hear argument no in the case of the matter of hussein with their permission on bankruptcy court documents that did not need to be signed and these facts are not in dispute that is the all the signatures that the tourney sawing were given to his clients gave him permission to sign it and he signed it on forms that the bankruptcy court doesn't need to be signed and they typically left blank for that he was permanently disbarred from the bankruptcy court from the district court and they are d c s waiting on your ruling to determine whether to disbar him from there was there a second part to that to mean even if even if you accepted that theory that whatever he submitted was properly submitted pursuant to the dark liberation didn't he in fact submit documents subsequent to that where he he made the signatures on those documents itself but the declaration only allows you to submit documents on signed by the debtor client at that time it doesn't authorize you to through the course of the bankruptcy submit anything you want purportedly under the signature of the debtor client and so did he in fact submit documents subsequent to the submission of the declaration needed to be signed the only thing that needed to be signed between the years two thousand and six and two thousand and fourteen is that one form the declaration of electronic filing in that form which is exhibit appendix that all the information he conveys or she conveys to the attorney is under oath and so that leads me to the mitchell point that holden counsel had in his brief that my client's conduct is inconsistent with a federal law which requires debtors to or fly and sign these documents on the penalties of perjury you know that's absolutely false appendix a is the declaration that says each and every one of his client signed those forms and that's not in dispute all the forms all the of his a with all the debtors now you notice opposing counsel through words around in his brief such as this even forgery and the dictionary definition of those were simply do not apply here d c has been failing you haven't yet mentioned a number of the bankruptcy courts findings one is that of a sample of a another finding of the bankruptcy court is that your client committed perjury during this period and perjury is a perfectly standard reason to do smart lawyer i do think you need to address these issues  assets such as this because of all bankruptcy petitioners have in fact the same assets you know the word is used as ordinary luck of furniture and the other word is ordinary t v or things like that that's  money my observation is that's typical practice you know that's it and i work for it it's fraud fraud on the bankruptcy court and fraud on the bankruptcy court is a good reason to disbar a lawyer and if that's typical bankruptcy practice we may need your ordinary t v because they don't go through the exact specific details because of the time it concerns now moving with respect to perjury you want to with all due respect there is nothing in here in the record that shows my client committed perjury some of these problems on an assistant and the bankruptcy judge found that that was an intentionally false statement that these filings reflected your client's own decision now you could argue i suppose that that finding is clearly erroneous but i don't see such an argument in your brief have i missed something your honor the the his assistant look my question is concrete did i miss an argument in your brief you argue that that finding is clearly erroneous i did not argue that it was clearly erroneous i argued the law there your honor and the law that under the declaration that was signed those subsequent documents that my client assistant either photocopy the signatures on a quote on here without my client's consent is irrelevant because the document that was done by that my client's assistant could have been submitted blank here and i didn't have to be your client told his clients that it was proper to omit assets from their schedules in other words told his clients that it was proper to commit bankruptcy fraud that's an express finding it's a page sixteen of the bankruptcy an account the states the supreme court said this is not forgery because he didn't gain anything that attorney didn't profit anything that's the levy case in my brief your honor so on the basis of that case you are both deceiving and forgery doesn't apply because those are speak cause because of actions and the speaker be more explicit going out and doing that it is permissible for a federal bankruptcy lawyer to tell clients that they can assets from their schedules or ask you know you know what i believe that wasn't course it's not permissible it is a crime and the bankruptcy judge found as a fact that your client on the other case that the only other case similar to this in this district is the case where the attorney was disciplined and permanently disbarred but that attorney sold six hundred thousand dollars and in this attorney here you  didn't gain anything did not gain anything at all on her and based on the the state definition of what forgery and deception is this doesn't apply here and to to permanently  this bahram an attorney who had exemplary record for sixteen years of practice never been in trouble in a federal or administrator and for doing something that should have been done signing those signatures say is the typical practice of attorneys right now is they put in their schedules ordinary lot the furniture ordinary things and maybe that should be their wake and maybe the rules should be changed and in fact you are after this case the bankruptcy court to change the rules the declaration of electronic filing is not doesn't in applying after two thousand and fourteen because of this case because when they found out that wait a minute we need to get us to sign so what i want to emphasize is also in my brief i argued with respect to the the jurisdiction of the judge to enter a contempt hearing this was an administrative hearing additional hearing but there was no