have that happen so the removal was proper because the rouble inquiry is very simple the f t c has the power to remove and in any case in which it is a party and there's no question that it became a party once it substituted itself any question you have should have done that whether it should have become a party or to be resolved by the federal court and as gentle presence is suggesting if the remedy  if if if the court concludes that you have should not be a party here then the remedy is to substitute the proper party not to send the case back to the great rico court with the f d r s he's still in it that doesn't that doesn't get to the it doesn't yet on the question of real party and interest and as long as that is true your bank that you put into receivershi federal court and that the federal court may not entertain counter claims of this sort here am i correct yes you know judgment we do have an interest in believe that courts should be entering judgments in this in this against a failed bank in this circumstance without the f d i c being able to appear and and explain all the circumstances and that's why it's plain  your honor the court absolutely has the discretion to to to let the district court address it st there are certain things questioning whether we have the jurisdiction to to jump over the district court and aggressive it in the context of defect in a removed case the court should address it and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction if it finds a lack of jurisdiction and not remapped but setting that aside let me speak briefly to that claims process because the claims that there won't be a much more prompt resolution of the issues that you want result of that if the matter is in federal court at the federal court can determine these issues of the real party an interest and then you can go off on your way so i do not understand why your client is spending money to stop  see said they had hoped as you obviously had that the matter would be worked out it was not in the meantime five years after afterall is put into receivership there is still a claim against it and the f b i c has made the judgment that the best way to get all of this cleared up is for it to have the action going and federal court make litigation judgments about where they should be and whether to exercise that right to be and federal court well your honor the term claim the subject know i keep hearing all these arguments that you should be making to the federal district court to try to get this case along the question before us is whether we should get rid of the order in the face of a clear statutory command even the district court recognize good to present all of these substantive arguments to us our question is whether the district court violated this statute by sending  y sending the case back to the state court where it has affectively not panhandle for a number of years now well you know i respect your pos done this the district courts remark order is correct in one respects and if that judgement is affirmed there will be no financial exposure for the if the a seat and no harm to its public function for which it was created and certainly referred to regarding puerto rico law was addressed by this court in pritzker v yari forty two f rd fifty three which at which allows a party that does not know the purchase price when it wants to exercise that right to simply count argument in this case attorney stevens an attorney so so you should disconnect from the hearing at this time