the statute here we're looking at the automatic stay we have to i think just take thirty seconds to reorient ourselves of things we already know right that the bankruptcy is exclusive in the federal system it's exclusive in the federal system as i put in the reply brief historically the founders decided it's got to be federal because it's intertwined with the commerce clause and the limitation of that statute the bankruptcy code is really a change in history from a penal statute in one had debtors prisons and dumps of debt or spurs a nurse into colonies around the world and to a system of redemption where we're getting a fresh start where the honest debtor has a way to reorganize and what happened in this case is there's a whole thing of that power by  the the facts of the case that are important are not disputed right they were listed by the judge the lower court judge for you april th two thousand and ten there's this as eventually a speeding ticket then appears before the court she doesn't pay the fine even though she pleaded guilty and then there's a reissue of a warrant which just remains outstanding we file bankruptcy so then the question is under the automatic sta t can you keep that warrant in place is that a continuation and how broad is this days so there are cases both at the back and then in  question now is if a if a city a miss miss municipality says oh we just left them are in a place where we didn't do anything is that not coercive is that not a violation of the state and state the state issues driver's licenses and the whole of a license is automatically issued from ferguson when they don't get paid and that that whole this is not withdrawn so we as city and the and the minister mccord are one no that's not what i mean you said the state issues driver's license right i'm not asking for that oh i'm sorry it's the state that decided to revoke the driver's the state that issues and therefore commercial why would i be asking the state to reissue the carvers listens because there are there's case law that sad that the driver's license in and of itself is not proper to be a state and there's bad i'm not sure about that but why aren't you asking the state to reassure the driver's license why are you asking the city of ferguson to release something why don't you just ask the state if if you believe that the city of ferguson is prohibited from enforcing this fine why can't you go to the state and say reissue my driver's license because they can't enforce that fine but they'll send me to the city well how do you know th i completely understand if the this is a collection matter right so in order to have forced the collection you have a war and you say you know you could be picked up in a time pay the fine right so we want money outside of the bankruptcy system we want it now but don't worry we may or may not arrest you so but there's been no arrest correct the warrant hasn't been enforced correct well w no question there is has been no arrest and i apologize ok yes so there's been no arrest what action is the city taking i mean that the only the only action that seems to me that could take place is the arrest i don't think any of the three of us would disagree that arresting her post petition would likely be a violation of the state but that hasn't happened yet the continuation is the  and sixty two the word coersion well your honor the commencement or continuation and then it has including a bunch of different things but the bottom it comes down to but comes down to an action or proceeding which to me suggest a legal action a legal proceeding administrative action in all of those things that's all done now correct you won't do the warrant was only out of that in no license was only suspended in the warrant issued following the conclusion of general proceeding that's done what else what other action or proceeding is ongoing post petition well my argument would be if you hold a gun to a person's head and then that person the state from pulling the an action become action and the point of when does in action become action is because of the coercive nature of the inaction but even if the warrant is after an on a warrant guessing the bankruptcy court reaches a different conclusion and we certainly would on appeal and i'm guessing but they haven't done anything since the petition was filed and you mention the action vs inaction cases do you have a case in which an action was not either exercising control over property of the estate which two of the cases you cited involved or a case in which the creditor for whatever reason admitting that they were withholding the student's transcripts in order to get paid i mean talk about your ideal case as a debtors attorney those are the three cases i read that you cited as to none of those are the case here the city is not saying pay up and the city is not exercising dominion or control over property of the estate and i know you're in your bottle time but be thinking about this question i haven't i'm not aware of any case and i don't believe you cited any case where mere in action without anything else was a violation of the state and that's what we need to need to hear from you about you want to save your rebuttal time that's fine but we'll talk with mike that i might as well address that issue well i'm sorry go ahead and just be taken o i understand you think you know this is this is a case of st impression going to matter that that stands for the proposition that if you are threatening the debtor which you are by having a live warrant available if you are stopping her because of this letter to the state from getting her license then you're effectively prohibiting her from using the fresh start so you have to go back to the purpose of the code the code is to get the debtor through and if you throwing up roadblocks you can't do that so this simple matter would be just like any other garnishment issue where i pick up the phone i speak to opposing counsel and i say hey you know you have to dismiss that case in the state court dismisses the case of what we can and they can refile but if you leave everything in place if you leave the garnishment place and the money comes flowing out it's not just the holding of money it's the money is as you say that's the difference though yeah but i'm irish mint the money will come out with the arrest warrant in place if they just they arrest warrant and don't execute it she's not that's a class action suit that's happening now if she just happens to be in a car and they pull that car over and they say everybody show me your license she's off to jail she lives with that fear every day that's the fear that fear  same distinctions that your predecessors and other matters have already found there's a clean distinction and it came out loud and clear in your honour's