significant to me no significant over two year period where nothing's happened you're ok my point though you have a little bit different which is that maybe i'm not following but if he has jurisdiction to enter an injunction that covers all related proceedings except whatever is bound up in the appeal and your argument let's just give you the benefit of the doubt on this for purposes of this question is that what he didn't have jurisdiction to do is to enter and junction that enjoin for the proceedings in this case because i issue because that's what standing on appeal well if you look at his injunction he does say i'm entering an injunction that covers four categories of things and it seems to me that at least with the three categories of things that are not bound up in the c that was because that was what i was going to suggest as he could if he could have on his own docket issued a series of order or series of orders that were cabinet a very narrow fashion to deal with anything that he felt was inappropriate or need to be stopped and perhaps on a temporary but what is there left him as i said the fact that we've affirmed the jury award and the bankruptcy case is what's left so the issue is the over breath which is constitutional the first answering this first question that you just asked there were still pending matters and there are still pending matters for instance the bankruptcy matters are not entirely resolved yet and this was a quote this was an issue of raising the very is that you know something other than the sanctions is the result  certainly respect that position and you're the question then is it the root of the position that perhaps there's nothing else and so therefore if there's nothing else and why does it matter right but but there is still something else but more importantly the question is did he or did he not infringe upon his the other side in part was the bat was improper and our lock tory appeal no one ever found that to be true that's an argument that mr mr a car has made his brief but there was never a finding of that i think when the court when this court asked for on the jurisdiction and we have another exception one appeals frivolous and i don't disagree that there are exceptions to the jurisdictions i have simply said to the court you don't think the prior appeal was frivolous even though  it please the court my name is just one i'm on behalf of the i believe william pardon our to take up the most recent argument that was being discussed what happened in the jurisdictional issue is in the earlier appeal when mr robertson did all the way back into bankruptcy  judge to you and bankruptcy court said he transferred it but he said this is premature and valid it's not the right way to do it then the bankruptcy or the district court made the same finding in its final order dismissing case so there has been a determination that that appeal was completely wrong taking the word frivolous was not used but it's elementary if you just look at the rules one of the problem if you take if you take out from ali so let's you have an argument that it's that then to subsequent to feel to our court absolutely and why and the reason why is because the issues that were being addressed in this court on appeal at absolutely nothing to do with the anti filing and so so is issued in the district court but if that if the on if the appeal goes against you the pending appeal goes against you and it goes back down there's going to be further filings in that case correct well ultimately not in that case because it would have to go back i mean i think your check mate if you took those out but your argument is you can't take those out i think that's what we're i just want to make sure that in that you are checkmated i guess my question is if you take for listeners out do you have anything left and i guess i'm not saying that we did that you're wrong on for  rs necessarily i'm just saying so that i can understand the whole issue before us if you don't have the point that the appeal taken was frivolous then why is that the case that is the district court retains jurisdiction to ensure an order barring for the filings in the matter that's on appeal because the appeal wasn't taken appropriately and therefore it's an all of the original feels and ali so what happens and this was not something that was subject to any question so i understand your hypothetical and so that's the other was should we have done that it was premature so sure if it was a procedural part of hilton should we have dismissed because there would have interested yes or i think you should but it was i mean maybe we should have but it was also an odd posture because you have the bankruptcy court appeal to the district court which is then what is required under power been in greenwich or three cases deal with anti fouling injunctions in the circuit what is required is that exit gente circumstances exist ok that is what is required now what has happened and i don't want to spend too much time going through the procedure as how we got here but mr robertson initiated bankruptcy proceedings in tennessee it was determined that his arguments were flat out wrong joshua bell in the district court in the original jury very case determined that those very same for where the same arguments are now being reasserted and continue to be wrong and that's what jan drug plan person goes through one by one simply put saying you can in the face of multiple warnings just continue to pursue something that is so frivolous and the reason why i was frivolous is essentially the that what occurred factually speaking at the beginning is mr robertson entered into partnership agreement with my client my kline invested three point five million dollars into  partnership mr roberts and length himself that money found its way into his personal growth brokerage account almost all of it disappeared my clients left without any real around it so this very narrow transaction is how this all started all these bankruptcy he's arguing that the funds that landed in his personal brokerage account or funds of the partnership notwithstanding the fact that they've been taken completely out of the partnership and sitting in a personal brokerage account the other thing that was terms of whether or not an anti violence injunction is necessary it absolutely is based on this record mr robertson indicated to the court that he has a whole host of cases that he wants although i can't for the life of me figure out what they are but i know aussie of them and some clamber of new did that not only was there one case the original case in the d c s a district court where we got seven million dollars a jury verdict when that in an attempt to obstruct that mr rogers and then goes