for the court and to make his arguments but what strikes me as i look at this case is that mr johnson didn't have to appear the offices and their clients didn't have to appear they could have taken the position that there was no subject matter jurisdiction there had been no service they that they are part of and have cooperated with that's their business big issue johnson chose voluntarily to involve attorneys problem rosamund in the case to make them counsel in this case come within p t o seventy to have covered claims and to have a participating council that you need to either be a member of the p s c or you need to assign you to any participation agreement absolutely not and the records clear not only didn't they consent there's no reason to think they ever knew about it and here's what's really shocking to me there's no evidence of any process on them when we talk about just service of process at least as to the law firm and i don't think this is valid but the law firm at least got an e mail and a mailed copy of the motion which i think under the federal rules doesn't start anything and can't start anything but the clients never got any thing case in this case the clients would be paying part of it no will the court says you're going to pay it because you're in it and if you fail to do what you needed to do with your client that's on you isn't that the  the way it's been handled previously and they were not bound by the vanity of marketing case which was not presidential but in that case one of the court looked at it and said we're not get into that if you if you read the whole thing you read it it's on you as attorneys you fail to work things out with your client you fail to work it out but that doesn't mean you get a free ride so what's what's you know maybe maybe the pale got it wrong but you got  tell us why you got a lot of that is that panel could not have got you know so why why why do you think that's not the right approach here would your honor first if i can respectfully differ footnote five to that previous case contributed that's really that's the whole point right that's the question we're wrestling with is it the case that by hiring by attending the same players meeting at which it was announced at the beginning if  practical pragmatic addressing how these cases operate why is it wrong to view his behavior as an acceptance of the  source that one would be the specific factual and one would be more on the specific factual i think the record i think is not as clear as to what would be fair in this case number one the testimony  with anything that would put him in that in a zone where he would have to comply well that's the why shouldn't because somebody is told you need to do this before you leave and they walk out without doing what they're supposed to do because that really need to get to walk without carrying the obligations for one of the big deal that they walk in to get the first race yeah i actually think as a matter of law that is correct as unpleasant as it may sound and it certainly does sound unpleasant doesn't like it i walk in i'm told right to jump work if you want to use these materials you've got agree to be bound by this you sit there you know listen take the materials you use a material you hire people who are experienced with using the material son who are have are signatories to it and you prepare to try to cases and according to the other side and the district court's findings you get a bump in your settlement right quite accurate assessment of what they're wrong that aside because i think what really matters is that in this case when we were when this case was up there for the drive to keith's case here's what the plaintiff's hearing committee told this court gerardi was required to pay fees on trying to get you to answer your position is your legal position is he never cited so no matter what else he did he can't be helped to have agreed i think it doesn't matter whether he agreed or not because he didn't sign it he's not within the order and because he's not within the water he's not within the district court subject matter jurisdiction because the district court subject matters we all know that this is a court only federal courts only have limited subject matter jurisdiction response was because this court already will enjoy to keep their four shelly banco and genetically modified rice of already distinguished but they haven't been distinguished for purposes of this case the clients haven't been distinguished for purposes of th e shocking lack of process hasn't been distinguished the truth didn't even deal with the fact that my clients weren't served with anything well when you say were served with anything you are implying that there are the only way that somebody can be locked in to answer that because i can't think of every possible hypothetical but my general answer to that is yes you can't be dragged before the court without some form of opera service you can't they have said because service was well i would guess what he's going to be served with is it going to be something where there are rules that tell me how to respond that allow me to take discovery but allow me to answer him with our money you know the possible way is if he's not going to be served by just what the state court deal with it rather than you have to answer is how does mr johnson walk away from his behavior now you said you said it's because he never signed something and because we never served him with a complaint i sue for the sake of discussion that he agreed agreed in effect by virtue of his conduct i cited your case and i don't think your argument is strong on such matters and i think you've got a good argument on well i'm glad that he's not with on i think that the question of whether he agreed voluntarily to be bound is one that can't be brought before the district court because he was a stranger