request a denial of discharge and there was a motion for default judgment and that default judgment was ultimately granted and the core of the issue is whether or not the  trustees filing of asking for the extension of time and subsequent default judgment was was had a basis and if you look at the seven issues that the trustee raised as the basis this charge each one of them were on the record as having a date that it was a known issue and according to rue four thousand and four any time that there's a known issue that could lead to  until six years after the court stated what the deadline was which was november two thousand and thirteen well let me let me stop you there because i agree with you in part i disagree with you in part and said that there are a lot of reasons and some of mirror yes you're absolutely right but the fact that you hadn't produced certain documents and the conclusion that you did and that you had not told the truth during trial and and read all the issues and we look at the no juice issue in particular which is the sailors thought i feel that that could be fair out of all those issues there's only one pending item that may have been used and if you look at attorney who's a well known attorney in here in hawaii you know knew what use where there were security and loan documents and the documents that are provided actually substantiated that it was alone and not a sale of st mean yeah i'm trying to get you to focus on we come into an appeal with certain constraints and one of our constraints here today is we're going to assume because we have to that you s stock you should have sold that it was twenty five thousand dollars was an five which is not nothing and that was determined very shortly before her arm he granted i think stench of time to  court to consider my discharge using what ears and to me there was one issue there was room which was possibly the no juice twenty five thousand dollars chair and i'd be happy to  within a hearing with that judge how that that one check could not be a basis for d h discharge and the problem i have with it is that in the judge's order he writes all d these reasons that were untimely juice if is order was specifically only about the no juice he was able to dive in it and he was specific and said there was one check out of fourteen that i route to be a stock it didn't even say stock sale on it you know if you was more specific about the type of documents i've produced which actually eliminated the trust these other fourteen checks that he thought so i showed these loan documents that showed it was a loan not a stock s and that was the documents i produced a court order for to many said ok yeah these are these are valid it's not a stock sale but this one show i'm ruling that it's a stock sale and i feel like if if i were hearing on the  doorknob discharge was pacific to that one check that's a fair shake because i can i don't think that's a strong you know basis for denial of discharge but to try and add up all these other things where he had no idea that that was going on this case has been going on for seven years i've i've had hundreds of documents you know maybe eight hundred dockets six thousand and seventy motions and appearances i haven't missed any of them the only one i've i agree that the claim of defecation is as i said some of it's pretty stale he he said that the determination in addition to the the determination at trial you produced some additional documents right before trial that should have been produced earlier and he found it trial that you didn't have the trinity said bose two things in and of themselves which i knew inaction in that regard are that's an established fact in this case for him and for us i could understand and i think that the very thing for him to do would be to take all the no stock so he came to the conclusion that this one check was a stock sale even though the memo doesn't say that and that's completely unfair you know for him to jump to this check doesn't have a memo and adam to make sure i understand the record here you you never gonna discharge right correct and that's what congress apparently you did not ever get the financial management education three i got the financial management education finished the trustees saw that i got it done and then they filed for an extension of time but i thought that by because i got a notice from court saying finish your debtor certification i did it if i didn't know i had to do anything else there was no like oh do this or do that then mr painter saw it and right after i filed my daughter certification he filed for his extension of time and whatever it's not a great occasion of yes yes and so for me i have no problem with diving into the no juice issue about the one stock sale i have no problem with defending myself that i did that i did not lie this is the this is the judge saying that he thinks i sold and i'm saying i did not do this there you look at the check you know he has to look have another hearing reconsider the dish charge and throw out all the steel stuff you shouldn't be allowed to s i think that the debtor fails to appreciate the difference between the grounds that would support a revocation of good art and reground that would support the denial of a just charge we moved to extend the time to object to the debtors discharged during that gap period after the original time to  arguing that the twenty five thousand dollars stock sell wasn't right he didn't appear from that so going assume that why didn't you move for an extension when you know way back in the day when you knew he'd  he's not even arguing he didn't do things improperly and some estate assets well because the grounds for revocation and in order to get an extension of time during the gap period you have to have grounds to revoke that discharge