[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
jose jesse s been listen appearing for aptly uh... all right mister she would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal uh... good morning your honors uh... i would like to reserve the entirety unless the court has any questions uh... questions uh... you know i do have a question uh... this rajeev i i want to hear from you the outset i mean

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
Understand, it's your position that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in entering the order approving the trustee's settlement with the Levine firm and the Kate legal group, correct?

[00:00:44] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
On reviewing this issue, the Ninth Circuit in the ANC properties cases, in the ANC properties case, directs the bankruptcy courts to consider four factors

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
I want to hear from you, which of those four factors specifically, specifically, which of those four factors did Judge Latham fail to consider?

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, my position is... Could you please come closer to the microphone?

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
We're having trouble hearing you.

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
Is that better?

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
Not really.

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
Let me try to... Maybe just speak up a little bit if you can then.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
Is that better?

[00:01:26] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, my position is that the question of fundamental jurisdiction goes to the heart of the due process and we should... Well, that's not my question.

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
I want you to address the four factors in the ANC properties case.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
And if you don't remember them, I can understand that but I can give them to you, the four factors if you want.

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
I'm familiar with them, Your Honor,

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
a procedural ANC properties test I believe is supplanted by due process of we wouldn't even get to a hearing on the chapter seven trustees hearing, but not for the bankruptcy court giving legal effect to a constitutionally invalid order.

[00:02:15] Speaker 03:
There would be no.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
Let's assume then we've gotten there.

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
Let's assume that we are looking at ANC.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
and the court is concerned about the ANC factors.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
I want you to have the opportunity to address them.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
Well, again, my position is... I know that, but what if we get beyond that?

[00:02:36] Speaker 03:
What if you lose on that position?

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
I did ask you... That would mean that the judgments are valid and I wouldn't have an appeal.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
Essentially, if we get to ANC properties, this court would be giving legal effect to the prior orders, and I wouldn't have an appeal.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
I would lose.

[00:02:58] Speaker 03:
I'm having a hard time understanding this.

[00:03:02] Speaker 03:
Is it your position that all of the ANC factors were considered by the court, by Judge Latham?

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
So, again, respectfully, we shouldn't even be in Chapter 7.

[00:03:18] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
But now we are, okay?

[00:03:24] Speaker 03:
And Judge Latham was looking at the ANC properties factors.

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
Which one of those, if, you know, take it as a hypothetical for you that we're there, which of those factors do you think that he made a mistake?

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
I believe the ANC factor should not have been before Judge Latham.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
And again, the court is getting past that.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
So let me just clarify then.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
So you're not challenging his specific rulings on the ANC property factors in this appeal, right?

[00:03:57] Speaker 01:
You're challenging the jurisdictional issues which you say come before that.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
Is that correct?

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
My understanding, and that's what I was going to argue here today,

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
is that unaddressed jurisdictional issues are being instead argued with citations going to the merits of the orders without ever establishing personal or subject matter jurisdiction authority of the San Diego court to render such a judgment.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
And so that becomes a constitutional issue before a court can

[00:04:35] Speaker 00:
decide matters of ANC properties.

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
I wouldn't file this appeal if I believed that the orders of the San Diego court and the conversion order and beyond and the trustees authority to settle them were valid.

[00:04:54] Speaker 00:
And I believe that when addressed jurisdictional issues remain in my case and they will continue in my case

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
because the court is simply not ruling.

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
And by the way, this is in addition to everything that the opposition has put in their brief.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
It doesn't contest any of my allegations of jurisdictional issues based on that.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
So are we to ignore the state court ruling?

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
No, you're absolutely to exercise what I believe is a duty of the court to validate that the San Diego court had jurisdiction.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
That's not before us, Mr. Aji.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
I think we can get to the heart of that.

[00:05:44] Speaker 04:
That is not the issue before us.