testimony stands under about it right i actually think his testimony was pretty clear that there was a bit of the two hundred or some odd plaintiffs that he represented a couple of them and that there is a dispute as to whether it was a bomb or  go is going to be controlled by the interpretation of p t o seventy a federal order for the for the excited to say that this somehow should be decided by the illinois clerk a state court should determine not even learned here well let me press you on this because i'm interested in getting the answer to judge him by those questions where did you argue before that this objection i think the fact that this is not a person if you think there is a contract and whether it be a contract that's expression later into war by someone's actions he or she has agreed that that contract should be party johnson having signed this agreement there's an argument the major subject matter jurisdiction because in effect he agreed by his conduct but if you think he's in breach but the proof is in breach you have to go before the court and get personal jurisdiction over him and my understanding is that he appeared here only for the purpose of contesting baby killers assessment if you will of these monies against his from rose and mon are co counsel on the case right they are bound right yes does it take does it take any more than that to make them subject to the seven percent assessment it should not in this and if they can for levy the right direction either it down who is not or johnson had a financial interest and and he agreed to that and this is a factual finding a bit of the trial court he was bound by he agreed to that and she said implicitly but i agreed and i was argued by attending that chela danko in genetically modified rice number one they both say explicitly that equity doesn't matter they say it doesn't matter if you had the materials and that's one part of the argument that's been made today if you had the materials that it creates subject from the start bombing roseman nobody disagrees that they're bound p t o suddenly by its terms seems to say that if i were in the case is bound then those are covered claims so  looks like that's bad now go to your seventy any explain to me why that does not mean that these cases are quote covered claims because covered claims are defined as claims were trying these are members of the  piece of those cases and says this is the point is you are asserting that this is mr johnson's quote piece the other side of the district crew are saying it's not mr johnson's piece this is an assessment against a struggling with and i'm still not quite understanding what makes you think mr johnson's got a quote piece unquote i think i think if i'm understanding the question correctly the answer is that what i believe is that who has that piece and where those pieces are asked if mr johnson is going to be part of the dispute resolution that resolves that question it has to be in the state court the other side is saying we don't care what mr johnson says involved or not he can come in and argue about it or you can if you don't want to we don't have to it's not his quote piece that's the point that you need to meet and again i'll go back to show danko in genetically modified rice which this court has embraced already which say you can't say that it's on mr johnson to come into this over because mr johnson is a right to use the documents and not have to pay for the benefit of those documents genetically modified mice and showed them to say explicitly that having the documents from a federal m t l does not mean you're part jurisdiction personal jurisdiction or way around it in order not to serve him right to say that there's jurisdiction over the race which is the money which happens to be here in philadelphia in trust a couple hamilton and so pepper hamilton will not turn additional monies over to mr johnson of or you know they will take out they will hold back portion that he would owe from about seven percent assuming you lose one subject matter jurisdiction assume that the ruling is that by his conduct he agreed to that then the question becomes how do you get personal jurisdiction over him there saying i don't really have to get personal jurisdiction over him because they jurisdiction of the district court in the n t l over the monies that are in this particular account pepper hamilton again i disagree with that the ju to do it that's fine but i think with what you've been asked now repeatedly is we've a subject matter jurisdiction question to the side and just think it's a question of personal jurisdiction if it's true that we're talking about you know a pot of money in philadelphia then who cares where mr johnson is if the personal jurisdiction issue is we've got the money but then what's the with the personal jurisdiction response to that  money they don't say hey that's my money but you don't have subject matter of personal jurisdiction give it to me anyway which is what it sounds like you're trying to say i think that there's no dispute that it's the client's money the question is how much of that's one thing it's absolutely instruments what we've spent the last half hour arguing about you're saying there's no dispute that it's their money it is the spew did not the federal district court said this is money which by the terms of an existing pretrial order belongs sure we're going to preserve all but by further discussion and i guess i would just say respectfully i think you've gone a step further out as you're saying that it's subject to that were and therefore it's part of the common benefit but it only gets to the worker by being a settlement it only gets into the realm of this case by being part of the state settlement and the state court settlement is money that goes to whatever clients and then the question is will of the money going to the clients how much