that in fact you found that we shouldn't be here because in fact the court did not have jurisdiction there are at least four reasons why this is not moved the first reason why it's not moot is very simple there are a myriad of issues that have to do with many things other than the sale of this property this court has purported to take over administration of the trust a matter over which it should have no jurisdiction never should have touched but in doing so it has reported to act and require things  because mr miller remains in this litigation and if that sale is made he is still in the litigation for purposes of making good if that sale is my gift if that still is considered sorry to be good cannot avoid under attack in regard to the fact this court had no jurisdiction at all to decide any issue the bankruptcy court could not is their entire premise not the entire premise this is the main premise of our argument in fact is that is that there was nothing in the bankruptcy court over which the bankruptcy court could take jurisdiction at any time the third reason make an order conveying that property and have that quarter be affected what we call the mother wasn't even assuming it wasn't proper order the order wasn't state property has been transferred aren't the brooklyn bridge argument yes we do we have the bloomberg case and we have the grants case both grants grants one of the fundamental issues and grants which is argued by the other side is that orders and nobody stated that thereby it's a fact and that can't be and the bloomberg case does the same thing in an identical identical circumstance to sixty four rather than c three sixty three it says that if there is no jurisdiction then that does not apply now what i would really urge him to have any interest in the book brooklyn bridge where he did have an interest in the property that he did not have an interest in became an actual interest in the property none of which is true here's the important consideration in regard to jurisdiction that i would like this court please to understand and it is this that this state court in washington decided the new issue of state law it decided that if a state law long before bankruptcy was ever in the picture it and that question of state law was that that trust continued predicate state to try to mention and it was made in this court in this space by a court with jurisdiction to make that decision the only way the bankruptcy court can obtain ways of looking aggressor and analyzing grants and we don't need to reach the hard way i'd be happy to do that although my time being even more or tailed doesn't help us get there but but there are two ways of looking across one of them is that it talks about petition determinations as being outside the rule of rights and that's where we are the only the only catch to that at all is grounds there's pre partition judgments we don't have a judge of the course the only reason we don't have a judgment ranch property from the trust staveley it would be if that and if that determination can be made that also requires a determination of what happens to the yellowstone fly in this case there are many eggs of great concern in regard to who has the rights to it who's going to get paid in regard to duties that they had in regard to the trust where the administrative fees come from who's responsible for the attorneys these including all the attorney that's bad faith and if you couple that with the idea that there's no reorganization we have there's no legitimate reason why you're there for bankruptcy reasons that's further bad faith and in this case  could be read put into the court in writing he filed for bankruptcy and the court in the banks the court decided that the automatic state undergrounds prevented them from doing anything further for weeks before the bankruptcy court as it is that whether this gives you a ground or not just factually correct the bankruptcy was filed in montana before the king county case reached they went out and filed bankruptcy and the court said that that's bad faith in that circumstance but at that point in my life to understand what happened was instead of going to the bankruptcy court in montana and saying we've done all this stuff we want relief from the state to get that case concluded it just went ahead without relief from the state know that i mean half of that is true half of not at that point but she hadn't gone there immediately and now at the hearing date mr miller came in and objected yes if you can't do this because i filed for bankruptcy two days later yes ok the hearing the hearing was scheduled for the twenty first and on the nineteenth mr miller's schedule then he comes in on the twenty first at this hearing and argues that this can't go forward that leads to the state court that is a question of the applicability of th i would propose looking at the in rame again case which specifically leaves this issue open your decision judge fisher specifically leaves this issue open that the question of applicability  we still were talking about the same if you were final judgment had been entered that's correct the final judgment had no you can't really say it's the court were not void they were not going to have an issue that the only reason judgment would not have been entered in this case is because he ran off the bankruptcy court and filed the only reason it wasn't under the titian is that he went off before the judgment center in the state court then that can be appealed well i believe that's incorrect i believe that under grants the applicability of the state can be determined by the state court and if it is business he was land rich but cash for he had land that had never been a part of the trust that he had been unable to sell because of issues regarding easements access there to those issues were in the federal the federal court in montana prior to the king county litigation so he had other issues it wasn't just the trust issue involved second i think if the court looks at this that that the