decide that ok secondly is it fair to say that if it were not for this court's actions you would concede that the this stay with the title three quarter would entertain some decision to lift the stay right yes in order to reach that question the title three court person would have to decide that there is a  asked you whether there was any provision that it applies to say yes or no and if you say yes what other provision  the answer you just gave me was that the only reference in this except as otherwise provided applied only to the automatic state in which case you've got a problem there happens to be a special discharge yarder out which is not true with respect to the state that's the idea yes they're saying about it and they knew the discharge provision argument is made in this case isn't it isn't that one of the that understood your answers you like are now down to the argument that the automatic stay can not be construed as stay in response to their motion for relief from the stay was the stay in so far as applied to the execution of the judgment but she in doing that had necessarily concluded that the automatic state applied and not so that can be executed if there's more i don't know but if it's right the significance of that is that if we were to conclude that the state does not apply here we will be then making a ruling that would also overturn the title three courts sometime yes thank you thank you swain it was not brought before her art just on that point is that a student or you making an argument that the question of whether the state parties depends on whether it's retroactive versus perspective really we're not of this morning i don't think there's a distinction and i think what we have is we have clear cut we have a clear cut set of statements by congress with support of legislative history indicating really discharge no the state is not exist for the discharge provision is just about the church and in fact if you were right about section seven you wouldn't need to discharge provision at all i funds here but is that a possible reference for the accept as their wise provided if there were a court order for example requiring the use of  otherwise provided language your brother said actually it refers to this day but it also refers to all of the other incorporated provisions  probing you on that statement because it's a little bit hard for a court to say congress either didn't know what it was talking or phrase that what we tried to emphasize in our papers this is are are our clients and the money they get under a separate gray under section three story of the public health service act went up in a situation where either they grab medicaid money and use it for their argument was that the automatic stay does not simply a temporary stay does not end hair say you should work at least maybe but as a side about it being discharged able or not dischargeable she said this already presumably because we're not even at the point where you'll be executing on any judgment and i understand that must mean because all along is the i don't want to think executed on it until i get a picture of what the whole thing entire title three process works like what would be the practical problem that would pose it wouldn't be any worse than the situation you're in with respect then and that would be by virtue of your hypothetical those who are churchgoing would do then we're really stuck with having the special mr make a decision appealing to the judge helping waiting for that appeal we would have a hope that's exactly know the rebasing has nothing to do with what happens in the state case those weights are set those have been set for some years now on the there was some issues as to some other factors in the original special matters calculations in the reason being the spouse and the child need that was ongoing payments on a regular basis is not so please it's not sufficient to say well let's wait until the end of the bankruptcy and then satisfy the payments we've had we've obligations they filed a petition for a thousand other bees and then the automatic stay had the effect of impeding it well but there's nothing in the sections it says they can do indirectly what they can't do what they can't do directly and so effectively what you're saying about what you say about taking action you don't need to discharge provision because that the provision you're pointing us to itself says you can't compare any of this so why do you need a separate person for it is a charge that it already so you couldn't discharge it as i agree those t will be a good a distinction but i would encourage i would i would remind everyone that in this case the consumers obligation is again very much like a child support obligation it we have a signing by the district court what does it mean that they shall not exercise political authorities and i can understand the discharge of obligation this is a very serious matter we're not there yet yes we're not there yet at least in this case we're not in apparently in the state court medication they're not there either but you want to stop the federal litigation dead and its tracks so that it can never even reach the question of formal sense of the final charge and whether or not we buy a distinction between discharge between compliance obligations and the commonwealth that's coming in and asking us to attractive if in seeking the state you also made it clear that you would not oppose relief from the state to permit rebasing to continue well i just you know can you  should be granted relief from the state so that all the rebasing can continue is a distinct question all indications are judge swing probably would grant relief from the