to the transfer of five hundred thousand shares of stock plus the entry of the two hundred fifty thousand dollars judgment he kept speaking of one hundred fifty thousand dollars so even though he made some statement about yes we would enter  order followed there after outside one hundred twenty days so what should have happened in your view was that a minute order final judgment all had to be issued within one hundred twenty days and if there's no an the action to enforce the settlement in this case the hearing on the motion occurred prior to that one hundred twenty day period by virtue of the court taking the matter on for hearing i think implicitly if not explicitly the court retains or sufficient to enforce the terms of the seller whether that order was no i'm not going to enforce a yes i am going to enforce it if her within the time she retains jurisdiction she said i'm going to do something two hundred fifty thousand dollars and would require the transfer of the stocks he noted that if the stock is transferred and sold then you have to credit the judgment or give back the money but she would enter a judgment in accordance with the terms of the letter agreement and if she requested a yes i have your honor just to tweak the painting as it is that is that shed any light on this to the extent that the emphasis there seems to be that when you're talking about the breach of an agreement which is part of the judge of the original so among those three arguments then which is your strongest argument that the court retain jurisdiction for one hundred twenty days yeah but the hook on that is that whatever the dispositive step was it would have to have occurred with one hundred twenty days so you're relying on the idea that the minute order was enough because that was within one twenty yes your honor the decision of the judge occurred within the one hundred twenty days would be our position i don't think i could argue to this court with a here i don't think you're counting helps us on this particular issue i think if the court wishes to get into the waiver argument i would make another point from cook county but conan merely stands to the proposition that the court can enforce has to be cleared and transferred to cranch are correct why they have to clear and give you the stuff once you've gotten the two if you don't give them the credit they sue to get out of the in other words how do they enforce what you're telling us is the understanding i would submit it would be a wrongful attachment wrongful levy based on what  the question of the form of the judgment that not being a substantive if you could be dealt with later had the defendants in the at alland objected instead i want to include language in there that makes it clear is entered the chamber has the word proposed stricken from it when did the other side get a copy the get this particular form which eventually was entered i believe it was necessary for the other side of the stream that will censure the court which was the twenty second of the twenty second of august the day after the court ruled on the twenty first the messenger do so your argument is that the other side had from the twenty second of august until some of the fifth of september to object to the form of the judgment yes  with the ruling that says you have a minute order you don't have a judgment now i don't know what that means what it's worth to you or do you need a judgment to do whatever you're and thereafter in order to carry out whatever it did to the middle order it reached had its own independent federal jurisdiction which has no time limit on it which is to carry out the process  most i mean we have a lot of people who lose their rights because their lawyers can file something in our office in thirty days people get deported regularly every month because their lawyers get it there on the thirty what would we be talking about you would be talking about whether what that she should have been forced agreement but not whether she had authority and the issue here that i'm trying to sort out is ok this proceeding came to a conclusion on this day and a minute order was issued and then a form of judgment thereafter was answered and there's no evidence in this record to suggest that if you had  versions to the form of implementing what was decided on that day that you didn't have some remedy you would have invoked the same ancillary jurisdiction that the court had to enter that judgment in any event that is one view of it