i'll say good afternoon your honour's peter livingston on behalf of vassar corp an asset limited and once again we are faced with the record that was put together based upon evidence that came out of a trial which came out of prior appeals which formed as a corporation in the belly wick of jersey in the channel islands it does not have a permit to population it does not have a government or any other indicia to suggest that i is a a a government in any way shape or form by virtue of that it's not a foreign state if we go further into it by virtue of the fact that they haven't corporations in new york and a third party they can't be considered under fs i a one possibility is they could be considered as an alter ego under episode if the banksy case were to be followed the problem with that is that the district court never bothered to make the five point analysis under banksy so it's not before this court that turns those to one other aspect of it which was touched upon an earlier argument and that is how does this play out with respect to prasad co ltd is an agency or instrument telling of a terrorist point and there again we have to look at that specific facts as to what was developed or not developed before the district court the court makes reference to concealment but the problem with that is that there has not been any concealment no government was lied to no agency was like to know individuals like to the district court got mixed up and she mentions that we really lost  assets because of the get big case of a flat out case only problem of that is that we were not partisan that litigation she she kind of made up the facts as she went along that the government has not traced one dollar  rental income to iran the money from the rental income assoc or went back to its parent in new jersey islands to repay it for the loan that was utilized to buy that property in one thousand eight hundred nine when it was perfectly legal to own a property in new york there's no concealment no no documents or what were found with respect to that aspect of it all it did are prior to say hold one hundred pounds of consideration for what was obviously worth a lot more that's a par value what you would not is not an unusual practice in europe when you when you fill out forms with financial at the indicate with the par value was of th years and there are no evidence of day to day operations conducted by anyone even when counsel made reference to a document i think it was that mr g he had torn up or something was very interesting is that that document was a letter by as a limited to its chartered accountants talk about the fact that there was selling their interest not to lobby but they were third party i was the tearing up of it i have no idea you know i have no idea you have to ask a lobby i don't know i mean even paranoid people have  us a fair opportunity to see what the bases was for blocking without then basically all we have is a just because it is a press release and i don't think that because they don't know what the blocking aspects of it they could never come to this court and assert why it was that asses assets are blocked all i have is a press release so for that basis we're going to turn over almost five hundred million dollars in assets i don't think so i think this case has to go back it did not have your court did not ate and we have to go back to get the requisite discovery that we need under from opec would by doing that will have that fair opportunity to go forward with the case  fact these it is in their declaration indicate they weren't public employees they had no none of the requisite connections to a bank nobody around to circumstances and by reason of that we're asa to the extent that they are unable to distinguish their case now from the cases that was before this court then and they have simply failed to do so i want to make a point as to the the lack of discovery from asa didn't participate correct facts are exactly the same and the outcome should be exactly the same based on a pure issue of star decisis there is no distinguishing factor between six fifty incursion bomb and the court case that is currently pending before this panel on the issue of blocking mr teresa referenced the fact that the government civil forfeiture case was not a situation where a lobby i'm sorry asa had the opportunity to challenge the fact of the blocking and here there is simply no question that uscis property was blocked by ofac under executive order thirteen three eight two that's at seventy three federal aid zero five one three and when you're dealing with an executive order like thirteen  wo that requires an affirmative designation by ofac the fact that designation has been made is conclusive evidence that the property is blocked now it would have been possible for us to challenge that designation in an administrative proceeding in ofac but they needed to follow the administrative guidelines that would allow them to do that that is that thirty one c f r section five four four point eight zero one incorporates by reference another provision of the regulations thirty one c f r five zero one point eight zero seven and those laid out the administrative procedures that asa would needed to have taken to get its designat removed they never did that and because they didn't for purposes of our tree a proceeding there is simply no question of fact law or anything that their property was blocked with they could have done in order to defend themselves against the tree of proceeding w showed that they didn't meet the standard of being found to be a terrorist party or an agency or instrumentality of a terrorist party but under kirsten bomb we know that the standard is whether they were owned or controlled by asa and again this court's decision answered that question as a matter of law and so you know regardless of whether or not we think that there should be additional discovery as to a statue of limitations ground which would take no position on that simply would not provide any additional relief for  of the tree a claim the tree a claim can be completely decided based solely on this court's prior holding that is owned or controlled by bank and they've offered no reason why the court to depart from that holding with respect to the security declaration of course it was hearsay once the court decided to strike the declaration because she curie wouldn't been able to come and testify as to the matters set forth in the declaration but that really for our purposes doesn't matter because the district court same thing so regardless of whether she should carry declaration should have been stricken or shouldn't have been or should have been considered the district court considered it this court considered the same facts and both the district court and this court concluded as a matter of law that it did not raise a tribal issue of fact on the on on the question of control and then just very briefly the last point that i want to make there was some suggestion it wasn't entirely clear to me that the district court lacked jurisdiction the district court certainly had jurisdiction under tria and finally i just want to point out with respect our brief where we thought the fraud or injustice prong satisfied again all of that flows from the court's prior matter of law determination that also is owned by bank melli and so we think that that does offer additional grounds that the court can affirm the judgment as to  very simply with respect to what was before this court what was not before this court was this you carry declaration which was stricken by the district court so the court did not have the opportunity to that they are not public employees it was pretty comprehensive as to as for purposes of this motion but counsel also suggest that we should have gone through administrative agency a mystery proceeding with ofac when in fact ignored three separate four requests and acted the same way in our cases they didn't kind hearts and then we ultimately thought we get some support from our court the district court we didn't we got blacked out pages and an use separation between one our clients born in one thousand nine hundred five anything happen before i can certainly see where whatever happened before would color the judgment of any investigators in terms of whether there was an ongoing conspiracy or concealment or whatever it might be but we came in the picture in one thousand nine hundred five and all of that virtually all the documents and every resented this case and all the contact with iranian officials and everything else involved the lobby and they all took place before nine hundred ninety five so yes i