federal trade commission of events and seven hundred six six nine plain language of three sixty two before and we look at with this court stronger let me start off why are you appealing here we are appealing the finding by the lower court that the bankruptcy stay the automatic stay under three sixty two does not apply to mr ranson is contempt proceedings well i don't see any finding i see a minute and a kind of documentary that probably took about two seconds to write that's what you're appealing correct correct the order and this carries then this curious went forward and there was a hearing a farmer recalling correctly and he determined whatever he determined and mr ranson your client has filed an appeal from the determination judge i think the procedural posture was we filed we ask for the stay the stay was denied we asked this court to enter a stay pending appeal this court entered a stay pending appeal and then in defiance or just because the district court didn't see it or whatever reason the district court ignored this court's stay pending appeal on this issue and then entered a contempt order aren't you the people who can tell your client has appealed a contempt order yes we know we appealed the contempt order because we removed for reconsideration we asked at the court vacate and the court said i can't vacate if you're arguing i don't have jurisdiction to enter it in the first place i can't vacate you're going to have to take it up with the second circuit we discussed the matter with the f t c and both parties agree of incarceration and while the bankruptcy is pending my understanding is is no he's not but the purpose of the stay as this court explained in brandon is really what's happened to your client on having him what if anything well what we have going on and i think this requires an explanation of what's going on in the bankruptcy court if the court is not aware the bankruptcy trustee has moved in an adversary proceeding to declare the very same assets that the f argued in both their answer and in their opposition to the stay that mr ranson has available to him to pay their judgment so now we have a coordinated proceedings and the potential exists because now and i don't like to use order that was entered after this court stands in the bankruptcy court at some point we'll have to sort that out of the bargain who gets the money right well it's not even who gets the money your honor it's what the f t c has done is avoid the plain language bankruptcy stay have authority to cite someone for contempt whether there can be consequences is a no other issue if for example i'm the i'm done i'm to lower judge the bankruptcy idiot he just doesn't know what he's doing he's a disgrace nobody should pay attention to the district court under those circumstances notwithstanding the stay has the authority does he not to cite the man for contempt if where i think in two parts as i take into part if we're looking under the statute other bankruptcy statute once a question was does not i don't believe indication is a proper basis of civil contempt and even the cases that the f t c relies on for vindication can settle this when i'm you to answer to my questions yes or no question before you go into these long winded explanations cannot hold simply for the ferry to pay a money judgment in contempt the cases the f t c relies on to get their say it's something more it's failure to make an accounting and not pay a contempt it's it's distress it's lying to the court none of that has happened here under a vindication theory can't simply be not paying and it can't simply be i filed for bankruptcy stay what the f t c is really asking this court to do is rewrite the statute and ignore the fact that the statute  monaro let's go back to what i was asking you first isn't all of the arguments that you are making in response and or attempting to make all my arguments that are actually or sorry the margin of the motion right yes the minute order saying the bankruptcy state does not apply arguing to us about whether contempt is proper or not proper that's a different appeal and it's not in front of this panel right you'll agree with sorry a non final order a font non final no duration not subject to appeal you are out first i think the f t c waived it by appealing by answering back and not raising that issue in that issue hasn't been briefed as to whether it's a collateral order or our jurisdiction we decide that we raised that whenever we want to when we think it's an issue now tell me why this is not just a non final order that doesn't get the back of our hand and you can take all of your arguments you are making today or attempting to make the dang up with the next panel that is hearing your appeal from the contempt order that was actually entered well what i think we believe that the contempt  other issues that haven't been briefed before the court yes is there an exception applies to this order to this note minute entry in the margin of the motion to hold briefing schedule and bands cover sheet you are off the top of my head i wouldn't know i'd have to supplement early brief the issue if the court wants us to gauge in briefing on whether the collateral order doctrine or any other doctrine supply will certainly will in gauge in that briefing i see my time has expired if you want me to well don't you know  you're not going to get off you know ok would you agree with your listeners if you're out if this is a non final order that we don't have jurisdiction i'm sorry can you repeat