00:00:01.519 - 00:00:37.580

All right, sound speeds. All right, we've got Judge Martin, take one. That course not take that. OK. So Bob, you were a lawyer who practiced under the Bankruptcy Act, and then you became a referee just before the code went into effect. What were those early days

00:00:37.580 - 00:00:56.020

of transition from the act to the code like? Well, uh, actually I was. sworn in as a referee before the legislation creating the code was even passed. So it wasn't, I wasn't in that one year between 78 and '79. I was, uh, they were still trying

00:00:56.020 - 00:01:17.690

to get the code passed and, um. So I was working with, uh, somewhat with uh Representative Kastenmeier, who was the. Chair of the House Judiciary Committee at the time, so he was very active and, and so I was consulting someone on that pushing very, very hard

00:01:17.690 - 00:01:37.239

for the new law, but wasn't at all confident it would get, it would get passed. Um, so the, uh, practice under the code was, or I'm sorry, under the act was very different. Um, it had much more the feeling of doing state law partly because some

00:01:37.239 - 00:01:56.629

of the work was actually in the state court. If the bankruptcy estate wanted to gain property, it had to bring the action in in state court to acquire the property. Uh, usually there were some exceptions to that. And there was the uh if if the debtors.

00:01:57.269 - 00:02:14.369

Itself or himself or herself actually held the property then the turnover could be in bankruptcy court, but if you were suing a third party, uh, the bankruptcy court did not have extensive jurisdiction to do that. It could be done through the district court, but that again

00:02:14.369 - 00:02:39.589

was a secondary complication, so it's sort of a jumble, uh and, and so with those sorts of challenges, um. How was the transition? How was getting lawyers and judges or former referees who became judges and state court judges up to speed and used to that change?

00:02:40.649 - 00:02:56.789

I, well, there, there are all kinds of interesting stories, uh, but to, to understand a little bit more about the background, the push was really to broaden the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court so it could handle more things, but there were other things that came about

00:02:56.789 - 00:03:13.710

in the code, uh, prior to the code there was no automatic stay. You could go in and seek a stay from the court and it was routinely granted, but there wasn't anything automatically stopping actions against the debtor. You had to actually enjoin that. Uh, there was

00:03:13.710 - 00:03:36.330

no designation of property as property of the estate. You had to again acquire the property or get turnover from the debtor or pick it up from a third party, um. There were lots of things. Having to do with the outset of the case, claims, uh, were

00:03:36.330 - 00:03:50.729

not assumed to be allowed. They had to be made and they argued over and some claims could not be proved. They could, they might, there were two sets of claims allowable and provable. So that was, that was a very complicated thing when the new code came

00:03:50.729 - 00:04:07.220

in. I don't think anybody was quite prepared for its, its simplicity. Uh, bankruptcy judges could no longer attend the first meeting of creditors. I think the first year I was on the bench every Monday morning for the whole morning, I would sit and question debtors about

00:04:07.220 - 00:04:23.549

the schedules they'd filed, um, and then all of a sudden in '79 when the code became effective. I couldn't even attend the meeting of creditors. That would have tainted my view of the case because I'd learned too much. So it was a very abrupt change in

00:04:23.549 - 00:04:37.260

that. The automatic stay, the fact that it was automatic, nothing had to be done. When it was filed, even if the creditors didn't know about it, they were stayed, and that was a hard concept and the the violation of the stay would then be punishable in

00:04:37.260 - 00:04:58.339

the bankruptcy court, um, by contempt or otherwise and, and that became, uh, a new thing that the creditors really had to pay attention, uh, which changed things. So there are just lots of changes. Uh, one of the more interesting ones was that the banning bankruptcy judges

00:04:58.339 - 00:05:16.660

from the bankruptcy court wasn't always well received. Down in Peoria, Judge Max Lipkin. Uh, continued to go to the first meeting of creditors and the 7th Circuit instructed him not to, and he still did, so he'd been, he'd been a referee for a long time and

