so you can be translating for him and excuse me it's going to be all right do you or do you agree to give an honest and accurate translation for purposes of the hearing today if i can and so are you going to be of the mortgage electronic registration systems inc first of all to respond to a palance question about the loan documents that show that asp yes has or that there is a valid assignment of we filed our client wild a motion to dismiss on august fourteenth it was accompanied by a request for judicial notice and the request for judicial notice included a manic state was appropriate granted appropriate or anything with respect to our first argument this court was fairly expressed with the power and regarding the record that was necessary to consider this appeal on october eleventh twenty seventeen the court a bankruptcy judge dismissed the adversary proceeding fine in based on findings including inclusions made at the status conference which was held on september twenty first on february sixteenth twenty eighteen this court issued a very specific order saying look if you're going to  to challenge the findings of the bankruptcy judge we need to know what those findings are and in its order this court sided bankruptcy rules of bankruptcy eight zero zero nine a for  the court could have been more clear in his response allen said well it's not really required because i didn't argue anything at that hearing well it's not a palance arguments and common for the importance that it's the bankruptcy judges comments that were important and that's the reason why this court told appellant look get the transcript from that hearing so we can at least know what the bankruptcy of them might all have been important for what the judge did was this positive exactly yeah and then with respect to murder is being dismissed with prejudice as this court knows merz filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that they had been dismissed with prejudice and this court in the chronology is important and i'll say it very quickly and then initial complaint plaintiff's named murmurs in addition other parties and gave specific allegations as murders and then plaintiff filed of first complaint their first complaint totally drops emerges from the caption and all the allegations regarding murders are dropped from the caption at that point our office files a motion to complaint that he wanted to be done with murders his fight was with trinity over whether or not this movie from stay was properly obtained so i thought i read the case and it's in this court's order find the ruling on that motion to dismiss it cited a number of cases and i've read all of those cases and they all seem to be consistent for the fact that well court case each of those cases say look you can file a voluntary dismissal with prejudice if you want to appeal some interlock atory order that had just happened as opposed to making it a plaintive then go through all the motions of a trial and then only get then get to the brass ring issue all of those cases hold that in this instance there was absolutely no determination from the court at all at the time that the plaint murs with prejudice so it cannot be said that plaintive dismissed murders with prejudice so that plaintive could then immediately appeal any adverse rule set so your argument would be that while there may be a which basically says look it's so unfair because the defendant doesn't get that opportunity to get an immediate review but the plaintiff does so we're not going to allow it in with respect to at least a classification determination so all the case law is consistent that there has to be some sort of determination interlocutory ruling by the court that the plaintive wants to appeal in order for this missile with prejudice to be appeal at all transcript isn't is it fatal one hundred percent of the time your client wasn't even involved at the hearing and we have no information in the context of this we have no idea what happened now and we didn't go to the hearing because we were dismissed except yeah understood and were dismissed with prejudice because plaint didn't reference us in his first or second and understood understood thank you very much i thank you and then just finally i'll just point out that his one sole contention in his brief and in his original complaint but not is first and second complaint is that the assignment from or is which i just referenced at the start of the argument the assignment for murders was somehow improper because it was related to a home equity line of assign the deed of trust because the bar agreed when they signed the do you trust that they can hold him so that murders could hold in this on the deed of trust i don't know why that rule wouldn't apply equally regarding first and second