the party present no we're here because then you're here because we asked that we get an opportunity to have asked certain questions or ask questions regarding  sentences them in jail somebody comes in for bail and doesn't provide notice to the other side because normally any case like that you know you call the other side you tell them what you're doing and if it's an emergency better everybody runs over and here we had no way no objection to it that never got notice and you will say well you know that that this makes me look bad and quite frankly you know this makes you look because you realize it because i'm an officer the court and you know there's really nothing else i can say except i know the rules and know the reason for the rules and you know better than but the following and just bring up a falsehood the court we offered to get both of our computers which we had done before we offered all those things during that week and every day during that week i was working and searching for additional back that what happened here was that this court on the thirteenth of january under orders setting on we received it i believe late that afternoon we moved as fast as we couldn't got our motion to reconsider on file following day that was the fourteenth which we faxed to mr seacoast counsel mr seacoast counsel should have or mr siegel should have seen immediately that there had been a mistake m that mistake i think was improper and i think it should have been done in a timely fashion rather than wait for the script to finally to move on that we have been attempting to a pain documents for mr saeco since january of last year judge arnold has had multiple motions addressed to this issue mall orders entered on this issue has even conducted a state ation mr saeco in court before a rather unusual situation for supplementary proceedings mr saeco has produced virtually nothing to substantiate over two hundred thousand dollars worth of payments that were channeled through the defendant's wife susan the defendant was under a supplementary receipt he has produced documents for example regarding a payment of over twenty thousand dollars that went to the wife that are physically impossible to support that payment because  century deceitful and that's exactly why the judge finally had to enter the order that she did in this case and where and where is mr sequin he has surrendered this is my understanding is ready with this court have been addressed with a motion to reconsider the vacation the bond order a supplement to that motion a third option to reconsider family his now from here regarding and another up he'll of a second appeal i laying in the weeds in the filings that are before this court not necessarily directly addressed so i'm suggesting to you that mr saeco tried to take advantage of the stake this council by not basically asking that the th court reconsider the vacation of that water and mr saeco should not be allowed to profit from buying what you're just saying underlying what you're claiming is that a bankruptcy filing in somehow staff a contempt proceeding  card or get out contempt card that would be pretty amazing bankruptcy simply stops a collection proceedings bankruptcy stops efforts to  individual in a worse financial situation then he otherwise will be until the bankruptcy court addresses those financial issues this is a is this an issue of finances before try to arm with us there is a that i think the courts state courts regardless of the federal courts being involved have a right to enforce their own order where individuals have been in contempt because they did testify before a grand jury and i i don't understand this argument that somehow bankruptcy filing in your foreign and to that extent the federal bankruptcy stay to the extent that it has any impact on high doesn't require us to undo stuff that we've already done does it but we have a motion to reconsider or we think the automatic stays being violated right now himself to the cook county sheriff on the seventh he's been in cook county jail since that with nobody just wires so this is an emergency i mean here in the routine of course i'm going to i'm going to at some point we have to stop this but  let me just say this i'm not inclined to do something that the federal bankruptcy by first rule of a federal bankruptcy filing that the bank circumstances and the notice issue appears to cloud if this the record is clear that mr saeco has made a extensive production he's testified he doesn't have any further darkness the trial court elected not to give credibility to that statement but there's nothing  to decide that is within their purview to not to make a decision as to credibility but under the message decision judge which was brought before the court's attention simply identify the absence of evidence controverted the statement mere  credibility are not sufficient to impose findings of indirect civil contempt of this is you're there with no bond this is my point count i'm not i'm not suggesting that you're off base here i'm just saying that at some point we have to get an evidentiary finding produced and that should be done by the trial court so we send the case back to the trial court the trial court going to hear these very arguments that you're putting forth the case law that you're citing and decide whether or not it is it did it compels her to to act in a certain way and if if it doesn't if she doesn't act the way you'd like her to act then you could bring it back before us and we could review that but i having been before judge arnold on a few of these men on this matter she does not appear to have any desire to let mr c go out he's not to appear before any statuses of that there has been extensive motion practice before her she is made of entry findings that she just doesn't are all good luck but the question is that you know you may get yourself into a really hot soup by this thing george or with before at this point let mr really surrender to the to the sheriff and sits in jail with no means of relief at this point and his only the only evidence in the record indicates that every document which he currently possesses he has produced and that it's not controverted we believe  children he said this is true communities been here for twenty years there simply is no basis to say that under those circumstances a man should not be able to have sex have barred the court previously granted and we've asked the court not