evidence ... ”, basic notions of procedural due process compel this Panel to conclude that essential rights of the parties may be jeopardized by a procedure where the oral presentation of evidence is not allowed, where the bankruptcy court’s ability to gage the credibility of a witness or evidence is questionable and where rulings on objections to the admissability of all direct evidence, may be unclear. Additionally, in view of the above considerations and the express requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(a), this Panel is unable to find any authority to support the procedure implemented by the bankruptcy court in taking testimony in the underlying adversary proceeding. See Hoffman v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). As previously set forth, Fed.R. Civ.P. 43(a)
holding that a judgment that requires the performance of an act is enforceable by civil and criminal contempt penalties emphasis omitted holding that contested factual issues in  2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits holding that on a motion for summary judgment the court cannot try issues of fact it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried holding that a civil contempt proceeding is a trial within the meaning of fedrcivp 43a rather than a hearing on a motion  and the issues may not be tried on the basis of affidavits emphasis added citations omitted holding that ajffidavits in support of or in opposition to motions for summary judgment must be filed into evidence at the hearing on the motion or filed into the record in order for the affidavits to be part of the record on appeal emphasis added