00:05:16.940 - 00:05:30.920

he didn't see any reason why he shouldn't know about those things and he didn't pay any attention to the law. I think that's one of the more extreme examples, but one of the things that was really hard to adjust to were the number of things. In

00:05:30.920 - 00:05:53.649

the bankruptcy code that were on negative notice that if you gave the right to notice and hearing meant that you all all that the. Counterparty would receive would be the the notice that there would be action taken if there were no objection. Uh, filed or made

00:05:53.649 - 00:06:16.359

in some form. Well, this is a wholly new concept, and I think at first trying to decide whether those were motions or um. Petitions or what, what, what even to call them was a little tricky, so, um. And was it hard to to to sort out

00:06:16.359 - 00:06:34.450

early on those things where it was negative notice and those things where there might have to have been a hearing? Oh, sure, and courts varied a lot on what they chose the um Uh, I was training one of, one of the objections to discharge whether they

00:06:34.450 - 00:06:55.329

had to be, um, brought as an adversary proceeding, uh, there were no new bankruptcy rules initially, so they were still going under the, the bankruptcy rules which didn't apply very well that had been enacted in 1974, I believe, which was the first big change that that

00:06:55.329 - 00:07:15.880

preceded the code and gave some. Um, introduction, but there was a real concern that that was not constitutionally legitimate, that you can't by rulemaking change the substance of the law. And so those were the only rules we had. They had not yet made rules to go

00:07:15.880 - 00:07:27.570

with the code when it first came in, and it took them, I think a couple years before there were new rules. I think there might have been some interim rules that that made it. So yeah, courts varied a lot on what they thought had to be

00:07:27.570 - 00:07:50.130

brought by a, uh, positive motion and things which could be done on negative notice and, and that remained true for a long, long time after the code came in. Well, and now you've mentioned the constitutionality. Fast forward from 1978 to about 1982, there was the Northern

00:07:50.130 - 00:08:13.679

Pipeline Marathon case, um, where there were questions about your jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts. Did that lead you to um the position you took in the uh Moody and Jermoo's case? Let's take this in a slightly smaller segments, it'll make more sense, I think uh

00:08:13.679 - 00:08:37.869

one of the big things that the code did. Uh, was provide for a comprehensive jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court. During the 70s when the. Legislation was being considered and set up for the creation of the code. It was all done based on having an Article 3

00:08:37.869 - 00:08:58.989

bankruptcy court. That the judge of the bankruptcy court would have Article 3 status be appointed by the president and have essentially lifetime or good behavior term. And that would then enlarge the jurisdiction so that all these issues that had been going back into the state court

00:08:58.989 - 00:09:14.549

or having to go to the district court could be retained in bankruptcy court for greater efficiency. And I think everybody agreed that that was a primary reason they had to change the law in '78. Uh, and the House passed a, a, if, if I remember correctly,

00:09:14.659 - 00:09:34.789

and I may get this mixed up a little bit, but the House passed a version. That provided for an Article 3 court and the Senate was considering. Uh, version just like the house's version, um, that would have an Article 3 court, but. Chief Justice Warren Burger

00:09:35.559 - 00:09:52.059

contacted the sponsors essentially on the eve of the vote. If, if I, I think that's the right timing and said no you can't do that. There was great concern on the Article 3 bench, particularly by Chief Justice Burger, that having all those bankruptcy judges be Article

00:09:52.059 - 00:10:09.969

3 would dilute. The status of Article 3 judges and it was, it became a real sort of turf war. Well, the bankruptcy people thought it was necessary to have Article 3 to have broad enough jurisdiction. The Article 3 judges didn't want to have a whole bunch

00:10:09.969 - 00:10:30.349

more people diluting their high status. But in the end, the Senate passed. A bill without Article 3 shoes, so when I went to conference. We still thought there was a chance that Article 3 status might come up. Um, It didn't. Instead, they came up with this.

