said was that she needed to process had been violated then came back and said that her law firm with not would not allow her to address that because they deal in n c are shipped back could not be used by this panel  counsel i understand if you'd like to challenge our decision in ribera i'm just wondering whether you have to go that far assuming that these were security and defense that and and the court ruled that if they needed to return the bankruptcy court rule that they needed to return the payphone and the risk receiver refused to do it the agents the agents and that the conclusion on a legal theory in all reality you didn't do the sales people who who were able to respond out of one hundred sixty five only sixty five responded we only have to assume if the other hundred never never received were twenty two hundred dollars and the lawyer told them it will cost you five thousand dollars retainer to have me take this on they might decide makes no sense for me to deal with this when the receiver  is discretion and only going after agents that make twenty five thousand dollars or more which seems it seems of no contrary it is to the statement of broad statement that it that no one could be caned ill gotten gains doesn't matter if they made a penny if you're going after all of them that selective prosecution my name is david charles and i'm an attorney representing thomas lennon the receiver appointed  i've got a problem and it may be a problem of understanding of of your case ok as there is no race in the possession of the court so the court can act exercise equitable power  restitution theory aussie contract to sue somebody for money damages i don't quite see how you can do it without suing them seems like a summons a complaint they have a right to jury trial under the seventh amendment as they just get sued and maybe they when you cast as there's no one customer threat maybe they lose because of district courts theory that they sold something that was not marketable i don't know i don't get how you can ok well i'm all for money without suing them i don't think this is necessarily a novel situation the court in winky and alone a whole series of cases where theory behind it is that the money that was received by these sales people which was amounted to about thirty nine million dollars twenty five percent of the of the of the value of sales was loads through the company  each sales person made a sale the cash change alpha telkom or one of the affiliated entity all of which were part of this receivership that money the commission was then paid to each detail person twenty five percent  aspects we consider that money is under our we believe is property of the receivership chain is to me like just making it up i mean it's not property of the receiver legal keitel isn't the salesman and what you have to prove is that we are in paid up to it it's not it's not a it's not a sham it's not an alter ego it's not putting out the telecom money in the vegas telecom bank accounts to hide it from the alpha telecom creditors i think it until i give them no matter how many times you say it's in virtually our money it isn't that somebody else's money you have to get it because you're entitled to it and they're no different than ill gotten gains in any other matter where someone has all the money that is not there and while we don't have to prove constructive process i don't think courts require a different from you hire me to paint your house and you give me the five thousand dollars now it's going to be five thousand when i finish you give me the five thousand now and i never do a thing toward painting your house so used to me for the five thousand dollars fact it was ill gotten gains unjust enrichment but you violated the securities laws say it was it wasn't your house it was to provide you with four hundred cases of beer for your restaurant but i don't have a proper license and you don't have to sue me to get your money back i think that's right i think we did to them a motion for the horses being filed in court and we simply serving them to let them know that we're there we're attaching to them we're going to seek their property we are suing them and saying we think that you were unjustly enriched by receiving where they named in the motion each and simply that he felt that money without any right to it in this instance that is what we're paying here and we're using the procedures that the ninth circuit suggested that we could use the concern i understand is rather than just going after one or two people in this instance we had one hundred sixty people that made over twenty five thousand dollars in commissions for the receiver as a practical matter in an ethical receivership which has very little  business expenses that they may have paid to operate their sales business the court set off any amount that they paid in state court actions by investors who sued the court step from the amount of the commission any amounts any amounts that were attributed to pay phones that they individually buy for themselves that still left seventeen million dollars or so of commissions that were earned as profits from th to remain in the hands of the defense or to take the action that we did which was a nine month process in which each sales agent received the entirety of a motion was provided an opportunity to respond you know i think we have a published affirmative defense this case however is a typical because willow has consistently invoked his fifth amendment privilege not testify yes i have a facebook lee as i understand that case they treat e the fifth amendment so it seems like they would fall within the general rule of cologne rather than this special circumstance where the person who claims to have provided services will testify i don't i don't read it i don't telecom when they're working late at night you couldn't get the money for the pizza back from domino's absolutely and just as judge anderson in his opinion if you can see that yes he did the difference between the domino's pizza and the salesman commissions they also work for the difference is that this was not a marketable securities that they were selling and getting the commissions or is that right the fundamental point out what that was the critical point of this report decision i don't well i think that  defective product is a strict liability offense at no fault need be shown but in order to recover from a manufacturer for sale of a defective product the plaintiff still has to sue