i'm just trying to trying to determine what assets of the debt are at are at risk here if there's anything else beyond the ten thousand dollars no no well no well you just said yes you  against the individual defendant for this remaining ten thousand dollars i know you don't concede that but assuming that there is then and in force an action against the individual defendant this is not implicate three sixty two as i see it because it's not a direct action against the debtor no but it may implicate nine twenty two under the inhabitant side of rights that is your argument ye twenty two because he's not well but that's only true if that ultimately if the funds are going to come from the debtor you and yes yes you will but you tell me that the that your fee for settled a case with with him in exchange for a monetary judgment that he can only enforce against the commonwealth and that is completely unsupported by the record and it's unsupported by law and i regardless of was not a name defendant in the operative second amended complaint and the commonwealth was not a party to the settlement agreement either and here we have different and i don't find on this raising all sorts of arguments on behalf of the commonwealth and the c f and it was the defendants who tendered the settlement offer if we don't grant this if we say there's no stay what are you going to do what's your next move we're going to execute and what is the worst entailed you're going to execute commonwealth was not a defendant in the case and the proceedings below the judgment is binding only on the defendant but it says as per the settlement agreement settlement that i mean that when you go to execute against the defendant the fed is going to be able to say wait a second you were party to a settlement agreement in which you can see that that ten thousand of it was going to come from the  plaintiff had nothing to do with that i thought we just as to whether you were a party to the agreement to the forty tents and you said yes ok well i correct so you say no no no you were not a party to that it was a subtle there was a settlement and that was good for you and you want as a consequence right rights ok in that settlement agreement in that the agreement was to pay fifty thousand dollars to you to my client and you're going to your claim separately or as part of that settlement agreement there was an agreement that just that forty ten split you are describing it now well as not part of the settlement agree with it it was a term of the settlement agreement but but it wasn't on i say that you can't categorically say that it wasn't that it was communicating and or that it was a communique when it says that you mean it can't all that we have this is that the defendants agreed to pay my client fifty thousand dollars that's and apparently that split was this something that the defendants negotiated between themselves you were aware of it well let me ask defendant settled with your client for fifty thousand dollars of which ten thousand would be paid by the couple and that was put into the set of imagine that's true i know you don't think it's true imagine it's true what enter into such a settlement agreement and that there would be yet and then there just still be the question of whether the stay applies well your honor what happened here was that the commonwealth  nine and the only party that can except you but you're telling us that you're uncertain as to whether it was a settlement agreement that also resolve this action of the understanding that you're a plaintiff will be paid ten thousand dollars by the  because you just don't know whether that's what happened