00:10:31.500 - 00:10:50.090

They kept the expansive jurisdiction, but they came up with an appointment process which isn't too important because nobody was appointed under that process but you know I, I saw, uh, my 6 year term expanded to 10 years as they tried to deal with the problem. Um,

00:10:50.340 - 00:11:18.090

so when, when ultimately, uh, Northern Pipeline was decided, uh, District Judge Martin Laird up in Minnesota. Uh, faced with the question, can a non-Article 3 judge Be granted. Jurisdiction that would be identical to what an Article 3 judge would have but just not have the status,

00:11:18.599 - 00:11:40.159

he said no that's unconstitutional and that made its way up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed with him. Now it was if they'd gotten anybody less. Um, iconoclastic then, uh. Martin Laird, that probably would have never gotten decided. Uh, I, I once talked

00:11:40.159 - 00:12:04.239

to him at a, uh, uh, cocktail party and a crusty old guy, but he was really proud of having said. It's unconstitutional and because that was the the right thing, so, um. When the Supreme Court decided to affirm the unconstitutionality of the grant of jurisdiction. It

00:12:04.239 - 00:12:24.369

gave a stay of execution on their decision. I think it was 6 months. It might have been longer, but it was a period of time in which Congress could correct the problem, and I think the assumption in a lot of the bankruptcy world was the problem

00:12:24.369 - 00:12:44.520

would be corrected by now making bankruptcy judges Article 3 judges. Well, Congress wasn't willing to do that, and the administrative office intervened and um with the Justice Department came up with a proposed rule which got. Adopted which went back to sort of the plenary sum summary

00:12:44.520 - 00:13:09.119

jurisdiction under the Act, it looked like that. It was just, uh. It wasn't really clear what it was, but it let the bankruptcy court continue to operate. Uh, when the time ran. The bankruptcy court was still unconstitutional because Congress had taken no action. This rule existed

00:13:09.570 - 00:13:30.349

and had been adopted by courts. And most people just went along. I, I was that the reference rule, the reference rule. And I was, I guess maybe just a little ornery because I said I didn't want to slow down bankruptcy business, but I would not act

00:13:30.349 - 00:13:56.770

as a judge because I'd been determined to be unconstitutional as a judge. I would continue to sign uncontested orders or things which required no judging. Just administrative things. But I wouldn't conduct trials, I wouldn't schedule trials, I wouldn't deal with contested matters in any way. And

00:13:56.770 - 00:14:15.250

it became a problem after a fairly short time. I think that the the time for Congress to act ended sometime in the late fall maybe and by February when we were doing a seminar up here on uh bankruptcy, uh, Judge Ginsburg from who was then Professor

00:14:15.250 - 00:14:40.229

Ginsberg I believe in Chicago and uh Tom Schreier and Bill Rameker are a group of uh. Really able bankruptcy people. Uh, raised the question at, at the open forum. Well, they're sitting up on the, uh, as, as a panel, how do we make Judge Martin act

00:14:40.229 - 00:14:57.309

and Schedule some hearings because I didn't do anything. I didn't tell him to go away. I didn't, I didn't reschedule him with somebody else. I just didn't do anything and I told him I wasn't gonna do anything, um. So Bob Ginsberg, who was a professor at

00:14:57.309 - 00:15:19.559

DePaul, said, well, the only thing you can do then is bring a mandamus against. Judge Martin And in fact that's what they did a few. A week later or so, I was served with a complaint, summons and complaint in mandamus to force me to hear cases.

00:15:21.059 - 00:15:44.349

And I saw it as a really good test of whether the rulemaking could supplant the need for congressional action. Sort of fun Um, initially. I called the administrative Office of the United States courts said I've been sued in my official capacity provide me defense, and they

00:15:44.349 - 00:16:06.429

said we won't defend you because we're if we did we'd use a US attorney and US attorneys are in the Justice Department they've endorsed this um reference rule and so there there there being an internal conflict and we can't have them represent you. The local US

00:16:06.429 - 00:16:21.719

attorney came up to me and says, oh, I'm gonna represent you and of course he got shut down pretty quickly by his superiors in in the Justice Department. I couldn't ask any local lawyer to represent me because I couldn't ask for favors from people who appear