him and the the benefits without having a nominal defendant but out any of the bird well in this case the receiver took labor or if you well the commissions resources are limited and the receiver proceeded against the salesman with the commission and that the receiver if you have a case where a court has held that you can avoid summons and complaint and a right to jury parties and this to me is challenging jurisdiction had notice concerning the natives were permitted extensive discovery including the taking a deposition and were permitted to plough briefs and exhibits with telecom to this intermediary i can't remember which and the intermediary writes it fair to the salesman and the salesman deposits it in the bank the salesman had title to the money and then he gave the that the district court said with his assumption that the salesman or instead of wrongdoing but there's not even a suggestion that there depositories are all three goes or merely holding the money is contraband and maybe looker which is permissible under one when you're properly licensed and you haven't registered securities which are also not quite contraband but something or something they're not supposed to be sold they're not kosher but they're not contraband right it's issue of the jury trial the issue of jurisdiction i think can be thought is twofold the appellants cheer each and every one of them intervened in this case so that is correct that not every sales nation our pre expensive homes over here but we didn't do everything possible to give everyone notice we didn't file a motion and then have a hearing thirty days later there was a motion there was a series of of them where the defendants were mailed papers right around christmas and told they only had to kill immediately after new years to anything about it but then the defendants got some extensions well i don't like smile because that is in fact the case although it is this one that is one but i would let you say you gave them every opportunity is not exactly right let me just say squeeze them out of any opportunity and then they managed to get a little grace from the court and i can i think if you don't my i actually received a call from judge pander the day before chris telling me serve these papers on the books and i have no idea why we  how difficult it is a service someone to complain of than under the changes the rule or that i'm now i'll let you know allow you to serve a letter and serve the complaint and ask that that service be way and will allow you the opportunity of recovering your costs if they were if they decline a good theory and i would definitely would do it on the basis of one hundred sixty five people who would be attorney fees and costs in pursuing personal service on all those people and actually affecting personal service and i don't get that i mean expensive is always relative it's something you're going for millions of dollars here yesterday be terribly expensive if you have to go through all that process for one hundred sixty five people and your total case worth maybe five thousand dollars sure where it's worth millions that's the kind of case where you fly to new york or one deposition and you hire a car to take you are heard very well well we were extremely careful in this case to make sure because we also realize  we had to take not into account not just the cost of the painted judgment but the cost of at the cost and the ability to collect so we did not want to throw a lot of money at something that we could not we would not sure once we got th meant we started out in a very staged process we sent out two letters two or three letters to these each unit and each person saying we think you should return this money we asked them to return voluntarily after three times and that didn't work then we filed this motion so we try to do this in a very graduated sense because again this is an equitable receivership we have to take into account the cost benefit of these things there are lots of people we can sue in cases in receivership but the ability to collect the money at the end of the day you know really has to drive your decision because otherwise you know all i'm doing is working for myself and investors if that's so that's not what we're about the intent of the receiver is to try and marshal the assets for the benefit of al agree this summary procedures are extremely important and other we use them in other cases and they are without them the ability to to marshal the assets and effect of any cost at that manner will really be limited so it because because counsel for the receiver has told us that all of the appellant's are also intervenors now well yes yes they are ok well very well and we never we never we have so we have sued them in texas they've told our lawyers to go into an empty room where a room with just just a bunch of boxes and no no indexes go through the boxes find what you can find i can also tell you that that that the agents most couldn't contact them there are a lot of issues in this case and it's and as you well are aware that it's freed in exchange commission will make allegations and have no basis of law to support those allegations all they say is we've always done it this way because we've always done it this way this is the way it is the problem with that argument is that it's never been contested and we're contesting and now and we will contest it all if the supreme court we believe that the receivership process is a very arbitrary of process in the last five years of my involvement in in in alpha telecom and trying to resolve the issues not only for the pay phone owners themselves we have one hundred seventy million dollars lawsuit against insurance companies that that every opportunity to offset our expenses my tax returns were fully audited by the internal revenue service and not one number was changed yet i was not given all my offset expenses of course poured the discouragement there are people out there like order of the court said that there's there's always an opportunity for the for the individual agents to inherit money well if it's an opportunity to inherit money and it initially be an opportunity to be able to get offsets for the money that already inherited then there are a lot of honor i think that you should look at the case of the way the way the law was written not give special inferences from the street and exchange commission and their tactics or the receivership process thank you very much  ross versus alfred telecom is