and eighty seven the id insurance company a successor by margery international insurance company and international surplus line insurance company ally versus republic is used for a commercial activity at the time a judgment creditor applies to the court for such relief the parties agree that no court in the circuit has ruled this precise question  circumstances it only became an issue after the district court i doctored time the writ for reasons that we felt were adequately addressed by the rd circuit sign and the time of commencing the enforcement action was too long but the record that was developed in that case in the opinion don't really provide enough facts to understand what the totality of circumstances were determine the outcome for language of the statute but all the language of the statute tells you the property is for the present tense it doesn't tell you when you went where is the present right that's correct if you just focused on the you have those two choices but there's another part of the statute that helps to distinguish and that's the definition d only now are being brought to bear in execution against the property that was the subject of that contract and congress wanted to make it clear that the was allows for the court to congress expressed about sovereigns manipulating the facts that's a concern in every case not just at the cia but in particular it's a concern here because that's exactly what happened after the why is that cut against you i well we don't know exactly why the concern was expressed in the way it was i think it might have been more fully explain legislative history for one hundred and sixty eight to sixteen today two it's a concern that this court needs to take account of because we're looking for an interpretation of the statute that's fair both to the sovereign and to the private please the court p i g the argument here is based on the fundamentally flawed premise that past commercial use of a foreign sovereign property forever waived its immunity from execution d not to include a present tense requirement for use for a commercial activity even ones even likely excuse even if we do the statute as written in the present tense seems which are assessed by allegations of the complaint which are you know articulated at the time of the filing of the complaint i mean a lot of the activity in a case assessing personal jurisdiction which may be more analogous to what we have here  not a subject matter jurisdiction increased label but we typically look to the allegations the complaint site unusual to have a court making a determination based on facts as they are going to be at the moment that the court issue the working interest share has been used for commercial activity in the united states so it's not dealing with the differentiation that you have to make here between time a filing in time of issuance of the  language that takes back to to the discussion that i was having before that by abandoning the present tense and then and adopting a phrase that have been used for a commercial do have a response and i think your example there is a very good one a table used for dining versus a papal used for working because of the nature of the current crisis i happen to be working in my house  there there is a table that many months ago i used for dining now it's up in my office in my house covered in all of my papers it's a table used for working you would call it a table used for dining right is evident we believe from the face of the statue from the fact that these adjectival phrases are not modified by any verb tenses so at the time the court is looking to attach the property the simple question is do these activity in the statute has no adverbs attached to it it doesn't say primarily used or predominantly used right but right right right right which is totally consistent with that always a certain thing really just adopt the extent of the court's analysis that it seems more appropriate and there's no effort to engage with the text of section sixteen which is contrary to the principle that the court it doesn't answer the question about whether it's at the time of filing or at the time of rant and what i just don't understand is why the court would adopt and interpretation of that work that could go back to the language if you want but i started my question by saying that i don't believe the word used to answer the question therefore why would i have the interpretation you're offering which allows argentina to skate simply by taking it that allows a sovereign to do what argentina did is that the purpose of the f s a is protection of sovereignty and sovereign immunity and the value that it protects is sovereignty the backdrop of the f s a situation such as occurred here would only occur where a property could be removed from commercial activity without subjecting it to one thousand six hundred and ten a to liability and what i mean by that is if you have a particular transaction or occurrence such as a sale that actually is reduced to a non contingent sal's contract argentina could not have removed the property from the market without opening itself up to to a waiver of immunity to the contracting party so it's the very particular circumstance that allows what happened here to happen i don't think  reading this case is on time of filing but to deal with examples such as the absurd idea that argentina advances that once commercial activities established on the date of filing that it's forever amount of time not for the purpose of allowing the sovereign to avoid its creditor but to take into account relevant facts but in this case on the data filing it was certain and and there really isn't a need to