[00:05:46] Speaker 04:
The only issue before us is the approval of the settlement, and that's why

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
Judge Corbett is asking you what was wrong with the settlement.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
So to the extent you want to continue to challenge the jurisdictional basis of underlying liabilities that caused the bankruptcy, understand that.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
But that's not before us and that's not what the bankruptcy appellate panel is going to address.

[00:06:09] Speaker 00:
So I guess that what I'm trying to make clear I thought I made in my brief is that

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
an order that is void an order giving validity to avoid order is we're not the ones to decide that that that is what what you're hearing from all three of us I'm not asking for the court to declare the San Diego judgment void I'm asking the court to

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
see what grounds was given to the authority of the LLME settlement.

[00:06:41] Speaker 00:
And based on that, it gave effect to a legally void order.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
I'm not looking to have that judgment declared void.

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
I'm just looking that this LLME settlement gives effect to a unaddressed jurisdictional issue.

[00:06:55] Speaker 00:
And based on that, this LLME settlement that is before the court should be vacated.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
Well, the issue is really different than that.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
Let's say someone has what some people believe is a frivolous claim, and maybe there's no basis for the judgment, but somehow they got a judgment, and it's there.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
What the trustee is settling is, and what the parties are settling is, whether it's good or bad, we should look at

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
whether it makes sense to get rid of it and if somebody's willing to pay something to get rid of it and the trustee thinks that that number is fair and the court looks at it and thinks that it's fair and it's appropriate under the circumstances, we're going to do it.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
We're going to get done with this.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
It's a pragmatic approach.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
But Your Honor, I'm not arguing whether the judgment is good or bad.

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
I'm saying that it's jurisdictionally defective.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
That's a different distinguishable argument, in my opinion, because even the parties fail to object to the evidence of the jurisdiction.

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
They keep going with it.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
What if there was no judgment?

[00:08:08] Speaker 03:
What if there's no judgment and people just have claims?

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
And the claims were before the bankruptcy court.

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
People are saying, well, one side's saying they're never going to get a judgment.

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
But the trustee gets somebody to pay some money, and they can settle it.

[00:08:27] Speaker 00:
That's the crux of my argument is I filed for Chapter 11, which means I would be indebted or in possession.

[00:08:35] Speaker 00:
I was divested.

[00:08:36] Speaker 03:
That's not before us either.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
This is a Chapter 7 case.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
Before us is not determined, we're not determining today or when we get around to writing the opinion and whether or not you should be in 7 or 11.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
That was decided by a different order and that's not before us.

[00:08:55] Speaker 00:
But the fundamental jurisdiction remains unaddressed, Your Honor, and we can go down 20 more rulings.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
A void order cannot give effect to subsequent orders.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
It's just whether I'm in Chapter 11 or Chapter 7, I believe that the court must decide that the order being challenged and being used to obtain legal rights for the trustee to settle this is jurisdictionally defective.

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
Where should that order be challenged?

[00:09:25] Speaker 00:
Well, unconstitutionally entered ordered, whether lacking subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, can be challenged in any proceeding where they're being asserted as being valid.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
And the LLME settlement specifically mentions the San Diego judgment as its authority to give enforcement to it.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
And to me, that's a

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
I think the problem that I have is you're conflating here.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
Go ahead and challenge that order however you want.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
It's not before us.

[00:09:57] Speaker 04:
But you voluntarily filed bankruptcy.

[00:10:00] Speaker 04:
You voluntarily filed the 11.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
But with that came all the attendant consequences.

[00:10:04] Speaker 04:
And this is the consequence of that, right?

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
There was a 7.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
You can challenge.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
I forget if you've challenged the conversion order.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
Right?

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
So that's all going on on its own separate path, but this path is only as to, in the bankruptcy, the trustee, Chapter 7 now, obtained the rights to administer the estate.

[00:10:28] Speaker 04:
This is the means by which the trustee has chosen.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
And Judge Corbyn is asking, what's wrong with that?

