morning on earth good morning mr man when you speak with this place five enter i like to reserve four minutes of my time for report all as the court is aware this is an appeal of the district court order dismissing miss enters suit pursuant to the fugitive that his fugitive status has a connection to the civil action and that the sanction of dismissals necessary to effectuate the concerns underlying the doctrine and we respectfully submit to the court that in the present case  and in violation of it's as she remains in another country our position is that in each she certainly has been found to be in contempt of the family court orders those orders are what they are at least they speak for themselves the all let me stop you there for a nd i'm sorry but seventeen then there's the subsequent order of referral to law enforcement on october st two thousand and seventeen there was an order to show cause why she should be held in a direct criminal contempt but i did i might be mistaken but i did not see and it may not be necessary i mean your opponent might be right on this but as a matter of just historical facts do we have a order from the state court holding your client in direct criminal co i believe the answer is no but i think that's what i thought for my rebuttal i could it may not be necessary but i thought that there was no order from the state court holding her to direct criminal consent ok i'll ask the same right note that that was m said they wore the st was that the plaintiff is in fact a fugitive you say the district court was wrong two reasons one she lacked the in tech necessary fact that on multiple occasions she ignored the state court orders and to her children of war and reached the conclusion that she have a scrum is that a finding  fact or is that a mixed question of fact i asked the question because it seems to me under the circumstances of this case that was essentially a fact of course and if that's right we would only review with a clear error and so i'm asking a is that right and b if so where's the clear error in the district court find believe that you're honest right that that that would be a factual finding that's a factual finding that was made by the district court entirely based on the state court orders that were that were in the record that the order dismissal came about following a status conference in the district court the the hearing was only noticed for a status conference and nist and it was not ordered to be at that hearing lies that relevant well because in cases such as hasn't vs rodriguez which was relied on by the police and relied on heavily by the district court and i and other cases  wasn't there a fair amount of evidence that supported the district court determination and or was in fact a fugitive including among other things looking at the state were somewhere else why couldn't the judge find as a fact that there was a future i believe that hired the characterization that she's a fugitive is a is a legal determination that's not met  that would be my my position your honor that the findings that she had violated the state court orders are are factual but the characterization that this enters a fugitive for the jurisdiction over time when you are not maybe necessarily prohibited from going elsewhere but then you could be found to be a fugitive if the court issues some sort of order or process and you don't return that's at least my understanding of our cases why is it that scenario met here in other words she may not have been a fugitive when she initially left with the children for england or other parts but given the number of orders issued afterwards the orders finding that she's in violation of the orders saying that she's engaging in contemptuous type conduct the orders referring to her law enforcement why does it all of that is a mix support the district court's decision on fugitive status and that that is what happened here factually your honor in terms of she leaves june st two thousand and seventeen at that point there's no order of contempt let alone order for a long force in those come later after she already had left the jurisdiction  but i think the answer to your honor's question is lies again in that the conclusion that she was a fugitive for purposes of the fusion of dissent title meant doctrine is a legal it's a legal conclusion the application of which arises out of situations where you have a criminal defendant who fully and then  you will i should back up you have a can you have a conviction in a criminal case can offend it's sleaze you have a direct appeal that's a classic case and when we are talking about trying to apply that to a case where we have a family law litigant who is found in contempt and we do not have a bench warrant for erast we have in order over for all to for the words law enforcement law enforcement could arrest her based on that referral prizefighter better argument would be that although that is a possibility there's been no court  mandating her arrest there's no yeah that's going to arrest warrant per se and you seem to suggest in your brief that that is a prerequisite right we i wouldn't say that it's necessarily a prerequisite but in this case where in this case where you do not have that we are positions that she cannot legally be deemed a fugitive for purposes of the dr i mean there is one very quick i can only say that that they the two questions are intertwined to some extent as to whether or not she's a few as to whether or not she's a fugitive oh i don't want that but this element is different whether fugitive status admitted that she fled the jurisdiction ship scott in from the jurisdiction with two minor children that she shares with with my client mr martin and she has never returned in this jurisdiction those are the facts that were before the court that this this appellant and fled the jurisdiction her flight and her conduct before and after her flight violated i believe the as the state court said virtually every quarter were entered by the state court and based on that conduct the court entered a a civil contempt order the court entered a referral a law enforcement that it should be noted it is undisputed by the  believe if the barnett case i think is helpful in this where the this this court found that the two parties in barnett were fugitives from both