and at that point contrary cold final in under the under the under the rules that have been developed if you get the court to listen to you eighty nine days later it's also now on the court has apparently no obligation to listen to you after thirty days that one they were reopening the grand jury if you and there was now evidence that the files were missing the judge before didn't care if that was he did allow the school go into that issue and he wasn't concerned at all about the grand jury should because in the lombard of cases there was a the issue was whether or not the misuse of grand jury required the shifting of burdens if you take into grand changes the statutory notice and the like and those issues were available they were common issues everybody involved berge had the same common issues is filed a notice of appeal with this court putting the question of the finality of the tax court's decision initial the government filed a motion to dismiss the tax court appeal in which we addressed all of the issues that are satisfied and the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction to reconsider the question of the finality of the tax court's decision therefore this this whole issue of whether the i arrest is assessments were valid it's not a question that the ta bankruptcy court could even consider similarly if it's others were barred by the doctrine of grace judicata from really raising the question of the finality of the tax court's decisions i don't want to run through all of the elements of validity of the iris assessments necessarily turns on whether the tax court decision was spinal which then necessarily turns on the question of whether the nose of the people were timely i think this case involves the same transactional nucleus of fact that was i think at that point the tax court's decision had already become final ye had filed that let me just say thanks i don't actually have the exact date for me the tax court had denied their motion for reconsideration i believe that was then that november hundred ninety one now what what's that date that's ninety days after the tax court denied the first post judgment motion the first motion that told the period that's really when filing of the notice of appeal would have further told the time would have further suspended the statute of limitations on meeting after a while it would have told the finality of the tax court decision which one of then pushed the i r s back from making the time report having published the jensen opinion which ultimately that opinion was vacated there is no evidence in the record that the ira's trial counsel was not honest about the whereabouts of the i r s records it is true that it did turn out that there were there is no evidence at the trial counsel had been lying about the whereabouts of the records and in fact the record also contains evidence that debtors council was continuously given access to the records and that he did not use those opportunities to to view the record record that sort of led to the ira's conceding on the substantive tax issues and in fact if you look at the absent case which the which was the first test case that was tried in this whole bergen allen litigation from the very outset of these cases the same grounds can be tack to gether to told the time for filing a notice of appeal i don't think it really creates an exception for successive post judgment motions that a certain new grounds the facts before this case in the treatment of its case before the court in the from the bergen alum offices and number two we informed the court that the judge in a related case the lumbar the case was going to try the issue of misuse of grand jury information and here just as an aside i'd like to clarify a point i think the case in any way and i thought mentioned in the addison case the taxpayers had already conceded the substance of the tax issues that were the subject of the litigation to begin with on the issue of the need to use the grand jury information the debtors had also extend the filing deadline because successive motions the searchings the same grounds cannot be tacked so w raising the issue of misuse of grand jury information the council had conceded at a tax court hearing that had to become a non issue then in a debtors response to the government's opposition to the motion of a case the better said well no we and our counsel has just sort haven't pursued the issue judge lombardo in judge gerber in lombardo a case that want bind us in anyway is willing to try the issue please stop and wait to see what he does so it's not really new information and it wasn't a case that was going to bind the debtors case in any way on that basis given that they had been alleging misuse a grand jury information throughout their case that it had come up again at the most to be this and the court was refusing to consider it  same ground and that is because if one because both the motion to vacate and the motion to reconsider were really arguing that the government had misplaced documents and misused grand jury information and the motion to reconsider was basically sort of a status update of a parallel case but was not actually alleging any new evidence regarding the bunyan's or mc finality of every tax court decision by filing one post judgment motion after another as long as they can come up with new information to put in their motion federal rule of appellate procedure thirteen already contains a workable and fair rule there was the issue was whether or not the government even needs to try to show any embargo we tried to show that the civil investigation was a product of a grand jury investigation and if that was somehow take all of the evidence and judge gerber agreed to consider that issue he wanted her to find out if there was a great grand jury violation why would that change it because it was disclosed in violation of the secrecy rules and sixty and there wasn't fact