what is the significance to you of his testimony that one of his reasons for doing it was to show that assets from the particularly aggressive creditor well that  i understand your argument that you're entitled to a trustee because of the private your crime occurred why do you want a trustee basically because i use it does not trust this person that we have   no i don't i don't recall the finding case that the appointment of a trustee would serve the best interest to creditors the bat clearly stated that you seek never delivered the evidence to demonstrate that the value of the assets sold by a trustee would generate funds sufficient to pay so how does that response is the question of whether a trustee that one could trust would be in the best interest of the creditors because maybe the trustee wouldn't sell all the assets and we just managed to put in a way that would give more confidence to the creditors for twenty years and montagne a case open for such a long time it will most probably would liquidate the assets which are over the encumbered it was proven by the debtors that these assets have a value of three point four million dollars yet they have three point five million dollars in lenience it was proven by the debtor who submitted its disclosure statement that contains liquidation analysis which provide steady liquidated these assets today  creditors it just seems an odd finding that if you brought in a new trustee we know they would do something not in the interest of the creditors and if you keep this guy he'll do it that is in the interest of the crowd why would you think that the new is ready to confirm this plan which has the support of all of its creditors and will provide a dividend through the term of the plan in excess of what is equalization would give the debtor has already submitted evidence to the creditors that using a fixed formula and stating in this case these facts have occurred and the case law provides nevertheless and appointment of a chapter eleven trustee is an extraordinary circumstance and appoint a true ok so the first question just is is there any basis for rejecting the conclusion that there was fraud because if there isn't then you have to appoint the trustee right correct but here in this petition first that he had transferred the shares of highspeed to the trust and that the real estate property had been transferred to the trust that he used included in the statement of financial affairs i believe it's item seventeen so after the is no legal impediment nevertheless we understand that you sick failed to carry its burden of proof and instead the debtor brought forth to the court evidence direct evidence which proved the issue of intent th the court use the law and applied it properly when it made its conclusions of law one thing that we need to stress before this honorable court is that you cannot use the case now in a vacuum the bankruptcy court and the testimony of its expert witness it brought forth an expert witness to rebut this evidence and what happened he candidly admitted that he could not make any test any provide any testimony assets and put them in a trust of a kind like this where you have some control it certainly raises all these questions and you acknowledge that the reason you did it was to protect them from any creditor what suggests that that's not prove fraud and especially when i am aware the court provides different you have to see that the inference that needs to be made has to be drawn from the evidence but i'm saying we have couldn't understand i told you not answer you not answer my question that's true i understand that's on the record the debtor testified that he had a reason for doing it and the reason he testified to if i understand it right was to protect the assets from a credit what case indicates that we allow the debtor to choose to shield assets from a creditor based on his subjective assumption of what would be best for all creditors and not call it fraud i just don't see one follow up question my understanding is that there were there was an expert who testified that his shielding who were attempting to handle or delay that one creditor would in the end and you were to the benefit of the other creditors but it was also my understanding that wasn't his testimony his testimony was he did it to you to shield those assets for the benefit of his children you know those are two different thing during his direct examination that yes he did state in the meaning of creditors mistakenly because he did not have a copy of the trust at that time that the beneficiar creditors and the reason that he used the rent in order to pay the credit of the suspects and after the fact he did use the rent to pay the creditors but that his testimony was never that that was the reason that he shielded assets from the want to or am i correct about that i believe that his testimony was that he used he created the trust in order to protect the assets and thereafter pay the creditors