at the table is all on one second i didn't realize i was not thinking about it thank you i was attempting to present in the first case which also lands here which is a whether the protective order protects the alien so that we can go forward with it what orders of the district court are you appealing from in this appeal yes in this appeal your honor what we're dealing with is the lower court's refusal to consider the hegner as motion for summary judgment establishing there is no jurisdiction here i don't agree that it was only on the it isn't or a defense or that it was limited to that your honor it in my effort to have the  yeah that's true and i think we have the motion right with it you know the judge asked for the order and i should have anticipated that so on peach sixty it does say the haganah claimants respectfully request that the court certify their innocent owner defenses to forfeiture for immediate appeal so it sounds like because the court is saying that there is no judgment leean and of course fifteen three zero seven seven is saying that there is one and then when i said that this was a collateral issue and i thought perhaps it came within the beneficial but answerable as i understand it that it would be broad enough but in the document itself as we go through it i think as i recall in the last page or so we are again talking about the full range of issues here and that is why i say that is the case that the order is broad enough to encompass what we're doing because i can't really and the issues and fifteen three zero zero seven from what the court is doing with respect to its decision that denying the innocent or the defense and  the point to i wish to make here is this there is no expiration of the sle and because of the protective order protective order makes it clear that you are not to encounter property you are not to do the things that would be necessary to get every new new york law and that is where we stand on that we'll hear from you the song thank you good morning when it may please the court the heading is rule fifty four b motion is clear and express it is soley limited to issues raised on their innocent owner defense of forfeiture in addition to the passage noted by judge chin on page five of the motion in supplemental appendix on page sixty four the heading state further certification now will permit the court of appeals to deal one time only with all innocent owner defenses to forfeiture within the pending appeal in re six fifty fifth avenue forfeiture proceeding docket number fourteen two zero two seven it does not mention any of the issues that are being discussed in the appeal currently being taken in fifteen three zero  as for mr hayden's i'm sorry as for the heavens claim that these issues are now somehow intertwined with the issues raised in fifteen to eight two that was not never an issue that was briefed they're not intertwined there are two separate cases there is a forfeit i think we all stand on our brief with this i think we've covered the major points we want to cover with one exception which i'd like to go back to just for a moment it applies again in fifteen three zero zero seven which is the question we have as to the jurisdiction of the united states caught to forfeit foreign sovereign assets unless and until there is a provision for doing so under the foreign sovereign immunity which there is no such provision in fact the contrary is true and as this court has held in weinstein that contrary says notwithstanding any other provision of law the judgments of terrorism victims are to be in force in the united states courts and i submit to your honor's that what they have plainly means to me in language that the congress used for the appropriate purpose of enforcing these judgments that we are not to be bound down by the trappings of state law which had some possible relevance to commercial transactions of domestic companies has with that in mind the with respect to aussie which is still before the court below it has not come up here on any fifty four b appeal or otherwise so we can go ahead we can enforce this judgement by a sale of that building and forty percent of that money can be made available for the victims of terror but we to do so we need to proceed under that show cause order and to enforce that judgment we need only just to have one thing we don't need to listen we don't need an attachment but we do need a judgment we've got that judgment and we should be able to go forward in that show c let building and make those monies available to dictums of terrorism including michael