would be very easy to say that mr bernstein did not follow the procedure is not a bernstein now asking that the district court to award compensation to this expert i mean is there a separate procedure of proceeding now is he now asking for compensation for this expert to be paid out of criminal justice act farms i believe so i didn't write reeves but but i i can't find any such argument in the br f i think he makes the argument in this reply brief that that there should be a little late to make an argument i have to ask this in part because i'm having trouble understanding why the district court even had jurisdiction what this case seems to be about as it comes to the court of appeals is a request for an injunction against the implementation of a state court judge well what's the source of federal jurisdiction for that is this something under the diversity jurisdiction perhaps that mr bernstein and the bullet again to the michigan case are of different citizenships but the litigant in the mission case isn't even a party as i recall the judge palmer and the amount in controversy does not exceed seventy five thousand dollars that's going to judge palmyra believe that she was initially she said she didn't think she had jurisdiction but then later on she said that she thought she had jurisdiction because the ice sume under the criminal justice that he was a participant not just a sec doesn't authorizes payments to lawyers and experts it does not injunctions against state court proceedings or any proceedings adverse to the experts who authorize payment one i presume that this your first it was not asking for an injunction against the state court what he was asking in the title of his motion that he filed that i could see is an order to require mr so i believe his name is spec and to relinquish any claim that he had given the no other words i do not see in his brief anything other than a request for an injunction against the implementation of the state court judgement  which your exact is not an exception to twenty two eighty three twenty two eighty three says it has to be expressed there is nothing in the criminal justice act that expressly or even b believe that again the brief relies on the motion that was filed below from judge palmer which was titled an order requiring mr specular to relinquish  expressed in the image or were grant of authority in the criminal justice act but where is it in the criminal justice act i believe the case law refers to the fact that where is it in the criminal justice act any language even arguably authorizing an injunction against a state court proceeding even arguably what i'm what i would like to submit to the court is the is this but that's what runs headlong into twenty two eighty three which says you can't make it up i i take it that the all writs act is an aid to the jurisdiction of the face of the federal court  jurisdiction granted by the criminal justice act to grant injunctions if i move just isn't there if i'm a federal district court like i might reading of the all writs act is that i can then use the to protect anything that i do in aid of my judgment i think that's what it says and so if there is no provision in the criminal justice act for entering judgments against expert witnesses does not absolutely not arguments of any kind the the still the case says you if you are a participant in this in the criminal justice act reimbursement program you cannot go outside you cannot go outside unless you have permission of the court that's what it said book counsel it may be that mr bronstein has violated duties under the criminal justice act but i don't see any argument any colorable argument that the expert witness violated any duty under the criminal justice act only bernstein violated his duties i believe i know that it's certainly not binding on this court but that there was a case out of the  the northern district of california in which i think the hernandez camorra case in which the court said that the person who i think was a paralegal who resorted to a state court suit was in violation of the order i think in silver the the of i'm sorry in violation of the criminal justice act which prohibits resort to extra illegal or extra federal of proceedings in order to get pa and the reason being that the possibility of eventual pressure on the defendant or others on his behalf to reimburse the attorney's expenditure is a substantial danger that kind that congress obviously sought to curb in other words you don't want there to be pressure on even the attorney they said even where there is a third party agreement of theirs and if it isn't and the textual basis for this  up but that's not the marching orders we are getting from the supreme court of the united states we are told by both the justices and expressly by twenty two eighty three we are supposed to look at and implement the language of statutes and not make up what we think would be good policy that's why i'm asking you what language in the statute do you rely on i am not relying i'm relying on the definition of the purpose and still i have not which i shall only not overlook i just want to be clear because i couldn't see this in the brief you are not relying on a single word of the criminal justice act and you have nothing whatever to say about twenty two eighty three that's a serious problem i can you will submit that what were what mr bernstein was attempting to do was to say to the court you have the good morning your honour's may please the court i am card to crown and i represent the united states in this appeal the district court correctly found that it was without authority to interfere in the michigan state litigation against m his efforts after the fact were not approved because they were not supported and they were excessive when he failed to pay the expert the expert sued him in the michigan state court and the proper forum for that dispute as of the time that this was raised before judge paul meyer was in the district court in michigan the state court in michigan and the district court for the first time as your honor pointed out in the reply brief ernestine asked for the relief that is different from what he had mentioned in his original brief as well as in his motion before the district or and that it is motion to reconsider in fact in the district court bernstein asked judge palmyre to dismiss all claims in the michigan or to enjoy new force of the default judgment to order the expert to release and hit and and to conduct a contempt hearing and judge paul meyer got it right when she denied it as the first motion was filed and when she considered it again and the only issue that's before this court now is whether the district court's ruling on person earned seeds motion should be reversed and that really should not be reversed a lesser a further questions of the united states implicate here which is that under sylva the manifest purpose of the act is to protect the defendant from the pressures that will eventually when the expert fees are not paid when people who are experts resort to the state courts or some other method than the putting pressure on the defendant through the attorney and as the silver court which as i take it is good law today oh says that even where there's a third party agreement the possibility