the injunction in the language of the stipulated to it was that the parties both parties but mr blix up reserve just right to challenge that on any grounds that existed at the time or or not it without end did no twenty ten it was not ruled upon by the bankruptcy court in till july twenty twelfth ok why oh i mean he just sat there and sat there did nothing didn't rule it didn't do anything and the were entitled to an injunction or not entitled to junction and that's something that just person recognized it when he heard when when we had absolutely had argument two years after we filed the papers he said was properly before him whether there was should have effect well i understand i understand that under i understand where you're coming from your own on that but the but the point is that we were able to route we never we've any challenges to the to have the injunction having been issued in as language that was approved by judge cursor based on in terms of the parties and the stipulations and the letter of the plain language of the stipulation because under mool situation the issue is you have to show you have to show a change in circumstances new facts something you have to do and the reason is that when you take a look at the hot how do you parse out even though the supreme court said we can follow a few simple rules i think the court knows oftentimes it's not as simple as a desert but here you have  nonportable means you've got a fifty dollar fine there's nothing you can do about it one hundred down one hundred thousand dollars fine and you got paid and you don't pay it we take you and in jail but in this case the property  you and i disagree one hundred percent hundred eighty degrees on that issue and the reason you just reason i just luckily i get the last unfortunately just so you know so i think you're going to have to it impossible for the plaintiffs or let's say the defense or the defendant to prove their case in this case the still the property that property the real state was never a property of the state it was not subject to five hundred transfer caused by action first have to prove your case prove entitle me to your damages and then collect on it and the possibility that you're wrong that it's more difficult to collect  documents you have taken away the one economic incentive for them to lose again well under the supreme court's ruling group called it the the difficulty or increasing difficulty in collection does not fa that corporation is not run by the trustee and it's not subject to is not the assets of that corporation are not property the bankruptcy state and that is are one of the fundamental issues here is that property that real estate was not property the state yes you could try and execute an american judgment in in in in mexico if you have if it was against the right parties and so forth but the point i guess the point i'm trying to make maybe a little of to sleep is that that issue decide well and the other problem of course which we haven't addressed yet is the fact that under certain the bankruptcy court had no had no subject matter jurisdiction to enter it a final word or on the injunction had to go it had to it but that's a final will it may because because under if you take a look at one fifty seven c one which is the jurisdictional statute see one says that it says final word or judgment and so under it under see one bankruptcy petition was filed against him and it was pending so he went out doing exactly what he was doing with total contempt for the court and this process and spitting on every bill isn't spaces he sold the property even property before the litigation anyway because he would have gotten should have gotten the injunction vacated prospect of plea in at that point he could have sold and it still won't have an iran to satisfy the judgment well that's true but