00:16:21.719 - 00:16:45.530

in the court. I mean, that would be The essence of uh. Uh, judicial misfeasance, I guess, and, um. Quite frankly, I didn't know of any of them who I wanted to have represent me more than I, I trusted myself more than they with, with the arguments

00:16:45.530 - 00:17:07.989

I was gonna make, so I ended up representing myself and the district court was so. Frantic about the case because here they are, they're gonna be uh ruling on What's going on in their own bankruptcy court whether it's constitutional, the two district judges sat together on

00:17:07.989 - 00:17:30.209

the bench as an en banc court to hear the summary judgment, uh, motion that would decide the case. I mean it wasn't gonna be any evidence presented really. So I got to get up and and make my own case and uh I, I lost. And, and,

00:17:30.260 - 00:17:45.939

and Judge Crab wrote one of her, she's a beautiful writer, she wrote one of her wonderful opinions, but it seemed to me that just when she got to the great uh crevasse, uh, created by this constitutional issue, she did a very nifty pirouette and landed on

00:17:45.939 - 00:18:02.180

the other side and said. Judge Martin might be right, but it isn't practical, and I'm saying, well, when did practical make it constitutional? I, I have not reread the opinion since and so I'm not, I'm not, it's not sour grapes. I, I went back to being

00:18:02.180 - 00:18:33.959

a bankruptcy judge very happily. Well, and Following that, we then had the, the amendments. In '84, um, but. Did that solve the problem? Well, I think, I think all the energy for fighting the issue had, had gone out. I think essentially 84 amendments codified what the

00:18:33.959 - 00:18:51.770

reference rule or something similar. It wasn't, I think it's, they still had all the same issues, but I don't think they could find another district judge like Martin Laird who, who said that the emperor was undressed and, and this is unconstitutional, so I think we. And,

00:18:52.790 - 00:19:09.000

uh, I, I don't think that. There every so often it it pops its head up in some case or some issue somebody will question the constitutionality, but I don't think there's been a real uh concerted fight over it. I still don't think it's intellectually honest, but

00:19:09.250 - 00:19:30.709

you know, I, I got beat once. I don't need to get beaten again. You know, you, you mentioned, um. The The original draft that would have made us, it would have made bankruptcy judges Article 3's and and that there was some further discussion perhaps after that.

00:19:32.589 - 00:19:51.130

How close do you think we came to being Article 3's and would it have been a good solution? Well, I think it would have worked to solve the problem that was faced at the time that it would clearly give the grant of jurisdiction uh so that

00:19:51.130 - 00:20:08.229

there wouldn't be that constitutional issue over whether the bankruptcy court can handle the type of cases um. Whether it would have been a good outcome, I don't know. That would have been an appointment of an awful lot of Article 3 judges at one time. We've seen.

00:20:09.930 - 00:20:28.050

Both then and subsequently how strong a power that is to give to the president to be able to appoint Article 3 judges can be a tremendous tool. I think something I didn't appreciate then because I fought very hard for Article 3 status before I was a

00:20:28.050 - 00:20:44.810

judge, but. Uh, I, I, something I don't think was seen then that I've seen since is that bankruptcy is cyclical. So there are times of many, many cases and there are times of very few cases. The court's very busy and then it's not very busy. Um,

00:20:45.060 - 00:21:07.939

I have the fear that had we gotten Article 3 status and We'd gone into a lull the district court already being somewhat uh uncomfortable with giving bankruptcy courts this status would have probably enlisted bankruptcy judges to assist in their docket. And just, and we might have

00:21:07.939 - 00:21:26.469

lost the distinctive character of the bankruptcy court. Uh, and I think that is, I think the distinctive bankruptcy court is a very important thing to making the system work smoothly. Why? Everybody knows where to go. The, the, the rhythm is the same. I mean, we, we