a contempt order and the arrest warrant there's no described based on the on the court orders entered in this case there in the record yes i believe that i believe that would be a valid or of a district court action in and of itself because of the application of the fugitive dessen title meant doctrine we have very few cases dealing with the effect of flight and fugitive status thirty levin fifty nine i think that's a published case in which an individual was charged by indictment in the southern district of florida with a number of crimes related to bank fraud and wire fraud the person was in saudi arabia did not come back was deemed to be a fugitive but the case that was at issue was not that case common law fraud wire fraud except for the district court found that the fugitive dissin title meant doctrine applied to the civil case and basically did not let that fugitive defendant defend a civil case brought by the yet the i c we reversed now we made a point of saying that was a case in which the fugitive was a defendant in a civil case that he didn't file but we never the less said the doctor who was in a clickable and should not be used in that circumstance to prevent a newfound fugitive from defending a related civil suit how do you distinguish that case from this one is it only the fact that ms even and her is a plaintiffs in the suit against m then more here i mean it seems to me that misfired manners is is an attacking the family court proceedings from which she has a huge it's not just that she's applying it it's that she's an attacking mary proceedings judgments and the and the and the settlement agreement that forms the state court judgments and through the supreme court and i think that makes it a very distinguishable community i see case and the fact that that the the principle that is is animating the th there was no attempt to get affirmative relief from the court it was it was a difficult thing applied to prevent someone from defending themselves against a civil action if there had been a lawsuit by mr her own against the federal government and to get back to the judge marcus you asked about if you have if the idea of there is a connection is there what is the connection between the underlying litigation in state courts and the lawsuits that was before a judge when he when he dismissed it and if you look at the the allegations in the complaint most of the allegations are basically attempts to to relive a gate issues or in state that she specifically alleges for instance violations or breaches rather of the settlement agreement that is within the jurisdiction of the family court in fact there's a there's a specific allegation that the  the complaint that she was forced to flee the united states because of the unfair litigation practices of mr martin so she should in her complaint she literally tries to recast her fugitive status in some defensive way that it was a that it was she was compelled to leave the leave the jurisdiction of because of the because of the nasty behavior of mr mr martin's lawyers if you were to believe that and that's the forms the basis  before us as i understood your colleague agreed quite candidly no objection was made in the blue to the determination by the trial court file a reverse process to that so i guess what i'm asking is do i even have to examine whether the district court got it right it may not be art or going to the merits but is that probably even before me it is not but before the probably before this court in fact be the only the only issue raised in before the district court in the response to the motion to dismiss was a challenge to the fugitive status prong of the of the of the fugitive entitlement doctrine in fact the the argument that was rape before the district court as to that prong is not the argument that was raised in the brief  oral argument that argument was based purely on the the notion of intense to flee having to be established which is the i think the point that the judge jordan was was referring to about the intent to flee can be dismissal was necessary to effect the concerns this is equitable doctrine and in that regard what he says essentially is on the lam for about two years with with mr martin's daughters to come to court and in seek relief and then without any expectation that she would actually abide by any court orders and as evidence of that among other things  four minutes for revival thank you your honor i'll address what was being discussed just just most recently regarding miss center not appearing at the status conference by telephone i think i would say that she she was not ordered to to appear and that's a distinguishing factor that that we have from cases like peston cases like believe it's barnett where for instance in person you have the trial court the father files and i car a petition to have the children returned to him and then his layla court grants the petition orders the children returned the mother fails to comply the court then sets two different different conferences at which the the mother specifically ordered to attend and then the mother does not attend and so the court says you know we have a contempt or court finds the mother in contempt and the core issues and arrest warrant which again is is different than what we have in the instant case where the center is not in violation of any of the orders of the district court judge ruiz discussed in the transcript at the at the status conference he said you know i consider to paraphrase he said i considered ordering that in a center appear before the court physically in person within ten days and i decided not to do that because you have direct order of judge weavers in this case but isn't the real question whether or not she violated state court orders to such a degree that she was held in contempt and that law enforcement was authorized disentanglement doctrine our position is that this what what the district court did in this case represents an extension of that doctrine to where you have this state court findings as as your honour's discussed but that here we have the district court in which she has not been a center is not of violated any of the court's orders and the district court solely basing its findings on what happened in the in the state court and i'll say this she specifically requested to produce