your for convenience and what we had happen here in this case was a simultaneous proceeding in the same courtroom of both criminal and civil contempt now i have cited cases where if you have parallel criminal and civil proceedings it's within disc the discretion of the court to stay the civil case pending resolution adjudication of the criminal case i believe that those cases support my position  in fact our case here today is even stronger and that there was a violation of due process because these proceedings have to the same court at the same time that's what happened as i was looking back to the record is that at that hearing in june of two thousand and eleven mr a mr schmidt counsel for the panel said we are asking for a finding of contempt civil and work criminal  i think civil contempt is appropriate to compel the compliance with the situation with the citation turned over the fox criminal contempt is appropriate because in the intention of criminal contempt is to punish for violation of that was what was advocated that was that was what was moved for and there was no indication from the court prior to the beginning of this four argument that occurred on june seventeenth of twenty eleven that there would only be because when it's in direct criminal contempt there must be a petition it first must be presented to the prosecutor's office to see whether they accept or decline it and then if the privately get wants to move forward a petition for indirect criminal contempt they must go before the and that's what we have here is one of the arguments to counsel for the bank makes is that he was only held in civil contempt no are far but if you look at their june seventeenth order it was punishment it was not  nice that's where i differ with it with the position of the bank of america and the bank you know the bank in its brief it says on page three this is akin to a defendant charged with a felony are going after to me is that how could anyone consider this an indirect criminal contempt proceedings because there was nothing there to indicate such and i did and your honor my point is is that that is what was being sought by the bank itself was both the indirect civil and indirect criminal contempt and it no time did the judge or anyone else say we're only here for indirect civil contempt if that i asked if the attorney of the other side would have asked that your improper by going forward with that and by the judge allowing that to go forward and being adjudicated by having that both indirect still in direct criminal proceeding judy kane without being unequivocal that all here for is an indirect civil contempt proceeding then i think different terms of what is due process requires and i think due process requires more than just a matter of convenience or a matter of technicality or a matter of well all that well that ends well he didn't go to jail on us it can't be that way that's not the way it was what if you go into the criminal court and the prosecutor says you're you so guilty this is what we're go well that warrant should have objected to the simultaneous proceedings going out and say if it's going to be something is that is a question a waiver i think it was plain error in terms of due process of what might happen here trends of the system in the process that occurred the bank was not joking want to cross that ocean and ask for that as well are you going to seventeen twenty like it wasn't something that was flipping through by the way or off the car oh by the way let's throw me in jail and punishment in direct criminal contempt it was directly asked for of the court that day i find that i would think that is pretty secure but that leaves us with the legal question still what him in criminal contempt there was an adjudication of such by the judge stated if i if i remember the record correctly is that judge said i'm not going to find any criminal contempt that's my recollection of the evidence that case law is going to matter is unequivocal we all know we didn't did we have a situation here where someone was pro se mentally unstable representing himself only individually no citations issued to his other corporations i circumstances not we have to look at each case individually within the parameters of the law and the law does say there must be a fine as to what is in the rest of the contempt so in this case not there that could be a reasonable inference just what it is i thank you for your time  asked questions subpoenaed to testify the individual requested that the court stay the proceedings because of the criminal situation here jack self was represented by counsel he proceedings are enough even if there are no facts and your transcript of the proceedings makes pretty clear what the issues were that were being discussed and the basis of there was a response filed it was a position taken regarding an interpretation of what those exhibits were but i don't think there was any stipulation or manifestation to the court that we agree with those documents i had a chance what mr ship was arguing of that but this is what was said at eight fifty was starting at the bottom line twenty one who the court well if i find him in contempt what do you want me to do to him mr schmidt well apple your honor i can say this this is the first time i've ever sought to have someone filing contempt so i can say that i am fully versed in the procedure i think a criminal contempt he goes away for a short period of time whatever your honor deems appropriate the court so you want me to throw you in jail for a while mr schmidt yes the court ok right there i was it not a finding of criminal conte regarding the whether or not position of the bank is that we don't contest the facts or is what justice wright was inquiring about is what are the facts we do contest the contempt i do not know if the transcript references whether he was present was not present on that day you're ok thank you i was this matter will be taken that her