forty pages to be exact although i'm not as old as moses i share his graying hair and have aged considerably over this whole ordeal thus it would be more accurate to say that i have spent more than four hundred days and would have any impact or effect on my former bankruptcy the state or bankruptcy case there was no estate remaining to be minister led to the rule forty one be dismissal for the alleged prosecute although mr hanson is certainly no clarence darrow he at least motion the bankruptcy court to transfer the refund claims back to the district court and read the parties discuss returning the case back to the district court with judge patel as shown in that court transcript which is filed with this court so even if judge withheld so even just which i was aware of and was open to a future transfer of the tax refund acknowledge a mistake at this point and say that we drafted the first argument of our brief under a misapprehension i have begged the court's pardon i was under the impression and i just missed it on more that the claims for refund had been filed after the bankruptcy proceeding as he points out in this reply brief the claims for refund were filed before the bankruptcy proceeding and he received notice before the bankruptcy proceedings that they were denied therefore when we argue that the honor i hope the court will understand my delicate position because i'm a lonely lonely government trial attorney last line attorney i came to this realism and late and the powers that be would really have to come in doing my research i also came across another point that troubles me in ruling in on rule seventeen matters that a real party and interest may be substituted for the plaintiff who has brought suit there is at least one case and there may be more that says that is such a substitution may be allowed when the plaintiff establishes that he brought the action in his own name as the result of an honest and understandable mistake now mr dunmore may well have done that didn't make findings of fact on that yes i i would hope so that the court could perhaps simply say that in any event the rest of the rulings were completely correct and that would not be necessary  over and over in other cases and they we're not going to get anywhere on that at all i can appreciate your honor's decision that if there has been you know procedural difficulty and misunderstandings along the way can't we try to find a middle ground but frankly until i step to my innocent toe into this case i don't think the government made any procedural conclusions of law presented before the bankruptcy court trial date that didn't occur then lack of cooperation then spend i will grant mr dunmore a lot of effort on his part but there's also been mass confusion  and lack of cooperation and as you'll see from the records too the issues have changed with practically every filing that's made it was until a summary judgment motion was made very late in the case that mr dunmore raised the  discharge ability of several more tax years the government has been hindered and delayed itself in preparing for this trial and then coming to a resolution and so the bankruptcy courts decision to dismiss for failure to prosecute was entirely correct down i can understand if with all think about this for a little while but if you have no other questions i stand by ninety five percent of our brief thank you can thank you for time are you have about am or the the trustee is out of all the people is the least aware the trustee has no personal knowledge you've never read the entire record nor has he read the declarations i have three declarations certified public accountants have over thirty five opinion but they're not frivolous also i was winning this case before i bought this morning the government was willing to settle this case but i didn't want to sell it because it means i would have to give up all my refund money which i believe was legitimately due to need for the government to see that they'll drop their counter claims of millions of dollars that to me that's told me that their claim was of a list that they had really no basis in fact their website claims against me to try to force me to compromise i told prosecute because that clearly will show that there is case law from the u s supreme court that shows that there is no free to prosecute when timely objections are made before trial thank you thank you very much f