valerie geddes is the court room deputy and she will serve as your time keeper and she will let you know when your time to argue has expired and she will also give you a two minute warning and i believe the appellant's in these four cases have also reserve some time for rebuttal argument so with those pulmonary comments i believe that we are ready to proceed amendment mr breslin has suffered and is suffering immediate injury because the three statutes implicated in this chapter eleven individual bankruptcy case where where a trustee was appointed the he moved to dismiss the chapter eleven early on which is in the record and right was denied by the court but he has not moved to convert to he has not in fact under we'll be back where we started well judge they can't force in our point is they can't force him into an eleven with a trustee because his post petition earnings his post eleven but when you file a chapter eleven i don't see why the the person who files eleven doesn't submit all the consequences of an eleven point he voluntarily is not involuntary well your honor i'm not saying it's a constitutional right to a chapter eleven i suppose congress could choose at some point in time to to rip remove chapter to title eleven i suppose but what i'm saying is he has a constitutional right under the th amendment to which says neither slavery nor involuntary servitude if the remedy is the remedy if the remedy from and it seems to me like he has submitted himself to that and has agreed to let me give you a good analogy so then the chapter thirteen context which is a smaller version of an individual reorganization case congress and congress did his homework there we know that and they may and congress made because of this very conundrum we're talking about said that no individual may be in voluntarily placed we would like to charge them as the constitution permits us to charge them with knowledge of what they're submitting themselves to or your honor the constitution like this court does not make a distinction between those with less assets or more assets the constitution doesn't make a distinction between those who have the wherewithal to have counsel and those who may not the consulate it but it kermit's congress to make a distinction congress can ask for more  time you know where i'm coming from well i just want to say the grand stoplight here is the constitution congress can congress recognize that in the chapter thirteen context the point is they missed it in the chapter eleven context the th amendment does not make such a distinction and so when they when they didn't take into it take it into consideration in the chapter eleven individual context congress ran that red light separate to to beat back the district court standing holding you have to get all the way to the position that there's a thirteen men the violation here well we say there is standing and it is and not only that if he quit working for the estate and say he went to work for someone else i mean just some other company his post petition earnings would still come into this estate so essentially the other side is saying well he can just stop working but he must subsist now he does have social security income but that's exempt that can't be taken into consideration as a pot let me ask you this before your time expires the voluntariness component judge carnes was asking you about obviously runs the m amendment claim which pertains to involuntary servitude but does it also weak in your standing argument the fact that you walked into chapter eleven kind of eyes wide open no because when when mr britling came into the case he did not have a trustee appointed to thirteen cases have trustees automatically appointed but it was when the trustee was appointed and when one thousand one hundred and fifteen a two brought his post petition earnings in and when he had no way out under one thousand one hundred and twelve to convert or dismiss that was the trigger and let me say there importantly that the the rightness issue yes there's not a plan yet but in a chapter thirteen case again by analogy there is not a plan for a period of time in the gap period prior to the filing of the plan the post petition earnings of the individual debtor are turned over to the trustees account the same exact thing is happening here i the same exact thing is happening here and i'm sorry my alarm told me i have completed my ten minutes have i answered your question judge nous and yes we can circle back on  you're in a cave you either move closer to your phone or pick up the receiver is this better you are much better much better going back to injury is well establ african american plaintiff who is complaining about unfair treatment in state employment or something and he says my injury is that i didn't get the job or whatever it was injur money that has nothing to do with whether or not he has adequately alleged any protection violation discriminatory intent and the like he has alleged in monetary andree good enough we say now let's talk about the merits your honor in that case p alleging that his injury is a loss of his ability to work for himself and put money in his pocket isn't he alleging that's what he is suffering earn is being taken away from me and put into the bankruptcy state against my wishes it's just like if somebody came and said you've been doing a good job we're going to take your salary and it's not an injury on the th amendment so the marriage which goes to the merits he's alleging his injury is a loss of his ability to keep his income that he earns do that i don't really think that we have it in our baggage tricks to move to a on to the merits issue which if we were to rule for you on the merits shut up but i fear for your perspective that there might we have never been gradual but there might be only one person on this phone call who think that the merits are inextricably intertwined with the standing issue and then maybe only case that actually dealt with the troika statutes that i've discussed and it included a statement that had better must not be forced with a choice of either gaining a fresh start through bankruptcy relief or becoming on the other hand indentured servant to creditors and further the courts should indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of constitutional rights council to let mrs judge well so him and let me ask let me just ask you this question and your argument is that to the extent that he has an injury now and or in the future he's going to be forced to pay creditors with post petition income and he's going to be working for the trust involuntarily against his will that's his concern my question is how does that make him different than any other chapter eleven better well here because of the troika of statutes as a when congress in two thousand and five under the bankruptcy abuse prevention and consumer protection act added one thousand one hundred and fifteen a two which put his post petition earnings for services into the estate combined with a trustee combined with no way out he was immediately injured and that happens before a plan because under the statute those post petition earnings are actually being put in the trustees account now now and like i said earlier even if he wants to work for a starts a process in which his income filing belongs to the step but at that point there was no trustee and very very say that congress is way out he can still dismiss with the call and he not he can he he can move to dismiss and he did move to dismiss and gave numerous reasons for cause but he doesn't have the absolute right he's in the trap he in other words the trap door can be opened in a chapter thirteen to avoid this constitutional conundrum but he has no such free right in a chapter eleven as it was currently written by congress under the troika that's the problem that is it the three if you have to put the three of the statutes together right but when you put them together that's when you run the red light that's when he doesn't have a way out now there is a way out for this court which is constitutional void and i would say not the constitutional violation can be a can be avoided by this court not because it's not right it is right he's hurt before a plan not because mr britling doesn't have standing he has standing but because there is a way out as found in clemente which again we say is on all fours on this point right on this point that constitutional avoidance doctrine allows you to say is there a way we can avoid this yes he can dismiss the case which he's asked the court to do itself is unconstitutional well then we don't avoid the constitutional issue do did move to dismiss nicole meant a move to convert i will say some of the apple lease on the other side did actually move in the alternatives to dismiss the case they moved for a trustee or in the alternative to dismiss that since you have mutual among the parties like you didn't comment but i do see your point had i answered your question and as well as your able to do some give them all well i see your point our point is that because both sides at least in some context ask for dismissal below it is a way out but let me say in so far as you've got the constitutional issue before you  the same result is what we asked in other words you remand the case find that the statutes as connected the troika are unconstitutional we would ask respectfully that the court