[00:10:35] Speaker 04:
And you want to go back to the beginning.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
I would never be here but for this bad order.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
We're here.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
Well, how did the Chapter 7 trustee obtain his rights?

[00:10:45] Speaker 04:
Because you filed bankruptcy voluntarily.

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I filed Chapter 11, not Chapter 7.

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
No, you filed bankruptcy, and you chose 11.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
And you were allowed to proceed in 11.

[00:10:57] Speaker 04:
And at some point, things arose which precipitated a motion to convert, which was granted.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
off of the constitutionally invalid order that led the trustee to obtain these rights.

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
It's the same order that's being used over and over again to give legal effect.

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
The court can't act without subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction.

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
Nobody has established, including the bankruptcy court, has established how the San Diego court had subject matter jurisdiction.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
We have jurisdiction because you filed a bankruptcy petition.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
And filing of a bankruptcy petition

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
provides us with jurisdiction over all of the assets of your state.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
And whether someone had a claim, that's an asset, and here a trustee has settled that claim or settled two claims against Levin and Kate, they've settled those claims.

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
And what we're asked to say is that the bankruptcy judge abused his discretion in approving those settlements.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
The law is clear.

[00:12:05] Speaker 03:
that the bankruptcy judge needs to look at the four elements that were identified in ANC properties.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
From the record, it appears that the judge tried to do that.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
And what we were trying to give you an opportunity to tell us is, where did that judge make a mistake?

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
By giving effect to a legal interest.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
We're to look at the four elements in ANC.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
And I have asked you to address those.

[00:12:35] Speaker 00:
I can't address them because it assumes that the judgment is valid and I'm having a void judgment asserted against me to have the chapter seven trustee obtain rights to settle it.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
And I am challenging this and the court is not leaving the foundational subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction of the San Diego court's validity and saying, oh, forget about that.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
We're just gonna look at the ANC properties test.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
those are procedural things that if a valid judgment was used to convert my case, then I wouldn't be before you today, your honors.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
I would have no arguments before you.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
My argument is not about these AC property tests.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
It's about this court giving effect to a constitutionally invalid San Diego order without reaching or demonstrating how the San Diego court had jurisdiction.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
And I had my arguments prepared to talk.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
By the way, there was a, there was a,

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
A case two weeks ago that came out in the California appellate court where judicial dissolution is not a waivable right.

[00:13:42] Speaker 00:
All of these things have been taken away from me.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
And then I've been converted to chapter seven proceedings.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
And now I'm being asked to argue against AC property test.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
It's like arguing over a child when you're not their parent.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
You don't have rights to, oh, but we took the child from you.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
We took it, we gave it to the trustees.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
So now the trustee has rights.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
I believe.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
If there's something else, you've only got a minute 20 left.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
So is there something else?

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
If you want to reserve this last minute for rebuttal, you can.

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
Appellee.

[00:14:17] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
My name is Jesse Finlayson.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
I represent the trustee in this matter.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
I'll be extremely brief.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
I think the questioning of the appellant as sort of focus

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
the merits of the settlement, the proper legal standard under Bankruptcy Rule 9019, or most importantly, the ANC properties factors.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
His arguments are all based on his belief that the underlying state court judgment against him and subsequent conversion of the case are constitutionally invalid and void, and therefore no actions by the trustee have any legal effect.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
The argument is flawed in many, many respects, but fundamentally, to go to Judge Breaker's point,

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
Um, Mr. Rajee has filed numerous, numerous motions challenging the proceedings in the bankruptcy court.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
One of those motions was to reconsider conversion of his case.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
Uh, that order was, or that motion was denied by Judge Latham and Mr. Rajee chose to appeal.

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
He elected to have that appeal heard by the district court.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
That appeal is currently pending before district judge Robert Huey in the Southern district.