property has been sold that implicates the rights of the purchaser yellowstone flight they're not a party to this appeal especially also mr miller after these preliminary hearings and as the court is aware the bankruptcy process is sort of a fluid process there were a number of orders starting with the ones that are subject to argument today and may june as well september november of two thousand and one after that we had the order of sale in february of two thousand and two we had the confirmation of the plan of the chapter eleven plan in march none of those orders have been stayed there's been no super posted by miss neighborly she had the ability to do those things and so in the present context i believe that they simply under the authorities within the ninth circuit and otherwise that the appeal is moot that with an issue that you're probably not the right person  of the record is that she did request a say right after the sale of the bankruptcy court no bond tendered she then requested the district court in the appeal at that time to the district court the state and when that was granted she asked this court t she's taken advantage of the partition she sold her portion of the property and how come to this court and say under the sale of mr miller has done despite the fact we have a buyer that is not a party to this appeal despite the fact we have a number of creditors who've been paid under  confirmed chapter eleven plan who are not a party to this appeal take that back and proceed i don't think that can be done in terms of the argument regarding easement i will be happy to address that later today but that is a separate issue the easement issue was separate from the in addition what i would suggest to the court that if the court determines the appeal is moot as to the land the sale should stand but there may be some remaining issues on whether and who should have decided how much money was owed now i would first argue that i have  that under the slab case that it was proper for the bankruptcy judge to say i'm the one that needs to determine how much mr miller owes him a snavely or the trust and a proof of claim was filed that will the five day trial in a bankruptcy court the court determined that told a certain amount of money but she offset that against claims that mr miller had completely outside of the king county litigation claim she had in the federal court in montana before the king county litigation he offset her claim allowance of the small amount against  larger amount owed to mr miller there's a net judgment that's the january twenty fifth judgment that was appealed to the district court and the district court affirmed that that is now in this circuit and we're in briefing on that now that matter will be argued i assume in the near future i would be happy your honor to have this panel and look at that argument i would also suggest that a worst case scenario the court should say the land sale is moot that stance that they missed the creditor stand but that we will consider in the occurre there's three other cases after that and that is the appeal or for other people are different than zero two zero three five six case three five two nine zero and three five three one three if you're talking about yes your honor let me just recite i have a i have a matrix in front of me i believe that they were at and they i believe also in terms of our request for judicial notice that we filed in the case that they are referenced there and just against it for the sake of completeness your honour's there have been actually four other appeals after that here that deals from the bankruptcy court the sale to the yellowstone flight that has a nice circuit appeal number of zero three three five seven eight reading has not commenced likewise a list pendants was filed by stable and judge peterson the bankruptcy judge required that the released which it was shipped to again appeal that but no stay no bond posted that's now reached the ninth circuit in zero three three five seven four six the plank confirmation determined in her appeal from the monetary judgment that is the first subsequent appeal that i just referenced feel that we have that how can we i mean how can we possibly make a ruling that references something that can be done in that appeal when that appeal wasn't applying to our panel we don't have the briefing on it we don't know anything about that appeal except what you're telling us right now yes your honor and again there is materials in their request for judicial notice of that and in terms of the mechanism the only thing that i can suggest is one or two alternatives whatever is appropriate within the rules of the circuit i suppose you know we could decide if these appeals we have before us and we could possibly consider whether the circuit should assign  panel because it seems that there may be some interrelation on them but i don't know if that necessarily means that we should try to figure them out because we can come to that later i think that's something  in your honor i'm just trying to address the one issue that i think is the only issue that can survive the movement's claim and here's what i would suggest at least for me i don't like speaking from my colleagues but if the easement issue is not moot then i'd like to hear you address it on in terms of easement it is our position as found by the bankruptcy court that mr miller was entitle to events based on the one nine hundred eighty family agreement and mr judge peterson in the bankruptcy court on november twenty seven made that finding and that is a part of the appeal through two three five three one three which we're here for today and it is our position as stated in the briefs that judge peterson is correct in making that determination that the there is no rel court looks closely at that documentation it indicates essentially that mr miller would sell some of this property the property that is at issue today property that many years later became a part of his plan to this neighbor she had the