morning your arse the police court damn dark appearing on his own behalf for my own behalf i just want to make a few points before addressing any questions of the panel first so he gets important keep in mind that the divorce proceeding is a unique proceeding in the civil action world it's not customary or usual to be able to handle third party complaints in that and i think if we look at the defendant's argument here they're essential e saying that i should be bringing a third party complaint against them in areas in the divorce proceeding as far as i know in my review of the case law under the i and d m illinois merchant dissolution of marriage act there is no provision that allows for that i have seen some cases where you may be able to file separate action in consolidated but that leaves us with the question of jurisdiction and with my wife to a soul and separate count sixty five days before she felt my wife felt the titian for dissolution joint account was with who my wife in the marys and who those those held in my wife's name is also joint property until it's determined by the court to be sold separately right that's an issue for the divorce court to decide whether this these funds that were held in these accounts are marital property or not that's not for us well or for any federal court well the issue is getting the property back we can't name or i can't name mary says the defendant in the divorce proceeding because they're not parties to the marriage and that is a point once the property is determined to be property that i have possessory interest and then we can bring it into the court in the court can say all right it's sixty percent husbands forty percent wife fifty fifty eighty twenty right but in our very best many options for dealing with that issue if these funds were and i guess it's around two hundred thousand dollars total something in that ballpark that if the divorce court determines that that was marital property and needs to be divided fifty fifty or some other apportionment then the divorce court can adjust financial settlement between you and your wife accordingly and  don't need them in areas in the suit if there is of course there's no jurisdiction over them in areas through turn the phone that doesn't matter the divorce court kind of just the proper the property settlement between you and your soon to be ex wife if that proceeding ever wraps up which i understand it's been quitting on for quite some time for a while your yes yes so the divorce court can adjust the marital property order  the final disposition to account for any diversion of marital funds outside of the marital estate but as i put as the judge doesn't have to claw back the money from the marys all the judge needs to do is  amount that your ex wife soon to be ex wife will get as a point to breach your honor address that issue to the divorce court and their research the courts response was they are not parties you can i get discovery from them right so you so how am i to nail down exactly how much they can separately sue them if that is what i think if you think that there's they've done something wrong but this federal court can't interfere with an ongoing divorce proceeding and that is that is my point exactly right or separate lawsuit i filed a separate lawsuit toward action against malaria is true turn the property and that is my right a separate lawsuit in state court there is no jurisdiction over them in state court because the actions took place when they transferred the money from an account in connecticut to another county in connecticut i mean some of the other actions arguably took place here when they transferred money from the schwab account back to connecticut but if you're saying that i should go sue them in the state board that's what i'm saying the federal court can't interfere with an ongoing divorce proceeding in state court but again i don't it seems like you want to litigate this issue of whether these are marital funds in federal court and that that's a divorce issue it's not that i want to do that your honor it's that it's something we can't do it and that's just the bottom line we can't get involved in marital issues be involved in determining merrill asses you're going to get as a point to the brief if they had taken say my car and they moved it it's still a tort of conversion they've taken a piece of property that i have an ownership interest in that is the to it might have been a joint weiss once you have a determination by the by your divorce court then you may be able to take that action somewhere but you don't have that it's your word that you have an interest in were not in the job of doing that anderson your position or if i can address i guess i'll do  should be kept to an absolute minimum indeed one of the traditional concerns of federal courts and of trying the domestic relations exception has been to prevent spouses from playing one court system against another that is precisely what mr dark is attempting to do in this case this provided certain funds to her parents which they are alleged to be holding temporarily so that said funds would be outside the subject of the the marital property for the court to divide that is an issue for the state court not the federal courts to resolve mr regard contention that the state court in his divorce action declined to exercise jurisdiction over his claims against the miniseries is simply not true in the divorce case mr dark issued certain subpoenas to certain financial institutions for the many of these records the divorce discovery or as defendants in the divorce action which he certainly could under the only code of civil procedure section four o two which governs respondents and discovery and four and five and four of six which covered third party defendants so the divorce court has full long term statue moreover even if mr mubarak had moved to bring the marys into the divorce case either or science in discovery or as third party defendants in the trial court could deny him that relief which is not the case but which argue attorney but because he has filed to interlocutory appeals in his divorce proceeding to date for all intents and purposes mr regard to simply form shopping for a court that will allow him unfettered access to the financial records of his parents in law the domestic e when an appeal is frivolous last week this court granted at least a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of a motion recently filed by mr dark in his divorce proceeding seeking to stage a trial in that proceeding pending the resolution of his federal arguing that is it imperative that the trial in the divorce proceeding not go forward on september fifth two thousand and seventeen as scheduled unless and until his federal claims are resolved he's clearly attempting to play one court against another moreover this motion to stay the divorce trial much like his initial attempt to remove his divorce case to federal court on the eve of trial is proof that mr dark is pursuing these claims and this appeal for an improper purpose to delay his divorce trial as this court held in cooney versus cassidy mubarak may have caught one break with respect ascensions in the district court but this court should not be inclined to give him another accordingly we believe that sanctions pursuant to federal rule of appellate procedure thirty eight are appropriate in this case and we ask that this clerk affirm the district court's decision that lacked subject matter jurisdiction over mr barak's claims pursuant to the well established domestic relations exception me clarify a few for each i've already asked the state court judge to allow us to name them in areas as discovery defendants she would not allow that so when she says we have other options the court told me they're not defendants they will not be defendants and that's why i named them in the federal court because the versity seem like the most logical way my goal certainly is not to continue divorce and what he's been through a divorce knows the sooner you get and with regard to the nihil of naming them as a discovery defendant or another defendant you can appeal that order in a lot torri you have to appeal it after the case is over and after that point in time the asset is already gone because the made a determination without that asset being subject to it it's very similar to an estate distribution unless those assets are before the court to be distributed you can't distribute it and that's really all my efforts ours to get the asset back at the discovery to get that asset back and it can't be divided amongst myself and my wife i'm a trying anything to continue the trial i'm trying to get an asset back it's one hundred forty eight thousand dollars that i didn't know about in a separate account said that they're transferring money into this joint account from here in illinois i understand the court's position that if i should go assuming the state court i don't believe that was proper jurisdiction if you tell me that i have  make down in the state court when i refile the action is a state court action but i certainly didn't do anything improper and the rule on rule thirty eight is a frivolous appeal the district court judge said there is no clear statement on the domestic conversion in other words returning the property and account and accounting second find out how much has been transferred there may be other funds as i pointed out in the complaint and in the briefs there's another check for a hundred thirty one thousand dollars or so i don't know if it's a check or wire transfer for thirty one thousand dollars that have happened for one of my life's other accounts that it never showed up anywhere else and all that volumes of paperwork that we have in the divorce proceeding i mean again under rule thirty eight it says that a frivolous will appeal it's not a frivolous appeal the court said there's no clear statement and i agree there is no clear state that's why i filed a motion for reconsideration in the very beginning of the court issued its first  over those people to get their property back here to the state so it can be divided and i agree five zero three would provide for the vision of that asset unless the court has any other questions