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
the issues that Mr. Raji is attempting to raise with this court are not only not before this court, they are currently before the district court.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
And for the reasons stated in our brief, we think the courts, what appears to be the court's view of this based on the questioning, that the underlying questions of the validity of the San Diego judgment and the validity of the conversion of the case are not part of this appeal.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
Number one,

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
As you pointed out, Mr. Rajee filed bankruptcy and the trustee has the right to administer the estate.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
Number two, the conversion of his case is currently on appeal to the district court.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
Number three, Mr. Rajee didn't object to this settlement before the bankruptcy court.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
Mr. Rajee concedes that he has no basis to object to the merits of this settlement and that he's simply seeking to raise the same arguments regarding conversion of the case that are currently before the district court.

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
proper.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
He's also seeking to re-argue the validity of the San Diego State Court judgment, which is also not before this court, and a review by the federal courts of that judgment would violate the Rooker Feldman doctrine.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
That's a ruling that Judge Latham has made and the district court has already made, and I'm sure those orders will also be appealed and challenged, but none of that is currently before the court.

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
The panel's questions make clear that we're here to address a specific settlement that Mr. Raji didn't oppose before the bankruptcy court and acknowledges here today he has no substantive objection to based on the substance of the settlement.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the court might have.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
So it's your position that the bankruptcy court properly considered the ANC factors and weighed them appropriately in approving the settlement?

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
Without question, Your Honor.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
There's not a formal written order here because, again, the notice was not opposed.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
So none of those factors were disputed, and they're not disputed today.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
But it is clear the trustee filed an extensive notice of intended action, which is a procedure in the Southern District, where he laid out his view of the settlement, went through each of the ANC factors in detail, explained ultimately what the trustee concluded was three of the four factors strongly favored the settlement and the fourth factor was collection was largely irrelevant.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
and recommended to the court that the court approved the settlement because it was in the best interest of creditors in the estate.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
And without opposition, the court reviewed those papers and approved the settlement.

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
This was a routine settlement, unopposed settlement motion until Mr. Raji appealed.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
And then one of the other arguments you made is challenging Mr. Raji's standing as Chapter 7 debtor to challenge the settlement.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
Often the basis for that is that they have no stake in the outcome, but I didn't see anything about the stake in the outcome in your brief.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry about that, Your Honor.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
We cited case law in our brief that a Chapter 7 trustee has the burden of establishing appellate jurisdiction.

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
To do so in this situation, he would have to show either, number one, that this is likely a surplus case,

[00:19:09] Speaker 02:
or two, that the outcome of this case would somehow affect his right to a discharge.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
Settlement of a accounting malpractice claim against Mr. Raji's former accountants does not affect his discharge.

[00:19:21] Speaker 02:
So that leaves the surplus estate argument as the only possible basis for Mr. Raji to assert standing here.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
And unfortunately, this is not anywhere near a surplus estate.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
In fact, we are probably much closer to administrative insolvency.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
But that record, actually, that wasn't given to us though, is it?

[00:19:46] Speaker 02:
No, we simply made the argument that Mr. Raji hadn't met his burden of establishing that there was likely to be a surplus estate.

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
His argument on reply was that he scheduled his litigation claims at $75 million and based on that, this could potentially be a surplus estate.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
My response to that would simply be that that valuation was unrealistic and that if you actually look at the record in the bankruptcy court, none of those cases are worth anything near that.

[00:20:17] Speaker 02:
And most of those cases have now been settled for six figures, not tens of millions of dollars.

[00:20:24] Speaker 02:
None of that is expressly before the court because again, our view was it was Mr. Rajee's responsibility burden to establish standing.

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
and he simply failed to do that.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
And he can't because there's not evidence in the record that this is likely a surplus estate.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
And so we're relying on Mr. Rajee's, the requirement that Mr. Rajee established standing and his inability to do that.

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
Not that the firm will be trying to disprove that point.

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
I don't wanna ask an obvious question, but I'm going to.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
Even if we gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt on the standing issue,

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
Your position is that on the merits, the ANC factors were met, no objection to the settlement.