that's w specific assets and possession of real property the debtor appeal that appeal is not decided until two thousand and eighteen regarding the turnover of things like firearms thousand four hundred dollars from a rock ira account and rental proceeds the debtor claimed that he couldn't run the ball because he didn't have the money so not having money to turn over things with not in order to you know for a discharge to be denial or turn over has to be knowing and it has to be willful inability would not sustain an objection to discharge  twenty seven dollars complaints unless he has very solid grounds in this particular case the grounds continued to kind of the humiliate over a period of time the longer the case went on the more the debtors death suggest suggested that a discharge denial of discharge would be warranted and then when this no juice issue came up in two thousand and nineteen that was really the straw that broke the camel's back and gave the trust the reasons to revoke a discharge had it been entered which would justify the motion to extend the time and that your your your point is the business decision to seek to deny us class it if he'd done when he needed to do it would have been to invoke present made until the no jews issue came up that prior to that there was some level of concern but and nineteen so it's a combination of that and what app and there is when the debtor didn't turn over assets as required in monetary judgment or the value of those assets was entered against the debtor it was still a deficiency we were able to collect a portion that threw a set off but there was still a deficiency all right and so that wasn't until late in the game that failure to turn over and by that time we no longer believe the debtor regarding his inability to repay the sixteen or two thousand and seventeen we found out he was living in the house often mount a place that was a two million dollars residence so by twenty one thousand dollars we didn't believe the debtor had an inability to or pay or turn over what the court had ordered him to do and we also had discovered evidence that he had in fact after the petition date sold these no juice stock we had requested documents he didn't produce the documents relative to the relevance of that for over two years on the eve of the evidentiary hearing he produced a bunch of promissory notes which caused me to tell the court if these notes are accurate then our claim is reduced from the one hundred and sixty thousand dollars that i originally thought it was to twenty five thousand dollars and that twenty five thousand dollars was clearly a sale of stock to his father as his father had t estified during the hearing the debtor even went so far as to tell the court that he couldn't have sold stock because he never owned own any notes you start even though his ownership of that stock had been listed in this schedule so the debtor just lied to the court about every which way he could now judge ferrous who have appeared before on numerous times in my opinion is a very tempered even handed judge he doesn't go he's very kind to parties that appear before him he doesn't go out of his way to disparage parties but in this particular case he pointed out that mr lee lived to the court that his he had to have been only making these calls and mr lee was i think in judge a noted the failure to produce the documents until the eve of trial and the conduct during the trial and i would add the conclusion of the trial as as three factors that justified  over assets worth you know less than a one thousand dollars is you know grounds for mild discharge you know depends on the circumstances of the case and in this particular case obviously we believed that the proceeds that he had received from the sale it was made was not made to no juice was made to him well that was one of the reasons why the judge found that he had sold stock he personally owned the stock the check was made out to him it was deposited into his personal account it was his that was sold it wasn't repayment of loans that no jews had borrowed he sold the stock and he did this and he did that no i produced documents that showed it was promissory loan to no juice with warrants to convert and my  appeal right yes and you're complaining are you complaining that the trustee should have been actively going after you during the course of that appeal no because that appeal was specifically for the turnover of the home these seven issues that were raised for the motion for extension the time were completely different he was talking about rents that were collected in two thousand and thirteen firearms that h b one hundred the police department had i couldn't turn him over and and the judge said turn over this money and i told him i don't have it but they i turned over eighty thousand dollars of the one hundred and twenty dollars something or whatever so i want to hold like thirty something grand and in the big picture things at ten million dollars bankruptcy or whatever it is you know twenty five thousand dollars not a lot in the big picture of things but if you look at the documents i produced it's very consistent with my testimony it was a promissory note that had a warrant to exercise if the stock went well i did not have control of the stocks because it was set aside for investors that could convert into warrants so the judge of turned that into i lied by saying i didn't own the stock i didn't know the company owns the stock and i have rights to have but i sold the war and so and i was trying to explain that to them and it just twis that i lied under oath which is completely not true and and if he thinks i did that you should have a hearing specifically about that one percent not the ninety nine percent i'm asking for a new hearing with the stuff that's not st