appellant asked this court to stay to vacate or order that request was denied my client subsequently paid the arbitration award that means that the debt under the award is extinguished the property that was the subject of the garnishment no longer exists so even if this court were to agree with the appellant on the merits of the appeal reversed the vacated order and reinstate the garnishment there is nothing left to garnish the property is extinguished and paid to recreate that did and to order my client to pay it again either to the appellate or into the district court's registry so essentially what the appellant is arguing here is that even though the garnishment was vacated the request for a stay were denied that the garnishment remains in full force and effect throughout the course of the appeal and that intention is wrong it is obviously whole we cited numerous cases in our brief that stand for what i think of the very logical proposition they want to garnish meant has been vacated the garnishment no longer restrains the subject property and the garnish is free to dispose of that problem is there any harm having the merits panel addressed these issues in conjunction with the merits i mean after all there's an english judgment that's occurred in the mean time we have fairly out of the ordinary notions of quasi in ram and maritime jurisdiction and kind of abstract concepts of where the debt can still exist in some way because the pendency of appeals here why not just have the merits panel deal with both of these your honor my client is a third party g we really don't have a a stake in the underlying dispute between sarra and the defendant space shipping and it's a very well established policy going back i think as old as maritime law and attachments that my client should be protected from the costs and the expense and frankly the waste of resources that go into having to litigate an appeal all the way through the merits we've already gotten to the point where we've been involved in numerous actions by the district court level at the high court  england and my client just wants out so frankly it's a it's a resource issue it is a it's an issue of judicial resources as well and the issue here that's raised by the motion is really very straightforward we don't really have to deal with issues of comedy we don't have to deal with complicated there is no dispute that the debt was paid that's correct your honor and the amount is undisputed as well that is also correct what about the effect of the english court ruling the english court just fallen to vacate or the war in the denial of the request for a stay could have just written a check and paid the award over to space shipping and the legal effect for purposes of this motion would have been to say the debt is paid it does not exist anymore and do you agree that the debt has been paid and that the amount isn't disputed an amount has been paid but i do not like your event that hasn't been paid because the debt was not patched in the it you garnish something to secure a debt so the argument is that they paid the wrong party or the your client is intitled to more money or different money what is it that the garnishment is going to secure was not it's not like a thing a ship it's an obligation these obligation was not extinguished and this is the effect over the public national bank where united states where their ass was paid out and it is the effect of the decisions from the ninth circuit court of appeals that followed that but isn't the rest the basis for the court's jurisdiction and in ram in connecticut  out that it is in the cost of the of the law and that cost of the continues pending the appeal presence of the property in the jurisdiction in the united states is necessary in order for it to be effective  cases following republic national bank of have been decided involving the removal of the raf's from the jurisdiction where they were to be disbursing the money that was attached having the property to leave the jurisdiction half have held that there s the jurisdiction of the court remains effective notwithstanding that removal of the rest and there is another i just made a couple of quick points in response to mr gators are going to first we are third party garnishee there's no cause of action any against us there's no other purpose for us to be in this case other than the fact that we allegedly had the security in our hands this i think really put a pin in what why this is futile he's asking the court to reinstate the security meaning he's going to ask my client to go out of pocket again and pay the award again either to his clients or into the district courts registry and of course your point is not only did you pay that to the person to whom it is owed to the entity to which it was owed but you did so not defiance of the garnishment or in violation of any court order but after you effectively won the case in the district court stays were denied and you were then i suppose object to being sued by the other party to enforce their debt that is exactly correct your honor and that is why we had to go to the high court in england to make sure that my client was protected from the competing claims in both jurisdictions but the end result of that process we we follow the rules we follow the process we paid the debt the property no longer exists there is no possible in reality relief that can be afforded to sarah based on this appeal that means that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the matter is mo