[00:21:07] Speaker 03:
Judge Latham's order should be affirmed on the merits.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
Yes, without question.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
As I mentioned, this wasn't a close call.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
And again, it's not just my position.

[00:21:22] Speaker 02:
Mr. Rajee has confirmed again today, he does not believe that the court misapplied the ANC properties factors.

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
He's made that clear.

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
And it's clear from the record that that's the case.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
So yes, if we were to reach the merits of the settlement, we think the record is clear that Judge Latham appropriately considered all of the ANC properties factors and approved the unapproved settlement as appropriate.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:21:53] Speaker 02:
Thank you for the question.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
If there's no further questions, I don't have anything more.

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
Mr. Reggie, you got about a minute.

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you.

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
So I'd like to point the court based on what you said to a 2017 case called O.C.

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
Interior Services National Mortgage, 7 Calab 5th.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
And I'm quoting directly from that.

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
It was from a Supreme Court of California case.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
An exception exists to the rule barring collateral attacks to judgments that appear valid on their face of the record.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
As our High Court explained, citing the California Supreme Court, many years ago, if a party admits facts showing that a judgment is void or allows such facts to be established without opposition, then as a question of law, a court must treat the judgment as void upon its face.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
The opinion goes on to state, if the parties admit or fail to object to the evidence of facts showing a lack of jurisdiction, it is then established that the judgment is void effectively as shown by the record.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
And whenever such fact is brought to the attention of the court, it is the duty of the court

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
to declare the judgment as void, as a matter of law.

[00:23:02] Speaker 00:
They call this the Hill Rule.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
Where was it admitted?

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
You've got just a few seconds, but tell me specifically, where was it admitted by the other side that there was no jurisdiction in getting that judgment?

[00:23:16] Speaker 03:
And how do we get around the Rooker-Feldman doctrine?

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
Okay, so there's two questions.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
Rooker Feldman only applies to state courts that had subject matter and personal jurisdiction.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
It's in the Rooker Feldman holding itself.

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
As the trustee admitted in ECF 124, page eight, line 12 of the bankruptcy, I'm quoting, the trustee believes there may have been material problems with the arbitration process.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
And that's not just on the admission side.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
They have not contested any of the voidness factors that I brought

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
With the case that I just saw it under the hill rule which is also cited in Brockway Fidelity creditors.

[00:23:55] Speaker 04:
We say where you brought where did you bring it?

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
It's before this this panel.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
No, it's not that that's the whole point you are not going to get a bankruptcy appellate panel that the matter arises on a motion to settle to set aside an arbitration and

[00:24:14] Speaker 00:
I'm not looking to set aside an arbitration.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
Again, I'm very clear in my brief.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
The only judgment I'm looking to be vacated by this court is the LLME settlement because it gives effect to a legally void judgment.

[00:24:31] Speaker 00:
That is all I'm asking of this court.

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
I'm not looking for you to declare the San Diego judgment void.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
I'm not looking for you to declare the conversion order void.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
On the on this on the firm fact based on the Hill rule that I just cited to the court.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
I've put sufficient facts that have gone uncontested and the LLME order gives effect to a unconstitutional order and the bankruptcy court does not have authority.

[00:24:57] Speaker 00:
to grant rights that don't exist as a matter of law.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
That is why I kept repeating that we don't get to the AC properties analysis.

[00:25:08] Speaker 00:
And one last thing I wanted to just quickly say, that case that I said about the Hill rule was also applied to criminal cases as late as November 2024.

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
That is the People versus the North River Insurance Company that is also in the California District Division 3, case number B328079.

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
So in closing, I just wanted to say that the opposition does not contest a single fact regarding the fraud on the court, the unauthorized representation of counsel, the lack of legal rights.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
None of this was opposed by them and their certification

[00:25:46] Speaker 00:
of compliance has 5,504 words.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
So clearly they had ample room to argue against all these points I put before the court.

[00:25:54] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:25:54] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:25:55] Speaker 01:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
This matter will be submitted.