good morning your honor and on the suspension matter i don't think there's any published case where you know bath a this found there's no costing of money to the other side there's no delay a take contempt and that i would ask even if you don't have to apply the rules of the court apply it because if your speech if that's all it is that something so terribly you say had an open court and you got six months is only one type of and that's contemptuous speech can rule eleven can you get disciplined under rule eleven the first place to look is the statute under the new statute it's listed what can be done and one part it says other non monetary suspend i think the court without though i think a lantern and creating the a b a standard should be applied in this case when they're not applied then applying the limitation rule eleven can relevance all to something somewhat unfair the judge t limitation which was no more than necessary to deter which was supposed to be done after sanctions that determined that it's a limit and use it more like the measure when it became the measure of sanctions then very egregious behavior and very minor sanctioned the same depending on intractable they are and we think if they send it back and let them know there's no reason it shouldn't be sent back on this one one of the factors that would be helpful to consider would be one of them was harm to the court and the other side this the court within one minute of learning there was such a objection shot it down and within one minute mr keener in the city hearing of these objection that it was gone and they knew david smith was being sanctioned this court in dire said that and that i understand i wasn't a lawyer of a court and dire was talking about a creditor but that was always being applied to lawyers still less than men and it's said that the was aggravation mitigation but they there was like the harm how bad was the harm there was no discussion how sincere was david smith and alleging that there was no disc goshorn and i believe by the way  but that's what everyone does that in party someone in the state can be put in a legal provision and to get rid of a student loan when he found it he never less argued it was binding than it was if it's if this is frivolous it's barely so i would define privilege as something you couldn't get the assent of any judge judge keith london agreed and send and well he commented on it and said that well that they sat on their rights that the court the bankruptcy court said well this is ridiculous and cited one thing thirteen twenty six there has to be a distribution that's not true and there's an objection under five o two there doesn't have to be a distribution and we cited a recent case that the plans on a plan unless it controls how they're paid and that's what he was arguing if it was if it was frivolous it was barely so but i think the fact that the majority of other circuits the sixth circuit says the default position is no security and no pay just want to say that thirteen twenty seven c is a stronger statement than what david smith says and it says this plan is written to say you're secured only if there's a seeding paragraph there is one considered it was there three out of four were considered here only one there's no discussion whatsoever of the believe there's no discussion of harm to the other side you're on i'd like to talk about the other case for the moment i believe that that was in the that shows people can make mistakes and can make very clear cut mistakes the bankruptcy judge will evolve a defense of issues where precluded by the judgement on the cross complaint that's not true the compulsory cross complaint rule says issues issues in a complaint all their defenses and across something they don't fear they're going to lose them because they know the compulsory cross complaint statute says they they won't so when he filed davidson if he had these defensive issues and he's allowed to bring them up under eleven u action using federal issues contrary with the batf said we brought that up to the bankruptcy judge right away there is a california case using the very community development act family planning for santa barbara sixteen california sixty five where mishandling the federal funds was a state court cause of action so when david smith filed did he have those as offsets you've defrauded us you've asked for too much actually he did well i'll agree with the back when they invalidate a lien but he didn't he didn't do that he did more than that he said improperly inducing somebody to lean in and ask for all proper relief so he could have made it affirmative defenses the one action well invoked the rule and professor hendrick are in the leading case of walker says it can be a writ of possession he doesn't use those words but he says if you do an interim judicial act against collateral other than foreclosure final judgment now i understand we're not it's an officially unclear area and we're allowed to argue you don't even have to deliver the judgment because the usual happening is that you get a judgment we'll hear from the city of oakland at this time simply not accurate this was a lawsuit filed have a search sitting in the bankruptcy court alleging various causes of action or claims for relief excuse me of which all had been previously decided by state court judge without leave for men was the third draft it was the second amended complaint so we've gone through the process of a state court judge saying this is what you need to do for this cause of action this is what you need to do for this cause of action and i actually was the lawyer honor i think what the what the federal and that's not for us well let me just finish what i believe what the the what the federal district court's ruling was that there was no private right of action to printing a claim or this that rule and that's found in oak oro and a core of says that it is a final judgment as to the reason there is no subject matter jurisdiction so in this case the court found there is no private right of action meaning that a citizen law or and the creation of the statute of limitations if that were snow and the dismiss they did what they did what he did was file a lawsuit separate from the chapter thirteen bankruptcy plan and all of those other procedures that were going on they brought a separate adversary proceeding to asking for affirmative relief against my client making allegations based on costs of actions that have already been decided in state court now it wasn't a defense in that if you if you swallow that long then of course everything court judged to that effect that we had met the requirements of that procedure just as a general matter and i suppose this spills over to the other case you're not recurred course to comment on it why wasn't this referred to bankruptcy courts that this is happened so i don't was really sure the procedure myself and i looked at the same rules that i think were discussed earlier i don't not know would you agree that's the better practice i don't know  another reason that this should seem to rely quite a bit on this floor is past history right and no record happened in other cases i think she looked at that when she decided what amount to sanction i don't think she looked at that when she decided whether or not rule nine zero one one was violated i think she looked at that to see what would be a deterring amount to decide to to to that amount turned out to be the amount of the attorney's fees that the city of oakland incurred in this but i do not think she she made any determination as to the violation itself regarding past practice i just don't not believe that i did not see that ok thanks thanks for your going today counsel you have one minute and two big your andrew smith and david smith as the involved lawyer ok your honor i think and we say you know we paid that's a pure defense of we never got the money what attorney would have told brooks hamilton after the right before trial you know you got to roll over play dead you've lost everything it's reached your you never get your day in court judges are told don't find it readily it denies the day in court attorneys much more so should think that way thank you thank you thank both sides for their argument the case is just argued will be s