jurisdiction to hold you differently hearing that's why she didn't have jurisdiction to hold a did you feel citation hearing but even if she did she did have jurisdiction the only evidence that was presented was twenty five thousand dollars in an escrow account to belong to my client now the judge cox found that that escrow money which is typically for real estate belonged to my client ok maybe that i should have argued is a clearly erroneous but even if it's not even if we accept that the the amount to be paid was twenty eight thousand dollars so my client in the twenty five thousand would have complied with that order did he ever appeal the judge's imposition he pay reimburse for the client payments and costs them may be true and the will except that he has to pay it and he is willing to pay if he attempted to pay it he could and he only he didn't even have the twenty five thousand that was escrow money twenty five thousand but m argument to you even if she wasn't clearly erroneous that twenty five thousand was not enough to pay for the initial twenty eight thousand so therefore there wasn't clear and convincing evidence to show that he could have complied with it on time i kim a golden appearing number if the united states like to start by addressing some of the statements mr hussein makes his reply brief and now repeats here to this court today he says that there was only one document debtors needed to sign and that they all signed that one document both of those statements are not supported by the record for example if you're talking about the declaration of electronic filing he refers to the very first such declaration in mr a that a mr who sunny the court found that actually mr hussein or someone in his control signed that declaration the next declaration mr haider and the banks the courts specifically found and mr peter testified he didn't sign it in the court found that mr hussein or someone under his control signed that declaration as well the court also filed the declaration in the new case and the court found that mr hussein photocopied that this one document declaration in the end sorry case and  the statement now to this court crew that they all signed that one document is supported by nothing in the record in addition as this court has pointed out already it was never the case that debtors needed to only sign one document that would happen if all documents in the for the bankruptcy were prepared the same time completed reviewed by the debtor then the debtor would sign the one document but rule one thousand and eight which requires the verification of the debtor also were first two amendments and there were numerous amendments in these cases that were filed and there were declarations filed with those amendments and those declarations also head photocopied signatures that mr st used instead of the debtors own declarations this was purpose creating a fraud on the on the court the predator's the trustee because all these documents said purported to say that the debtors had reviewed these documents and everything contained therein was true accurate and complete but that didn't happen because mr hussein sign their name and photocopy their signatures in regards to the monastic case which i'd like to just briefly which the dead resided in  area since two thousand and eight but mr hussein filed not one but two cases for this debtor whom he had never met and the first case he filed for me to page county but that was t disregard for the truth and all the documents also show that the banks the court was correct in finally that mr hussein is abjectly indifferent to the factual accuracy of the documents he files with the court as the court pointed out ninety three out of one hundred ten had the same three dollar amounts to the penny for cash also goods and clothing hundred six out of one hundred ten to mr of scenes clients apparently had precisely two hundred dollars in cash at the time of filing and as someone who's worked for the us trustee for thirteen years i would reject the statement because this is something that all think received attorneys do  understand that the appellant appealed that order to the executive executive committee and they dismissed for lack of jurisdiction yes so my question i guess is is that issue properly before us as appellant waived it or should be remanded to the district court judge because the clerk's office didn't forward it to the district court judge as you might argue the bankruptcy rules require yes i believe the third option is the correct option it should have been sent over to a single district court judge because it wasn't a disciplinary matter happen to occur in a proceeding but it was a straight forward content motion yes and i don't think it's waived i think he did at last i'll just say that as this court has already noted mr hussein repeatedly says that there are no facts in dispute and then goes on to state many things as facts that are contradicted by the record he does not challenge the being the court's findings factual findings is clearly erroneous and i've certainly do not believe that the banks were abused its discretion in permanently suspending and attorney who despite repeated warnings continued to photocopy signatures signed sworn documents on behalf of his clients and repeatedly present false statements to the court thinking thank you counsel anything further mr salem yes your honor your honor in the new case he had four previous warnings he asked for sanctions in this case there was no previous warnings as a matter fact one of the first us bankruptcy trustee stephen will who discovered this testified that hussein asked them to sign blank documents which he later filled in and submitted in the bank and george cox found that that's what happened are you contending that that's clearly your own so i didn't see that argument either here out of the filled out the yes blank document but the point is with respect to all the facts all the details none of them said no i didn't say this wasn't my ass little this was so in other words all the