burden of proof will counsel you seeing what they said about a burden of production you think they also erred i'm talking about a burden of production on your client i think the injuries that to me are that's that's my point and i will get into that o some years he made a three hundred thousand dollars some years he barely made one hundred thousand dollars all during the for your book back period so i don't think you can just do it that way  persistent that this court might prefer so even though both correspond that the calculations were arbitrary they said well it doesn't really matter because that we found is more than  we're presenting to you today something other than some argument on jurisprudence or some novel theory of law i regret that we're not discussing whether or not certain eighty years of history even comment specifically about the mortgage payments and saying that obviously we have to leave enough for that and he did and george bush went through that same analysis i without the seven hundred forty thousand fifty thousand is less than one hundred ninety two so help me with that problem right  we what we can do is we can look to actual fact that the transfers into the account were well mirror the nine hundred thousand dollars the wages the subset of wages that we're talking about that went into that account and that's what judge uniform five and transfer other to accepted by most unions in the country it's not just the ages that we're talking about to be functionally transferred this account it's any money that belongs to the individual judgment better that might be trashing the account that would be a took out a subset from what he can deduce from the evidence that he had before him and that subset was just the way just because it's just that mine that i'm in the tax return that he drew from it's just read his tax return offers up evidence of all sorts of different from one party to another that's the transfer and from there we deduct the necessities judge markets way back when it suggested in both titus and our best that we have to look at it slightly different the trustees burden was not so much that simple in motion that made it less than simple the case was such that the trustee first says here's the amount of money that was transferred and instead of just saying that's to duck the things that were non necessities so we have to go and prove up each non necessity individual and we groceries and so i don't think we have that reconciliation you're suggesting rob because we don't get there on first so that we get to a place where i think in the end we don't get to the best dollar not i don't think we've got some of the best analysis and at times i agree that it's troublesome as counsel has pointed out to go through this analysis in this fashion in fact even judge a christie says he didn't like the analysis but was bound by it so is it specifically says he doesn't like the dollar for dollar there was a spouse who deposited money into the entire visa count we don't have that here there's an admission by both the part of the friend is that there were no deposits by betty reddick into the entire u s account so we didn't but yes i can assure you that that case has been affirmed before the third circuit and the parts that were funded include the analysis that we're discussing today balloted for the burden of proof burden of persuasion and the one that we're not are going to say and that was this instead of a car or two cars for seven people but what's more as this is work it's actually quite stunning in the pre season that all sorts of evidence is being presented in the document here before the third circuit for the very first time that clearly is not part of the record and we go into great detail and show which statements made in a race are nowhere in the adventure of the record the speculation his memorandum opinion this rise of twenty three was not offered i put before the court it wouldn't matter it simply wouldn't matter it wouldn't change anything except perhaps for the better for the the fact of the matter is it was not presented for the quarter certainly nor thirty that the trustee breached his duty by not offering something that was a pretrial statement and evidence that he did not use during the trial itself and their last complaint is that the mining case which is a bankruptcy court opinion relied on by all the justices in this related cases that these types of transfers are in fact fraudulent transfers subject to the offsets that the court is aware of have to still comes in and that they're not for absolute transfers and i think that as judge fisher noted in the membrane opinion i just don't see why we need to spend much time on this because it's pretty well accepted we're not sure how because of that being the direct deposit issue is not why they're saying it's not you know i wouldn't go to speculate it is that they're making this argument the way they are i think there is discussion in their brief about this direct deposit issue that was absolved that was resolved by virtue of mr ruddock's testimony saying of course i directed that the wages went into this entirety to get out how do we know that that is one that it may have been which would make our case even better make it because we'd be starting at a higher bar against which we would offset the necessities the more money transferred by the debtor into the entire years ago reminding the court that is the it is the act of moving money from the hands of the judgment debtor into the hands of the wife that constitutes the crotch of the transfer and pennsylvania's extremely unique they're one of the few states in the union that allows entireties for checking so it makes it a little bit more unique analysis transfers which is why there is the comment section in the statute which helps with and offer some guidance in terms of offsets the theory then being that because it's going to the wife and that is it flies in the transfer but it's also a joint account in from that joint account you may be making expenditures for necessary expenses we need to offset that's why that's a unique analysis to pennsylvania's problem with that said you are it's that movement of the money into the entire if more money than what we're talking about was moved into the into the entire his account by the judgment debtor would have a bigger just because we'd be starting the bar higher against which would offset the well again you're on a good history of cases such as there's been a made many judicial hands touching these cases are by unfortunate circumstances with the death judgement call and so on so for from the retirement just markets so a lot of a lot of judges have thank you i would like to address judge good omens last question first as to why were the tax returns to question which we believe they were not odd there is a very similar case schedule i hear you say that there's about one point two million i mean come over this period of time and of course that's nine hundred thousand that's what the lower courts are trying to say when they say that you know if anything by doing the one thirty three we're going