00:21:26.469 - 00:21:46.959

noticed when people come into bankruptcy court from other, um, litigation environments that they're often very uncomfortable with the way things are done. I, I, I think. At least in theory, a bankruptcy court ought to be able to work faster. Uh, of course, the grant of jurisdiction

00:21:46.959 - 00:22:03.959

of the '84 amendments still retains two levels of appeal for bankruptcy, and it's the only federal issue that gets two levels of appeal, which slows everything down or theoretically slows everything down, I think it does. So I don't know, I, I. It's sort of a mixed

00:22:03.959 - 00:22:24.180

bag, uh, certainly in the last, uh, in my last uh term before I retired, the difference between Uh, life and, and the period of time I had to serve was not worth quibbling about. So I, I had effectively with, with two 17 year appointments after a 10

00:22:24.180 - 00:22:49.959

year appointment, I, I had the equivalent of tenure. Um, you were an active participant in the National Bankruptcy Review Commission since about 1974, right? What do you think? Well, I, the review commission was, was, yeah, 94. It was reestablished. There was a commission during the 70s

00:22:49.959 - 00:23:10.430

that came up with the code, but then there was nothing. In the interim 'til 1994, I guess it got proposed, yeah. And what do you think have been some of the most significant, either challenges or accomplishments of the commission? Well, I, the accomplishments of the commission

00:23:10.430 - 00:23:35.579

are a little hard to identify. Uh, I think it was a very good discussion of the topic, uh, a fantastic airing of the different views, and I think maybe it was repeated in the, uh, what 2014 to 2016, uh, commission that the ABI. Undertook, uh, I

00:23:35.579 - 00:23:58.949

was hoping that the review commission, even if it didn't result in, in, uh, effective legislation would give the report would be a uh uh a benchmark against which all other litigation was measured legislation, I'm sorry, yeah. Um, However, I think the biggest thing that the commission

00:23:58.949 - 00:24:20.160

did was it galvanized the opposition, the, the, the creditors lobbies, creditors who should have been fighting tooth and nail all joined together to defeat whatever it was the commission was gonna do. There's no reason that credit card lenders and um. Car lenders ought to be friends

00:24:20.160 - 00:24:43.069

at all. They're fighting over the same funds. They, they ought to be jockeying for position, but they all joined in to, to make bankruptcy, uh, harder for individuals. Um, in terms of the. Uh Reorganization issues. I don't think it was quite as intense. But um They

00:24:43.069 - 00:25:07.469

were able to mount a cry about. That that resulted in means testing and people had to be eligible individuals had to be eligible to file bankruptcy and the irony, of course, is there's no eligibility standard for corporations or non-individuals, um. But, but, however that worked at

00:25:07.469 - 00:25:34.920

uh. So I, I don't think the review commission was. Particularly effective except in airing the issues really well and uh. They were really diligent, but uh when the creditors groups filed their uh Proposed legislation, the, the bill that came back and back and never got amended.

00:25:34.959 - 00:25:53.689

They never, they never reexamined it and it took from. 96 or 7 in '96 when it was it was first filed, I think until 2005 when they finally got it enacted, uh, and it never got amended because they could they'd break ranks if they had to

00:25:53.689 - 00:26:15.689

actually clean it up and make it right, I think. Uh, so, as I say, galvanize the opposition. So looking back, uh, over the 40 years now of the code with all of its changes and amendments and, and that sort of thing, are there any high points

00:26:15.959 - 00:26:31.219

in the evolution of the code that stand out to you? Oh, I think that first of all, I'd have to say that the code itself as it was originally enacted was one of the most elegant pieces of legislative writing that's ever been done. It was clear

00:26:31.219 - 00:26:46.719

it was simple. It spoke to the issues in a way, um. The relief from stay section, I still think is a model of how it ought to be done. It leaves the stay in place when it should and it gets rid of this stay when it

00:26:46.729 - 00:27:05.660

it ought to be got rid of. Uh, it protects the absolute priority rule, but it also protects the right of the, the, uh, uh. A state to, to be administered correctly fabulous piece of writing. Of course, every amendment after that muddied it. It was, it was

00:27:05.660 - 00:27:25.380

such a clean thing, so, um. I, I would say. That The automatic stay that the code provided and the whole concept of an automatic stay is so much better than having to go into court and get a get a stay or an injunction in each case.