right to buy it and eliminate these issues easement inability to sell property that sort of thing just diner in the in the western district of washington ran its naval summary judge that mr miller was pro se on that there were no specific findings regarding the family agreement is our position that that is not precluded by rescue to fight or claim preclusion there are different things he was looking for damages there for a time frame up to her up to the time of her bankruptcy so now that you've described a whole series of cases  that could be the case but i would candidly advice the court that roxana actually a mediator with here with the ninth circuit has contacted the parties when they started and we were unable to reach agreement on scheduling one i certainly am not of first you can even agree on scheduling mediation may be expanding beyond that grunts dunbar and again i believe that councils representation about the effect of those specifically the ability of a state court after the filing of a bankruptcy to determine to essentially determine the a of the bankruptcy stain is improper and that under the doctrine of branch dunbar and your honors decision recently and again that that is not the case at the bankruptcy court has the exclusive right to make that determination and that accordingly there is no final judgment that river feldman did not preclude the bankruptcy judge in this case from proceeding as he did as he did for all of the orders that were made and i did want to confirm i believe what counsel ultimately after some painful questioning admitted and that is mr knavery did not upon learning of the filing of the bankruptcy by mr miller and her counsel in seattle were told before the march twenty first hearing that a bankruptcy was filed nonetheless they attended and even though mr miller's seattle is is this court able to grant relief in the form of on doing that sale as the court knows the court and in sacks indicated it involved the yacht got the soul of an object and party indicated that the bankruptcy court there had no jurisdiction over the ice and the circuit there indicated that was not the case and the important focus there was that the sale was authorized not that the sale was proper likewise the other circuits that have  gilcrest hillcrest court basically made the same findings when it was presented with that so and in addition and that's the best of the seven circuits as my recollection my feeling also is that this circuit based on a number of solutions that it has made starting fifteen years ago in the a newly kona land case where it found that the in a bankruptcy case it's very important to have finality it's important to protect third party buyers that under that circumstance and that is i think developed as we pointed out in our brief in the case of since then that i believe that the circuit would find that sac should be adopted even if the party raises the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and i don't admit that even assuming that m miller's then counsel cole says learned that it was miller's view that king county court had to stand down and didn't have jurisdiction your honor i can only speculate but that is which something was done without giving notice to creditors in this case in this neighborly admits that she notice of the motion for sale she got a notice of all of the other matters so and she admits her counsel admits that she has not been deprived of due process so i think if you look at the overlap of the cases here the cases that have developed in the ninth circuit regarding movements and the need for the finality that the nice richard adopts actually in this case should be dismissed as moot i think that's all my time thank you very much you counsel look at the other side likely outcome here what in regard to that what had happened almost is that the case was almost result in washington because the trust would have been distributed with the approval of a co and the accounting what happened next was it was moved to montana and it became the monster that ate missouri it was close and the problem is as we're as i'm here today trying to tell you is  montana court didn't have jurisdiction and shouldn't be there and something else should be done i do want to point out just a couple of things in regard to what was said those mr kelly did present the judge learned that she didn't it like runs you don't have to interpret the law of of the federal law because you know it's a spendthrift trust it never goes there the state would never catch and nothing ever happens that's what state court do that i believe is what grounds allows them to do it's not a court proceeding because it doesn't undo all terminate or modify the stay it's simply the court sitting there and saying this is an issue of state law what's the issues the last say and she could decide that having decided that she went forward holding back on the one issue that would affect the bankruptcy and that was whether or not mr miller had to pay anything in the court he did not decide that he should because that was today but other than that the state in the pli this court could find that she was correct but my argument is under feldman this court doesn't consider that issue because the question of whether or not that trust terminated was the a lot question decided before the bankruptcy ever occurred and certainly also correctly once the bankruptcy did occur the reason for the state laws because at the time as was pointed out there are many things going to try to get the court to stay it everything that could be done was done to try to get the court to say i know supersede this was filed at the kind of mistake it was in her own personal bankruptcy and hype i brought a time so i these we have read the briefing it's extensive so is the record i would simply encourage the two of you while you're here to to discuss once again the possibility of mediation our services serves as a marker open to you if you think that's a possibility please let us know early next week