from the back if you are not answering the question well westerners as a matter of bank federal bankruptcy law under the federal bankruptcy act and the order matic stay as soon as there is a petition for out of it well let me then ask let's assume you're wrong about that and the order of manic state he would upon notice to the state board freeze that could the bankruptcy court then once the attention is brought the right issue to make a decision whether to permit lift the stay and permit the state proceedings to run its normal course on the tax issue yes has to become final before the bankruptcy case commenced and by then under this and or the reading you're now getting it by definition if the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction because the state proceeding is not final there therefore cannot be a ratio your time is run this is a complicated enough matter we'll give you a minute in rebuttal if you need it thank you because i believe it is important here and also help clarify i believe in the statement by mr bartlett depending on the stage of the proceedings in front of the state board of equalization pending at the time of the bankruptcy three sixty two a one would stay twentieth the there was no chris eating in place there was no the procedure of the proceeding was not to say the claim there was meant merely the ministerial passage of time between when the email went out the e mail to governor davis was dated may eighth and it wasn't until post petition june fifth that the state court responded to the e mail saying we received your e mail to governor gray davis and if you like we can can we can treat this as a petition for rehearing you need to let us know if you don't want us to do that and it's clear it's not clear in the record your honor that's the timing of that ok it sounds as though what you're asking us to do is to say that there's some requirement bankruptcy judge to review the facts of the case to determine whether some of the cases looked at has there been an opportunity fall for a full and fair hearing and if there's an interlocutory decision after the parties have gone back and forth and there's been  or something like that the bankruptcy court judge can say well these people have had you know they've presented evidence and there has been and if you take a stand or they can look and say well they've presented their evidence they presented evidence the state board has come back with a about the word final and they knew where to put it in the code section or into where to put it in the code if they wanted and also another policy against requiring finality as almost all of these administrative agencies decisions have an appeal period give you a hypothetical way in which maybe the statutes work when someone files a petition and the bankruptcy court the order maddux they have section three sixty two immediately becomes effective operational law the reason for that is to freeze the status quo so that the bankruptcy court can take charge of the assets marshall  they so that other litigation can continue and run its course sometimes the bankruptcy court says ok you can continue with that class action or you can continue with that effort to retrieve some property but that's not on a case by case basis now why shouldn't the statute be construed so that with respect to taxes it works the same way if the bankruptcy judge feels that the system is almost on the verge of giving a final adjudication the bankruptcy judge can simply say ok go back to state court let it run its course come back here in a few months and we will treat that adjudication in doing the final accounting on the other hand the bankruptcy judge may say no it's not far enough along that this court is in a better position to adjudicate make a decision just a final adjudication would be something that the bankruptcy judge would have discretion to either keep for his or her own docket or to farm out to the state court to finish up its job and what's wrong with that perhaps no good deed goes unpunished and you treated the e mail to the governor which you didn't have to do but you did and you treated it as a motion for rehearing you were trying to do a good deed and you got hosed on that it seems to me that you then judicata issue because the petition for rehearing which is the way that any i was treated became final in september of two thousand and this claim of action hearing started in about june of two thousand and one and that's why the bankruptcy court judge that was even the race judicata ruling as a de facto this is too much latin not crow tongue lifting of the automatic stare and then recognition of the judgment that was entered in violation of the automatic stay