00:27:26.180 - 00:27:48.729

I think the comprehensiveness of the. Um, discharge as it was originally. Proposed under the code was really good. I think it's been eroded to make it less effective and that's particularly true in Chapter 13. What what what was a really thoughtful broad uh discharge has been

00:27:48.729 - 00:28:11.770

reduced. It's probably my phone. All right, let's just, uh, or, yeah, we'll just keep rolling. That's OK. It'll, but it'll interfere with the the. OK, now it's done. It's got a voicemail, um, so. You're talking about the elegance of the of the stay and the broad

00:28:11.770 - 00:28:35.020

jurisdiction as some of the high points other. Well, I think to the single chapter in chapter 11. Uh, what in As it was originally drafted, it had some attributes of it. Uh, one size fits all, but in fact it gave tremendous flexibility that had never been

00:28:35.020 - 00:28:56.560

there before and how you reorganize it, the broad bones of it were pretty clear. I think it's been constrained a lot partly by the US trustees, uh. Trying to make sure that disclosures become uniform so it's easier for the US trustees to do their job. I

00:28:56.560 - 00:29:14.670

mean, everybody has their own piece in it and they've, they've tried to make their piece of it more comfortable. I think that the, the freedom that the, the, um, single Chapter 11 initially had was phenomenal and in this district we had just great luck with, uh,

00:29:14.869 - 00:29:34.859

reorganizing farms and egg businesses and. And all sorts of different businesses, small businesses that got lost when it became more expensive. The more things that you make easy for somebody else, the more expensive it is to the debtor and. You know, we never got rid of

00:29:34.859 - 00:29:53.050

the notion that the debtor is at fault, not just needing to reorganize, but they did something wrong and it's, it's, it, it unfortunately it's pervasive in individual bankruptcy, uh, in a destructive way that we never have gotten rid of. In fact, it's increased, I think since

00:29:53.050 - 00:30:21.170

the code, um, I'm sorry to say. Uh, my own experience in 35 years was that. Before individuals, with the exception, maybe one half of one percent of them before individuals would file for bankruptcy, they had to Go through a crisis, uh. In their own perception of themselves, admit failure and

00:30:21.449 - 00:30:40.939

it's not something people do lightly. They aren't they aren't gaming the system, they're suffering and uh. You still have to obey the law. I, I mean, I came to this as a primarily a secured creditor's lawyer, so I, I've never lost that perspective. But uh I,

00:30:40.989 - 00:31:05.150

I, I, I think we've gone some strain, well, predictable ways that, uh. People wanna blame the debtor for their mistakes, and I just. I can't do it. So as you look forward, I mean, we're now 40 years downstream, as you look forward, um. What do you

00:31:05.150 - 00:31:33.130

think are the keys to the future? Of the code. Well, I don't know how to get there, but something has to be done so that Chapter 11. Can accommodate. The new Forms and models of finance, um. The model on which the code was built 40 years

00:31:33.130 - 00:31:57.300

ago just pretty much doesn't exist anymore. There's no money free from. Of, uh, with, with modern financing to, to effect a reorganization and as a result, I think, uh, there, there are so much effort to erode the, um, absolute priority rule and other things it it's

00:31:57.300 - 00:32:13.209

got to be. As if the rules were made to be broken, there are more exceptions than there are rules in a lot of what appears to be going on in in corporate reorganization. I can't be much more specific. I've, I've been out of the business for

00:32:13.209 - 00:32:32.810

a couple of years now and I haven't thought a great deal about it, but that's one that's one re in in consumer. Uh, we gotta get rid of that, um. Means test because it doesn't effectively screen anybody and it just as an additional expense, uh, maybe

