name is pete horseman i represent the claimant shiela able on this appeal she is she is the appellant i appreciate the opportunity to be heard by this handle this is an important issue for  she is in a unique situation under the government's in foresman action here with respect to her husband's for a one k she is unlike every other case that the parties have cited she is the truly innocent spouse of a defended who committed a substantial fraud i would say she's a super innocent spouse because while he was committing his fraud at work she was at home with their autistic child the court a love sided with the government in terms of a full garnishment of the four  stating what the district court found didn't it find that under state law as well as she had no interest in this for a one k she was not divorced she had no order giving her any interest and therefore apart from preemption issues she just had no legal right anywhere to the proceeds that you say  she was entitled to have carved out of the garnishment restitution order he did find that your honor but he's patiently wrong and he's wrong for the following reasons it cannot be that the arrest that just simply cannot be the law and the supreme court has said on several occasions they've they've applied a more general approach to  the congressional carve out under risk for what i'm going to call property interests and i'm referring to bogs versus box which is cited in nowak which is the government to argue that your client has an interest in this for a one k plan and so after threshold i do not understand how you can make that argument or all would you please explain to me how you arrived at the conclusion that seemingly irrelevant logons are interesting for a long term plan because what massachusetts does your honor is acknowledge by statute that there is a right to proceeds from a four hundred and one dollars k and that that that those rights are all though they're not spelled out in any clear statute it's obvious that a happily married retired couple would draw down this particular floor on one k in their retirement as as as many many happily married couples do with respect you just said the law does does the right exist because the legislature shows a method of deciding how to distribute that asset that exists if without the statu there's no method for a a probate and family court to decide who gets what of this particular type of asset it's a four hundred and one k the obvious inference from that is that it is marital property and the state all the legislature did is decide this is how you're going to divide this marital property you're going to apply these fourteen considerations which by the way the district court judge didn't do that's one of our issues argument because every other aspect is distributed in a way that provides equity to an innocent spouse except this and it cannot be that she had to file for divorce and is th is the fact that she is listed as a beneficiary upon his death then irrelevant to your argument no it's not at all it acknowledges the right that exists it would seem to be because that if she wasn't listed as the beneficiary you are going to be exactly the same well it would be but i wouldn't have the the the specific language of the for a one k to look at and say in arguing that she has a fully vested  right upon his death to the entire proceeds i mean there's clearly a right that exists here that we still don't have a ruling from the district court on how much is hers this is not like california massachusetts is not a strict community the the the lester case that i've cited is that the interest is not necessarily a perfect right but it's an interest it's an interest that accrues upon death it's an interest that she has going forward in a non divorced marriage to use those proceeds alongside her husband the fact that he has sole discretion under arrest to decide what to do with that while it's in the the ability to say what happens but he says of the i'm sorry well let me ask you one question if suppose that the ringback husband here was a single am i think the thrust of judge the question then is since the you're not making the argument that the forty one k is untouchable in that as just as a legal entity as a legal thing in that instance the husband who has the power when kate could choose to spend all of it to pay down his obligation to the government right and the way of satisfying his restitution that being the case now that he's married just like he could choose to draw it all down and buy a condo in his own name while he's married why can't he spend it all on the pay off the restitution so yes she has this contingent interest but the way it's contingent is he can choose to spend it as he will month until he dies and until their divorce and that's what he's done so what is the problem the problem is that the supreme court very clearly does not want federal courts to get involved in in state law and bonds vs bonds clearly says that this is the law of the commonwealth of massachusetts it should be presume that a married couple grant may just complete my answer not if you're going to say what you already said five times if you have something else you have thirty seconds to say i would say that the agreements that are had between husband and wife as to what specific arista proceeds are going to be used for are left to the husband and wife the fact that the husband has the right under the plan to fully withdraw the entire matter and settle with the government is is well and good but as we all know that's not how a marriage works and that's not where the supreme court answer was just no thank you thank you at this time with attorney horsemen defendant and the united states is obligated to him force that restitution judgment against the property of the defendant and assets to which the defendant has rights and one of those assets here is if for a one k account  itself might be exempt from the reach of a restitution order by the federal government my right about th conflict with federal law that would preclude the restitution from being paid as it is no need to reach the preemption issue because there's no right yes your honor i think that's absolutely  met miss had i may have misunderstood your argument but i thought the starting point was she is not divorced she doesn't have a he is not dad and she has therefore no interest under state law and that ground alone would suffice thing that i guess slightly complicated to me is the following suppose the argument was being made here which i know it's not that the world one k as the dissent in the th circuit on bond decision said it is not within the reach of the federal government under the restitution of for me and suppose all the other facts were the same as here would she have standing to object to the assertion of control over it because you could imagine that you know her interest at least as the benefits or the death benefits you would give her interest in the moral one k that might lead her to be able to object to the government asserting a legal power to take for one k that she doesn't have even a st that was doesn't object  so about four minutes left i am not sure that that potential future interest would would give her and she doesn't have a our position if she doesn't have a well as it is supreme court has said very often the dividing line between standing and ripeness is somewhat difficult to ascertain at times i suppose the i think that is very well said your honor