is the court's conflating of injunctive orders and the failure of service upon gene properties of any notice of any injunction that applied in any way to  there there was a letter sent to my client that generally notified my client that the temporary restraining order was obtained but it didn't attach the temporary restraining order and didn't notify my client that applied to them in any way additionally when when my client obtained its judgment the temporary restraining order was not in place rather than replaced by a preliminary injunction on june th two collateral attack on another court's judgment and i don't think that you know the s c c or the court provides any support for why a collateral tack on the judgment would be appropriate in this case but beyond before that there wasn't agreement that there was a well i think there has to be i mean dean properties provided money to to this party and they filed their complaint you know for months to the properties and say that you know you need to state your case or you need to stop this if the court really intended to to stop all these other claims from from private investors it should have included that in its injunction but it but it didn't you know an injunction needs to be specific in order to be held under due process and and this is the injunction prohibited a debt against property and a judgment is not a debt against property a judgment is is just a piece of paper that says ok you can use whatever supposed invalidity of the judgment your client and i thought the district court also had a nd rationale which really did more toward the end of the priority of their respective claims to the property that's out there and the court exercise i thought it's equitable powers to essentially prevent you from jumping the line and getting more favorable treatment then your fellow defrauded investors maybe you can speak to why the detroit was wrong on that yeah i mean i would say that that that individual investor can't collect on his judgment i think that flies in the face of what congress intended what sort of like the the rationale that the chains and bend the bankruptcy  they're either at the mercy of the f c c wanting to pursue things and then actually disperse in after pursuing it or the they have to make the choice to spend considerable assets of their own to recover what  and i think that you know we shouldn't discourage that we should encourage them being able to recover that if they're going to spend considerable assets themselves especially when my client provided a lot of information to the f c c supporting to try to get more favored treatment strikes me as something that the district had the power under its equitable powers to stop i don't believe so i think that was a constitutional take in by any time the court takes private property rights you know we have private property rights to the judgment and to the and to the judgment lien and any time that happens it's unconstitutional taking it down without compensation what's your best case authority for that proposition which i find highly highly  agreed to the consent judgment you wouldn't have it right that's true but the consent judgment was not against property it wasn't a dead against property which is what the preliminary injunction sought to prohibit hi are you guys just connected know because it conflicted in some way with the acid free story because i don't really buy that to be honest i think the entry of the judgement self didn't inflict any harm on the f c c is ability to collect on this judgement and an order for the benefit of all of mr it doesn't seem like it should be a permanent but a permanent block on the line but is that what you're saying you think it is a permanent law i'm not sure whether we've all had a permit block because of course in property it's always free to move to but also the asset free only applies to property that was there was considered and after that happened at the time in the position not being presented in properties from attempting to levy on assets or their property that is not subject to that and the conditions after doing forty to effectuate the final judgment in this case and in the circumstances that is your court rightly concluded that it should act to preserve the status quo and to ensure the integrity of the proceedings now i understand my colleagues point that asking can you respond to your opponent's assertion that actually the f c c is not really trying to do anything to collect this money to pay out to defrauded investors and that in fact you're under no obligation to the case was was mentioned i wanted to respond on that i think wink is is pretty irrelevant actually to this matter because we're not disputing the court's equitable authority to grant the asset freeze we're just saying it didn't apply to deem properties or to their judgment and and so you know we're discussing matters of notice and what the what the injunction actually  said which did not apply to deem properties or their or their judgment it you know if we read the actual text of the injunction the preliminary injunction it talks about  transferring sellon income and and doing this on any funds assets or property a judgment sell is not any of these actions on the property where assets thousand and eighteen and that is on page fifteen of our brief it's not in extreme detail but what we do make the argument that the injunction is presently constituted is the january mean the thing that i thought was interesting about your argument was that maybe the after three days with actually no longer in place by the time you that's just the truth of it i mean if if we're saying that the injunction is presently constituted is one from generate two thousand and eighteen then that means that it's superseded because any time you  final judgment and so it's no longer in effect it's assumed by that final injunction and that final injunction did not include an asset freeze and so if the court saying if the court's injunction here if there their order is saying that that we can't enforce anything that is restricted by the asset freeze it's really meaningless because there is no asset freeze still in  ilene was the violation that all happened after the permanent injunction was in place and when the asset freeze was was no longer in place so it couldn't be a violation of the