good morning the issue before your honor's today is actually quite simple and i'm going to take the lead with the sanction the sanction in this case for indirect was the appointment of a receiver that receiver was then ordered to conduct an investigation report back to the court and liquidate all of the freed a suitor the court under the proper circumstances does have the right under two fourteen zero two and section seven one eight to appoint a if one is requested under those statutes that is not what occurred and i would also point out your honor that under two fourteen zero two and seven one eight a receiver may be appointed if requested and then there has to be a response and then hearing on that issue and then that receiver must hold assets that is  that is not with that order provides for so we now have a scenario and i know i heard your honor ask the prior councilman case there is not one case in illinois and there is not one case in the united states which provides that as a sanction for indirect civil contempt a receiver will be appointed to liquidate all of that person's assets it's never happened before and in fact supports our position the lower court cited jackson in vienna baking in support of its position that it can appoint a receiver for indirect look contempt however if one takes a look at the jackson case one it has nothing to do with contempt it doesn't mention contempt now it's number one number two the order provides for the case provides that you cannot appoint a receiver for past conduct it's very specific added it's prohibited number three in that case does not provide you the one second there's not provide anything with contempt it does not provide anything for a receiver and in fact that case itself overturned the appointment of receiver this take a step beyond you are not appealing the appointment of a receiver for the identified l c c's as their right not in this order your honor there is a no other appeal dealing with the thirty twenty receivers we do not disagree that a receiver can be appointed for the sixty nine elsie's and when you say sixty nine when it first came before us in the fall  receivers and what you call the contempt receiver not the thirty twenty receiver is printed by statute we don't disagree with that the thirty twenty receiver is permitted under the statute to collect and monitor distributions out of those l l c and we don't disagree with that at all and in fact that actually supports our position in this case if the underlying court entered an order to make sure nothing happens to those assets again now would be for past conduct which would be improper on its face they had at the time this order was entered a charge you going against all sixty nine elsie's a receiver had been appointed for all sixty nine elsie's and also they have foreclosed on all of them all of the known assets have been covered protected and foreclosed upon with a receiver appointed they were covered so when they entered this contempt receiver there's no basis in the long for it just there's nowhere for this receiver to go there's nothing for him to do and anything he is doing since the entry of that order is improper because again we're giving a third party the ability to determine when freedom didio can purchase the contempt must be reversed so we take the lead on that because we think that's the most glaring and easiest for anyone to ascertain when we take a look at the underlying contempt issues it's actually very simple it's not as complicated as the other side would like you to believe that broken down into three categories one which we acknowledge there was a deutsche bank site  was improperly liquidated because it had been processed creek prior to the entry the citation liquidated subst subsequent to that and we advised the court below but we were wrong in addition your honor we have the booking entries and that's how the bank likes to say there was five million dollars of dissipated assets one the booking interest comprise approximately three million dollars however the bank also acknowledges that  double counting there so really don't know the amount the interesting thing about this case and those booking entries is that it is not the fact that three million dollars all of a sudden left these underlying into t's and found its way over in the cayman islands that's not what happened so when we talk about a dissipating of assets we have entities which lent money to other entities entities not covered by the citation entities i might add that were kept alive by the late lending of money back and forth between these entities who is the only party that really benefits from that bank of america benefits from that why they had a charging order and a foreclosure order on sixty nine l l c is that money was lent back and forth between the different entities to keep those entit es alive it was coded as a distribution it had previously been coded prior to one thousand nine hundred nine as lumos it's all ok we're not really here for that are we right are we here really to decide the rest of them were not and the only benefit to those the only benefit received was from the bank by the bank of america so it was  account as far as the it isn't just any money in the underlying l l c automatically becomes t d l so that's not the way it works so it has to beat a profit it has to rise to the top if if our client had instead of calling it and booked it a distribution it simply prepared a loan document from fried red sky to free forty three hundred for five thousand dollars that's not a distribution is just a loan and was a hundred seven million dollars and since the judgement was entered against him he's paid seven thousand dollars a month and i think he's got more debt i don't know but he's got more access than that i don't know that they actually there have been sixty nine charging orders sixty nine orders a foreclosure his home has been put up for sale there have been assets in a bankruptcy worth a million dollars those have been given to the bank so there are other assets what i or that have been given to the bank that's the reason i think i guess if we get back to that yeah the reason there's no case is that support of the other party's position is because it flies in the face of the in my law if i is in the face of law united states that's why there's nothing in support of it i think you have sanderson morning or attorney or something for bank of america i think the most important thing to consider first in this case is the standard of review first on appointment of a receiver it's an abuse of discretion court to fish an appropriate remedy when the fines can tell the standards here are very difficult for an appellant as to be no reasonable person would either reach the conclusion i'm just a patient or find that there was contempt or or find that the remedies were improper