the question i didn't hear everything or i'd be happy to would you agree with me that if this is a non final order from which this is a piano which is the only thing subject of the notice of appeal in this case if it's a non fine who are the we do not have jurisdiction and needs to be to the general the general proposition if no exceptions apply which normally would apply that we'd have to analyze on whether a non final order goes up then your answer would be yes if there's no exceptions and it's a non final order and there's no jurisdiction because there's non final order no exceptions then then the answer would be yes ok and would you also agree with me that what we're arguing about or attempting to are you are attempting to argue about here today which is judge crawford is minute ball within the context of the appeal that is pending that is not before this panel if he entered an order in violation of the stay which is what he said he can do and then he has gone on to enter the order that you have that issue preserved if you will for argument before the panel that gets your next appeal think preserve in case of such an issue because that was post trial briefing that were post here and i was told to continue we raise the issue below in our post hearing briefing after the court said the state doesn't apply we s the stay applies in the post hearing briefing prior to the issue of the the order of the lower court finding mr ranson in contempt which was issued after this court today it does that clarify the issue was the issue this issue was really raised in our post hearing find a fact conclusion of law briefs that were submitted to judge crotty after the lower court made the decision it did on whether the stay applied but it wasn't a straight reconsider the statute and looking at the record it's just smells of known discharge ability i think the other issue is though your honor is the uncoordinated proceeding regarding the assets because what we have satisfy my debt bankruptcy trustee saying those assets need to be turned over to the bankruptcy trustee for all the creditors and that mr ranson not only need to turn those over when he's to repay any money he derived from that income so now we have  your honor while there or not that minute order judge is deemed to be final order the issue certainly will continue to be alive in the other unless unless this court actually rules court a couple of corrections true to the record first mr ranson is not in violation of not paying a money judgment this was an injunction by the court has violated in fact to injunctions he first violated the first injunction that was entered as a consent in two thousand and ten and then the order that in two thousand and sixteen that was ordered was entered by the district court after the first appeal this is the third appeal to this court after the first appeal was an injunction and the language of that order was in fact affirmatively disputed by mr  ranson and was overruled by the district by the district judge so it's not a simple many judgment it's an injunction to undertake certain steps which mr ranson has done neither or none of them heard and on which there will be an actual decision and the appeal that i referred to earlier seventeen fifteen eighty seven that appeals what judge crotty finally entered as an order yes  on these these arguments can still be made in the other in the other appeal well still i mean they're not really relevant to what we're doing here because all we have is this this little note that says the state doesn't brief the issue but it is my understanding of a final order should be i would think it would not be a final and i  be a potential conflict between what the district court did and what the bankruptcy court is doing there is nothing in the in the f t c request for a determination of contempt and state sanction regardless of what that sanctions nature is there is nothing that would that would in any way affect what the bankruptcy court is doing the last  something that we that we have asked for your honor and that is not what the district court intimated it would do in the hearing and then later did in the actual contempt order and so nothing in that order are now have been passed by the district court one is current it is subject to the appeal that's now in abeyance here but there is the order that was entered by the district court in two thousand and sixteen that was also a contempt order because mr ranson had failed to comply with an earlier order of of the of the district court that two thousand and sixteen order another injunction a u it is a contempt for failure to pay which is exactly what was the posture in brandon but not everything that is based on the failure to pay is no we're not asking for any money while the bankruptcy proceeding is going on we're asking for a determination of contempt because it does it does two things one it preserves the record and  shift the burden to to mr ranson when the bankruptcy proceeding is over it becomes his burden to show complete inability to pay any part of the judgment that that's one it is very useful for assets that are either determined not to be in a bankruptcy estate or that are post bankruptcy estate if if he acquires any assets post petition those would not be judiciary and the federal government the evidence and the hearing had been completed in this in this proceeding the judge had intimated in fact during the hearing where he's probably going as he in fact  based on your your familiarity with