that's a critical critical point because the cases that address the issue of the implied appointment of an agent preserves a process was really turned on the issue of whether or suppose that's true he would have to be his lawyer to be his agent right absolutely no one and that's quite ok so it really doesn't matter that he's appeared for what matters is the guy represents me so represents that he is he is really representative court to endorse that implied agency theory but even in those cases the two district courts of new york that occasionally take up this issue look to two things one what was the client's intention to declin to appoint you three as agent for service of process and two what do all the surrounding circumstances of the relationship between the two say about the extent of the authority that should be implied in the attorney and a related s and this court and no court that i'm aware of has ever relied upon the concept of actual notice or the potential and actual notice as a substitute for compliance with the rule for very rigorous necessarily agree that if the person you work to make this application again it would be granted i would hope that this time around mr rubin's counsel would be able to persuade the bankruptcy court correctly that instilled directly on point here in action for money damages which is what this is the court has no power to restrain a defendant from transferring or otherwise disposing of his war her assets until an ultimate judgment is injured and the supreme court and grupo went to great lengths to say that this is a long established law in this country that a creditor has no rights to interfere with a defendant's use of his or her property property at the instance of the neurons judgment creditors and that's what we have here we think that the entry of this order by the bankruptcy court was beyond his powers it was in violation of grupo and in violation of dateline damages then the supreme court is very clear that the court cannot issue and asset freeze order in advance of that that ultimate judgment you know in very crafty cases particularly where you have a close the remedy in california typically for something at the source would end when things that trouble the supreme court in the group ok is that in california our prejudgment remedy for that kind of thing is prejudgment attachment and there is a very tantamount actually it's greater than what he could have gotten because in the case of an individual where you seek an attachment you can only attach the property that you can identify as belonging to the individual you can attach twenty million dollars in general funds so he actually got something far greater than what he would have been able to get in a prejudgment attachment saying  me a sort of a kind of a related question we're out of curiosity than anything else you've got twenty million dollars at stake the rules give you a bright line way to serve somebody out of the country want to spend a few bucks and serve them right instead of messing the the agency again but all i can point to is the record which i think i've laid out for you and very i can certainly review that for you again including the numerous instances were mr was for a client then susceptible of receiving service of process and he for example if this gets reversed can you serve mr mccloy i don't think we have to serve somebody again as we've said and no three we has to be repairers appearances in bankruptcy court important appearances i'm trying to figure out how we can how we write the rule here if you if you will let the what the dimensions  i i don't know what was in his mind but here's what i would suggest there were a couple of instances where there was discussion of whether mr rubin or wind rather mr rubin would be deposed in the bankruptcy matter and in connection with those stated on the record to judge march that he was mr reubens personal counsel and he would like to be present when the deposition was taken in addition to the counsel for pocus media i think the reason he went to those  you read the transcript is that the court was talking about starting the deposition on a date when midstream so was to be on vacation and it was quite likely the court would have said focus media will be represented because you have co counsel so to prevent that from ruben that makes all the difference when he's in the bankruptcy court he tells the judge this through his lawyer but he never says i'm on behalf of mr rubin that's what this case turns or if it doesn't turn on that it doesn't make all the difference but it makes part of the difference the rest of the difference i i believe this goes to the concept of an agent for all purposes those judges were raised such that if a person indicates if the if the principal indicates that the agent can act without conferring with me and exercise their independent sure that's all right i conducted a deposition of mr rubin that lasted perhaps forty five minutes he was on the telephone from france and there were other lawyers on the phone with him i