held in contempt of court when he or she has actual knowledge and is otherwise bound by the terms of an injunction what difference does it make whether he has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate in the particular matter that gave rise article three and separation of powers requires that a party must have an article three judge unless he has consented consent in terms of regular subsidiary matters would be viable as a tack to the waiver of your article three rights and the separation of powers doctrine church can be but i think with that happening in the courtroom it would be permitted  adding a new party to the case and whether the magistrate could go forward with the trial and actuality the magistrate sever the party because he didn't have consent cover from the new party there's also parts versus the magistrate couldn't hear the motion to dismiss they had to be her parenting and those those are interesting and suggestive but they all deal with parties or would be parties and here is not a party and never has been a party might not likely become a party and we're talking about some possible restriction on the contempt hour which absent our article problem pretty clearly would reach mr h harris county texas versus car max and sag and international those all dealt with issues where even an officer of the company was reportedly to be held liable in contempt for an injunction that mandated that the company perform in a certain manner and the courts in each one of those cases held that the employee the officer did not have the necessary key involvement in the underlying behalf of the company so that he was personally involved in the drafting of the wording of the letters to comply with the injunction to some extent he was involved in operational activities on a day to day basis but i shouldn't be unfair personally responsible or compliance with the court's order because the issue of whether these letters changed whether the computer program changed to pull the correct number into the latter whether there were new letters issued issues issue that was a monetary issue that was controlled not by mr hyde but by the owner of the attack the injunction on the underlying premise of the injunction i get i'm not sure that's right under federal law to say the nonparty can come in and say i didn't violate it i don't think the mom party can come in and violate the can can come in and challenge the injunction itself as well i mean if you want to california law i do not think that's true under federal law well i would point to create or the court to the three cases that i had identified earlier company which is the first circuit defendant's program throughout your honour's have noted he was responsible for recrown after seeing the collection letters to comply with the court's injunction he's the vice president to the injunction mr hise close relationship with the defendants seems to make it clear that the court does have the authority to enforce the injunction it's  n there was may sixteenth two thousand to order the nine their motion to modify the injunction with regard to interest they could have sought an appeal from that order and then is directed to the court's order of june two thousand and two finding the defendants and mr hyde in contempt is that your argument that mr hives interests are so closely aligned with orders against any nonparty now moving to the injunction itself we believe that there is more than adequate grounds for finding the  said that in its initial injunction of august thirty one two thousand it said it again in its denial of their motion to modify in may of two thousand and two and so that was speaking for myself i'd actually like to ask you three questions with regard to i don't need further argument on the second one but if your opponent raises an interesting question is it your position that a no on party assuming we can get over the article three objects that are not on party agents and confirmations behavior cannot challenge the validity of the injunction when they are hailed in the court on in order to show cause for no i think that they probably can challenge it procedurally i'm not clear exactly how would happen but yes i think that that person has that opportunity at the contempt hearing ok and the only reason that you would say that ought not concern us here is because of the fact that hides interests were so closely aligned that the company and the named parties had three different opportunities to challenge it  did not do so that is correct ok so it's not unfair or due process violation in this instance to hold a nonparty to the terms of the injunction since if he was really serious about challenging the substance judge holland in response to that now that and thinking about it more now although i am slow to come to the party i'm now seeing that sort of speak that seeing the issue a little to say but if someone is a nonparty that person's really isn't quite a different position from a party a party unhappy with the injunction can appeal it yes and therefore if the party is being held and can have a violation and you say well listen the only thing in front of us on the contempt is the violation and if you wanted to said stated too soon is kind of sleeping parties and i'm parties together i think that there are other opportunities if the person how they're going to choose to do so such as the following motion to intervene and then as a party to challenge the injunction all those things do make sense to me and if we didn't have the article three magistrates consent problem i would not be troubled in the least but now we're saying to mr hyde well you have a perfect opportunity to challenge the injunction itself granting him proceeding right in front of a magistrate judge whose jurisdiction you have never consented to that last question when tied in to the possibility he has the right to challenge it may be a little difficult yes your honor also destro into this argument is the supreme court's recent decision of roll versus when thorpe where the court held that consent can be implied  hyde seems to have participated at least in some degree throughout these proceedings because he was the person in charge of the changes to comply with the injunction there is a notice i think there is a some kind of a relationship there perhaps the due process clause that is not offended by not giving mr hyde the opportunity in the contempt hearing to challenge the terms of the injunction but can you give us any case that would help us go that way if that's the correct view of a long directly on point there all tangential often sells parties and maybe the argument is in this case i mr hyde was sufficiently involved in the litigation and his interests officially represented by those who work parties that it's not a violation in this instance because these court represents the defendants perhaps she can clarify that but it seems there is some sort of communication between mr hyde and counsel because it otherwise it's curious why defendants raise this argument if they don't you know are not in some relationship with mr hyde ok i see my time is that you thank you very much  so i would like to address two separate issues are three separate issues first is the recent supreme court case and went for our role versus when throw i think that i need to hit that very briefly because i think it's incredibly distinguishable from the facts here in a row well the critical point for the court was that the parties were informed of their right to have an article three judge and then proceeded before a magistrate here no one took the time form mr hyde of his right to an article three judge and when he realized he had the right he made it clear to the court because they can temporarily that he did not consent there are other factual distinct distinct distinctions in in the royal case but i think that's the key the second point i'd like to make is that although mr hyde was operationally involved in the way that did not give him the ability to be involved in controlling the litigation which was settled marilee because of the you know the settlement the insurance friend and the issues raised by opposing counsel as to his ability to the injunction actually don't play through because being an agreement prohibit prohibited defendants from attacking the injunction all the way down the line once the settlement agreement have been issued i see i'm out of time you have three points