00:32:32.810 - 00:32:51.390

the credit card companies get two more payments out of these debtors before they, uh, completely collapse, but that's about the only good it does anybody, um. So I don't think there's been any real. Fraud On determined, maybe, maybe there have been a few cases, but it

00:32:51.390 - 00:33:15.979

doesn't amount to anything. Um, You know, my own dream would be to have a single. Consumer chapter. Under which you get an immediate discharge and then there could be a payment plan added on behind that which might enlarge the discharge or or might just be continue

00:33:15.979 - 00:33:38.489

the stay so that the debtor can make the payments without credit or interruption, um. Affording perhaps debtors. Some of the additional flexibility that exists in Chapter 11 looking at different options, I mean, is that part of your. Oh sure, I mean, if, if all the secured

00:33:38.489 - 00:33:59.709

creditors are entitled to in Chapter 11 is the value of their collateral that's all they ought to be entitled to in, in, uh, a consumer case as well and that includes uh mortgage lenders and car lenders and everybody else who's now somehow, um. Uh, levitated into

00:34:00.150 - 00:34:23.320

some higher status by, uh, virtue of the bankruptcy law. And giving some Of the flexibility to restructure that value for consumers, yes, yes, I think that's. You know, in the dream world, this stuff isn't gonna get passed, I don't think. Well, any other thoughts now that

00:34:23.320 - 00:34:43.019

we're 40 years downstream about the code practice? Um, Yeah, I think something's got to be done to make it go back to a more efficient, less expensive practice and in a lot of different ways, but I think that's true a lot of the practice of law,

00:34:43.509 - 00:34:59.520

uh, it's just gotten so expensive that and, and bankruptcy always was not for the poorest, but for the people who have something to lose. I just think that the price, the relative price appears to me to have gone up too much. Um, and that's true at

00:34:59.520 - 00:35:20.919

all levels, corporate, uh, the biggest cases and the littlest cases. Well, thank you. And now the last thing is you and I need to wish happy birthday to the bankruptcy code. Well, happy birthday. Happy birthday. We're not gonna sing, I hope. Well, you may. I'm not

00:35:20.919 - 00:35:50.989

going to. I mean, I suppose I could try and do the breathless, um, Marilyn Monroe Happy birthday. I, I couldn't do anything with music. Thank you. Was that what you were looking for? Yeah, that's exactly it. OK, good. They're just tail sliding. Cindy didn't give it

00:35:50.989 - 00:36:17.020

to you. Cam speeds. OK, we've got Judge Martin, take 2. So where were you when you learned that Congress hadn't taken any action and you had no jurisdiction? Well, it's funny. I learned it first thing in the morning and decided since I nothing else was happening

00:36:17.020 - 00:36:29.379

that I'd go play golf. I figured I didn't have to go to the office because I was no longer or at least for a short time, gonna be a bankruptcy judge and I couldn't act as a judge. So my wife and I and another couple went

00:36:29.379 - 00:36:46.389

out to a golf course in the woods long way away. And I was playing and got around to the farthest place in the clubhouse when a pro came out in a golf cart. And picked me up to because I had to answer the phone and it

00:36:46.389 - 00:37:07.110

was Judge Crab who was so worried uh the district judge, uh, who is a senior district judge who was so worried that I would be distraught at, uh, having this happen that she wanted to assure me that she had made me a uh magistrate. Uh, on

00:37:07.110 - 00:37:22.659

a temporary basis so that I could still draw my pay and still would have a parking place at the courthouse and, um, I, I remember having to thank her effusively and get back in the car to go out because I was playing quite well that day

00:37:22.659 - 00:37:40.899

and I, I really didn't want my golf interrupted. I, I, I, I wasn't too distressed because, um, you know, I, I figured I could go back into practice and, and make a decent living. And that is a typical sort of thing. Oh yes, she's she's the

00:37:40.899 - 00:37:55.139

most generous and and and gracious person and she just, she was concerned about me and so I learned on the golf course. Thank you and thank you for sharing that. I don't, I don't know if it's useful.