by the court against those standards we believe that the opponents have an almost impossible position here the evidence was overwhelming before the hearing even began that four hundred thousand dollars had been spent transferred dissipated by freedom d d l and the papers that were submitted to the court and january twenty first a quarter of a million hours went out of mr freeze that your bank account didn't go to bank of america it went to another lender now they say that that transaction was put in place before january third hearing actually before the hearing began we noted to the court that if you took all the bank accounts for freedom d d l and you told up all the money that had gone in there that was no longer there it was clear that almost a million dollars had been dissipated this is before we even get to the book and trees and on the brooklyn trees the evidence there was clear to the people who made them all submitted if a david stating that they were made in order to properly account for the movement of tongues so the bottom line is that and the this patient of of money was there clearly was overwhelming receiver fold and an asset like in the sixty nine elsie's that they know about there you never see her for that again not conceding anything for the next case down the road which i know well yeah but i think the most important case to begin with this t and enter all orders in regard there are two which are necessary and equitable between the parties so between the case saying that the court has broad discretion to fish and remedies and section t team the court has extremely broad authority to remedy the situation and think about what the position of the trial court was in here when this matter came before the  real method and one oil for correction of a judgement it's standard procedure they've been in place for years what has happened here citations were sort of january third and the next five months almost five million dollars was dissipated the comes before the court she has an injunction in place and for five months and obviously sophisticated debtor who heads morris attorneys and experience in financial matters had bought this going to him for five months worth of the court do to stop this and have the statutory system work here but then the book interest short going through didio are free and they produced i think it's appendix b to our brief what they called check registers and the check registers are in five pages a summary of all the money transactions that were booked to freedom d d l in other words money that was booked as properly belonging to them and so on that's why the trial court concluded that there was almost five million transfers here because those check register evidence was so overwhelming here when the trial court was confronted with what do you do when an injunction has been ignored by about obviously sophisticated investor financier who's head counsel in court and all around  it's consistent with two seven a team and it's consistent with what a citation is in the first place any judgment creditor serving a citation is the pending appeal the judgment that are to come forward and make a full clean and honest and complete disclosure of the essence here the trial court saw someone who not only didn't do that but went out and transferred five million dollars in direct warning comes in seven days later with a complete disgrace or it's over but when the judgment better doesn't do that when the judgment that it goes out and does what's hip here for five to six months and then there's a long period with hearings waiting for the court to rule issu we know that there was kitchen dispersed plus here the thirty twenty receiver is a receiver only to receive the distribution of s distributions of arrow season and it's only here for  cs in illinois pursuant to illinois section thirty twenty at the hearing before judge granted there was evidence that there was money from entities in colorado missouri michigan  arbor washington d c and the evidence wasn't that this money from all these entities was necessarily always going to preserve the value there was evidence that it was going to pay one of the remedies it's a lock up mr free and that's clarence's ninety seven eight says if you want black enough but it's one of the remedies available to appoint a receiver to hunt down assets under two seven eighteen absolutely contempt namely that that the prepared to be incarcerated until they made the payments the court ordered and i think the case is really wants but the issue is here even it even if you fail the receiver was somehow improper or the courage provision is improper the contempt should be affirmed and that most could happen would be a remained with a direction as in the well being case as to whether the the judgment debtors of five million dollars in the first five months it's in and nothing has happened since then it's no b m a court's power under two seven eighteen to say someone should work out take charge that money and i'm like the judgment and the answer that it has to be yes i see my concern is it may go back to the whole idea of how we have eight ever serious system of justice and their position to boil it down is what the banks have to find the money that my guy has and that some only be two minutes i'm sure you do us that opposing counsel repeatedly to give you a case he couldn't use i care for fairly long time and again that's because he can't it doesn't exist when he says to two seven one eight you exactly right that's an asset receiver under the garnishment statute which hold and maintain a known asset and of course you keep coming back to that but it's wrong on its face it's wrong the statute says it's wrong there's no cases honor what could have occurred let's assume the two hundred forty five it was a violation citation could have ordered the court could have ordered mr freeh to pay back the two hundred forty five thousand dollars that's a fairly common sanction in such cases as far as the booking entries again when i getting into the manifest weight of the evidence but the court could have ordered d d l or the church j f a to go back and rebook the entries just as loans i can no money the problem no it does it actually does provide for a purchase but it gives all of the rights to this third party to have the keys to the cell and that third party will do an investigation it will sell assets and once it has disposed of all of the assets and then it has decided that mr freeman didio have a cooperative then the perch occur occurs that's right in the order so it's impossible for mr freydon d d l to have the keys to their own self it's impossible it's been given the someone else and added this can the entire the entirety of all the assets must be liquidated in order to obtain a perk that is seems rather draconian to to us so i have nothing further think