the security jurisdictional yes marco's normally decided by a court exactly is this court decided the issue not when jurisdictional facts are in dispute and go to the merits of the underlying question what should have been done what was the court required to do in your judgment what kind of a trial and a full blown hearing on the issue of the for the jury you know for the bench and that's my point and it seems to me that's exactly what the trial court did here held a hearing took a look at all the evidence and made a decision i don't understand where you want to go with this trial practice question well for example the u united states district court recognized that the release by mr damon in august of two thousand was a mistake and even given that finding he still found well what you see that's my point is the facts of been determined by facts are not ok argue that the court screwed up the facts with some legal error the problem i have is this appears to have been not an in person in case in any respect whatsoever it was in ram and the race is gone now let's let's say that we have we were to agree with you what would you ask the district court to order or defendants to reinstate the rescue that's the problem there's no in the purse sort of jurisdiction how do you order the defendants to reinstate when there is no them people impersonating him and that's what's missing here is no jurisdiction over the people so what cases you can order them the polar case that you point to was an impersonal case all about industrial pile and what about it what to counsel of record in this case and they're playing only never made a demand for release it was strictly voluntary but that was the fact is in dispute if you have the first one recognized by the u s district court as a mistake and you have to spin it fast with regard to the second one being bond because the mistake as to the amount held the bond was not did with misrepresentation it was not caused by the district court so what's your answer to the night my answer as to the mistake is it was caused by fraud or mis representation you i'm washing my hands of this but what the district court didn't look at was the fact that the stipulation said defendants will not act and will not do a certain act the sentence went outside and their agreement that was the requirement for the wants to use the ships in order to make money and so there is an agreement with the ships can be used in the nearly the jurisdiction but there's a substitution of security is that your understanding that's exactly what happened in this case and ordered us think that's what happened in this case and then what happened after that what happened after that we went through the hall appeal there was a summary judgment granted on the time we want to show you we went through the why didn't they raise it i think initial oral argument on the initial jurisdiction argument  to a packers council must have thought that after republic national bank you don't need to raise any more and several times i researched it and i saw the language in ankara and it is not until i had to figure out what it meant that i understood what the law was but i could understand where he could see that but if you look down the line even if you believe that that's what republic national bank says that you don't need  bases there was no subject matter jurisdiction there was a possible other basis there was no subject matter jurisdiction but it hadn't been addressed by the district court it wasn't a reason why the district court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction so thought there was a lot of support for our position come from the former first with a cover letter that was to mr barr time and it came in the mail on the same day that the notice of appeal if what you're arguing here is true it's true that that's right but i had an entire i had entirely figured out i had a client who had a partner who had this issue and another case and we had talked about the import of republic national bank to somebody when you were stung yeah i spun speechless and was going forward it was so that i know that judicial stop will apply to the situation i don't think we were required to give every reason why we thought there proceeded on the same basis is the reason i subject matter jurisdiction it seems a lot clearer than the arguments that we're having right now and when i had to read all the cases preceding republic national bank after it i understand them better now than i francisco so you can be happy to send one down the santa barbara