questions during pounce councils argument there's a clear distinction between the existence of a warrant that was implemented pre partition and the enforcement action in furtherance of that war post petition that distinction is clear and the existing case law that  that the city can't enforce the warrant yes your honor what about somebody else if if the city has a warrant out there and the debtor happens to be in st jurisdiction that officer is practicing and acting with then would have an issue with respect to the violation of the automatic stay and i can't speak to i think that's one of the core problems with the nature of the people how would that officer kno an officer in st louis know that she filed bankruptcy in a carrier force i don't know that there's a way for an officer and a different municipality or a different state different jurisdiction altogether to know and they may inadvertently the apparatus of traffic enforcement in the state of missouri this is a domino effect rule thirty seven of the miss rules of civil procedure sets up this apparatus and it's for our purposes for relevant purposes starts with the two thousand and fifteen warrant that's issued as a matter of course under the rules without discretion at the point that the the debtor fails to maintain her on payments that that she's agre at that point the war exists and it can be revoked but it doesn't need to be and that's really the core question before this panel and the the issue i think legally that that's presented by these very apt questions bankruptcy creditor doesn't tell its collection agency and the collection agency you know at some point in time goes out and does something the question is would that be a violation i mean to be a violation of the state but you know for willful because the creditor didn't take any action to stop essentially it's agent from taking any action so here the question is if the if the city doesn't do anything and she's picked up inadvertently isn't that the the same kind of thing isn't the same kind of thing where where you're taking the cities taking no action and by leaving the warrant out she can get picked up and would be picked up if she were stopped presumably they'd see there's a warrant and they would arrest but there there's no notification going out saying there's a bankruptcy the warrant state officer or patrol person in missouri or any other state but i don't think that the record is indicative that that has or has not happened but but the argument of the appellant is just by virtue of having the war circuit and they draw that clear distinction that when there's it i think the questions that were raised by the analysts respect to a garnishment of directly on point and that's the distinction that wanted dead or fails bankruptcy mean isn't automatically extinguish but the teeth within the gershon act or state and that's a distinction that any number of things could happen in the course of the bankruptcy the bankruptcy become to a screeching halt but debtor in this case could enter a confirm those plan payments are made and it eventually discharges the debt in the ordinary course and the case was clear that when that happens then and only then is the arrest warrant required to be lifted because there is no step i think the problem is that it's it's quite foreseeable that if this panel were to go against the majority and to go against the backdrop of the corpse within the th circuit and find as the opponent asks you to a literal get out of jail free card for debtors the st thing that you do when you find yourself incarcerated this caller and have him or her file a bankruptcy petition for you and then you're automatically  its ability to enforce from a business a completely different situation now i mean we're talking we're tapping fines we're not talking incarceration we're not saying the state or anybody has to release some of which and which is true the criminal cure isn't civil enough the fines that will be discharged at the end of the bankruptcy they will be but they haven't been yet and nd thing is that in the state of missouri a traffic citation in violation when someone speeds in a school zone there's a consequence and the consequence is that you have to show up to court and if you don't show up to court a show cause order is issued and if the show if you fail to show cause or if you fail to show up for the next court hearing existence of a warrant that issued as a matter of course constitute an action that would be new ground in the th circuit if if this panel work to hold that it did and it would cause the lack of coherence with the existing case would put us out of step with the majority of circuits and bankruptcy courts have decided this exact issue and it would cause missouri traffic enforcement apparatus to need to be totally overhauled i think that's really the purpose for which we're separate those cases where we spend all our time talking about the arrest warrant the council also is asking that the city issue some sort of notice to the state to reinstate the debtors driver's license are we missing a party for that one i think you i think you're right there are that we are missing a party i can't speak to those decisions not to join the state of missouri through its department of revenue as a party to this action because you can't compel the state one way or the other and that's correct your honor i think there's at least an argument that if the city were required to take some action like that that that would if not by the letter at least by the spirit of the automatic compliance and secondly contrary to the spirit of the stay the whole premise is to maintain the status quo whereas we would be required to take some affirmative obligation doesn't exist in the bankruptcy code that no bankruptcy court or bankruptcy zero says hey if there's a restriction on a license right it's under subsection d if there's a restriction of a license well that's a violation automatic state except if there was but that's there's no commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding however your honor the debtor can't get a license why because there's a restriction place on her license by the city i'm not disagreeing with that i understand that but i'm saying that what you're arguing doesn't fit under a one because there is no action or proceeding that has been continued post petition all the doings have been done so to speak right but how can one justify that versus the the holdings of money right i mean you've set aside independently before the holding some money case the s b c reinhard type issue so if i'm just holding the money remember the garnishment was prior to s p i didn't do anything they just got the money i didn't do anything the the issue is about our all to my way power to coworkers and that's why we