the notice of appeal in this case that all of the information you have kindly provided us over the past eight minutes or so is not before us because it's all related to the contempt order that was actually entered that's not on appeal before us correct no i'm not sure i would go that far your honor there are everything that's in the contempt order itself is not before you right now that's that's correct but what before us is the motion is denied the automatic bankruptcy stay is not applicable to the proceedings in the matter rather the proceedings fall within government regulation and cetera the briefing schedule is reinstated and i think that's what it's booked but but he did determine that three six  order before us correct all right and so everything that you've been telling us about the contempt order is not before us correct what of what i was what what is before you helpful background information yes but there are things that are properly before your honor which is what the remedy that the f t c asked for in the first place no no no no no or the only thing is this order let me ask you though in terms of housekeeping if we decide that this is essentially we don't have jurisdiction to hear this should we lift the stay with respect to the  with respect to the proceeding i gave the docket number earlier in which the contempt order is actually on appeal on that proceed yes your honor there is the  that the district court was without jurisdiction because of the administrative appeal then there may be a jurisdictional problem with that with that order and maybe the best thing to do is to we manned perhaps dismiss both appeals allow the district court to enter the appeal without any jurisdictional clout and then if if mr ranson with their jurisdiction a cloud in the other appeal there may be wrong the sequence of events that there was an appeal notice of appeal filed there was in tandem with that an application for a stay and applications judge on our court the second circuit granted to the minister to stay pending resolution by a motions panel of the motion for a more permanent stay immediately after that a minister to stay what happened was that a judge quality perhaps probably unaware of these distances of the minister to stay and to this order of contempt with the that's at issue in the other case and there was also maybe this is where i'm wrong the the order for lack of a better word attached that was that was scribbled on the motion and that is dated march what why why don't we see this in the ordinary course if for example a district court rule denied or granted a motion for a leaf relief from a sta d no my it my it would be that the lower court had no jurisdiction to enter the order because documentary thirty six in this court said you can't enter anything stay it and he entered one anyway but you you have no problems with the other panel answering that question is  what we did was we got the stay in documentary already set your daughter is not on appeal and judge parker asked you about the subsequent appeal that was filed after the contempt order was entered you're not questioning this court's jurisdiction to hear that appeal that you file right now if the if this court wants full briefing on it that that that's perfectly fine and we could consolidate that panel i'm briefly with regard to to just a couple of comments of the of the f t c i think the f t c made it made it clear that they're seeking to and in for some money judgment the judgment that they refer to the contempt finding in twenty commission was very careful to make clear that it was not ordering the enforcement of the money judgment pending the the stay there out of the problem with no your honor to the extent that brennan says once the money judgment is fixed the government can go no further and the money judgment of fixing a money judgment is by itself not a not a problem from the from the perspective of the moment the money judgment exception fixing no but the dragnet was fixed in two thousand and sixteen the f t c saying now hold him in contempt for failing to pay the fixed judgment and what they're saying is this new contempt is just trying to fix the judgment of the old contempt we already have a number he's required your fellow me other than the fact of the contempt determination can you show me anywhere in this record where the w fact of the contempt a determination that i can latch onto to say oh there is judge quality enforcing the money judgment other than the contempt finding him itself the language in the contempt finding i don't know if there's a word that says in force but what it what and i'll conclude with this your honor unless there's any more question from the panel what it is is there was a contempt finding in twenty sixte for which show answer was jointly several liable for twenty ten twenty sixteen the amount was fixed then there was a subsequent contemporary ding saying you didn't pay this fixed judgment pay me or go to jail and what the lower court said well you didn't pay this judgment i'm holding you in contempt for not paying this judgment you need to do nothing is going to happen by the way during the duration of the stay correct but you still haven't on coordinated and i think this goes back to what we discussed earlier you still have now the bankruptcy trustee and the district court fighting over the same assets to satisfy different creditors and putting the f t c in a position of priority creditor and uncoordinated proceeding you really are with your little br