i ought to be wearing my reading glasses this morning thank you salinas versus ramsey i'm sorry for me it's just a tongue twister i do my best for everyone and as i appreciate you doing your vast good morning in may it please the court i believe that the problem is that it's led to some misinterpretation is that birth brusha and kissel are not actually at odds the burson court certifies a conflict with the kissel court but when you read that certification  contacts they disagree with the kissel court because the kissel decision is a decision about man danise as an unforced meant mechanism to collect on a federal judgment in state court the british and decision is directly on point and it deals with post judgment discovery through the use of a writ of garnishment in which the bank is asked how much money using the  and can we see is that money i believe that the bush in court oversteps when it says we certify a question with kissel because the question that the bush in court was that point did we it looks to me like our precedents where we're trying to say what florida law is yeah be wrong about what is an action on a judgment and we now have this florida intermediate appellate court decision that basically says that we are wrong about it and and we of fired that question but it didn't get resolved because of settlement and it just seems to me to clear up the matter that the the right and proper thing to do is to certify that question to the supreme court of florida and have them decide it oh what about that i think you're the last person that i would ever argue that comedy is the foundation of democracy however i believe at the same time when an issue of florida law i'm the last person you would make that argument and you know i don't understand i wouldn't argue against state's rights to your honor but i believe that in this particular case the court can rule on this subject because i believe the florida law is clear i know we can but it appears to me i think that florida intermediate  decision about what is an action on a judgment looks right the fourth district court yeah that looks right to me your honor because they agree with me i would be quite silly to you that they're wrong or that your role at the problem like what that is that i have prior panel precedent that really goes the other way and to me the easy way to resolve the problem is to send the issue to the court that has the real authority i mean all we can say is even if we could kind of ignore our propaganda president we would have to say we think that  what the fourth district said was what we would expect the florida supreme court to say why not just have the florida supreme court say i believe the issues are the unnecessary delay that it causes and geisha and i understand that this court would want to certify the question to the florida supreme court because it's a matter of judicial comedy and it's something that this court has done repeat it's really more fundamental than that so we don't make florida law you know one thing he won't see from me is an opinion i authored on a question of state law that i publish that i mark for publication you want to know i because i don't make florida law this court doesn't make for an out some of the colleagues sometimes they will mark those opinions for publication  if but i don't do it and the reason i don't do it is because whatever we say about florida law is just persuasive it can't it's not presidential at least for any florida court tomorrow or the florida supreme court can tell us we got it wrong and we would be bound by what the florida supreme court says in you know  disagreeing with us and while i agree with that i think then the only issue that i would ask the court to do is to incorporate into the question whether it can whether a discovery proceeding constitutes a new action or an independent action on the original judgment well when we when we start a five question the court's going to know exactly what the procedural context is for the question that appellant's the lie is the type of intervening intermediate appellate court decision that would be able to get around this circuit prior precedent  right when i read it sure is persuasive to me so i think i think there is a conflict i think even version acknowledges a conflict so i think there are a couple of grounds for resolving this case without certification i really don't think it's warranted on this controversy and this is why first of all i'm not really sure what the question is before this court right now i don't believe that there is a proper question on appeal the original question was abandoned in reply the original question was does the five year twenty year limitations period under ninety five point eleven florida statutes apply and it cites a conflict in the d c s on reply that argument was abandoned for an alternative argument and question on appeal that first of all was not raised or preserved below on reconsideration of the discovery issue and second of all wasn't posed or argued in the original brief and not question that argument is that ninety five point eleven doesn't apply at all and there is no conflict so these are two these are not these are mutually exclusive they could this is not just a reframing of the original question isn't higher lien you brief on reply and i think that's important to consider and  the extent that the court would even accept or consider the question which i don't think it should and i'm not even sure what it is you know here's my problem i look at ninety five eleven and it doesn't seem to apply to me well i mean the plain language applies to actions on a judgment but this doesn't appear to be one well that's with the forty ca held but that's not what the first dca held and that's not interesting lee if you look at even an opinion that was cited in the pellets original brief from the florida supreme court she doesn't want to pinion called mad it doesn't go procedures permitting a creditors who facts who does not have any that's a judgment in this action right yes but the court didn't start an action on a judgment i mean you know when i was in private practice i handled some of those foreign country judgment actions and you get that the judgment in another country and then you bring it here to domesticate it and what do you do you file a complaint in an american court against the defendant who is the judgment debtor and  you get a judgment an american judgment then against that debtor but that is an action on a judgment that's not at all what we have here yes and no i mean yes you do file an action to get a new judgment but none of the analyses none of the cases that have been cited hold that just because you generate a new case number there is not an action for purposes of ninety five point eleven and in fact nad site  for discovery and eight of execution of a judgment entered in the action that you're moving for that discovery and that that can't be an action on a judgment it seems to me i know we got some probyn a president th was but it just seems wrong to me and with all of the conflict in the thought he should only sort of fire that question i don't know how we resolve this case without trying to make sense of that  would submit to the court is the facts in this controversy are that the appellant's now aware of the eleventh circuit precedent saying that it's so so unlike in balfour which is way on off on all fours with this case now we have a an eleventh circuit opinion that says you have five years knowing that that was this circuit's precedent they waited ten and just like let's let's be fair to them they they they follow a motion to compel discovery an execution of the judgment and the district court sue a spontaneous right denies the motion as barred by the florida statute of limitation that's what happened here well they had the opportunity to argue it again on reconsideration and they actually argued the issue that the twenty year statute under ninety five eleven applies post five year statute that's the issue that was argued below that's the issue that was preserved  out there but their argument is the coach wrong to apply the five years that that's part of their argument correct yes necessarily that's part of their argument so they preserve that issue whether that i think it's a completely different thing to say ninety five point eleven applies and we're just arguing about which provision it is then to shift gears to shift the entire question on appeal and say no we're not ninety five point eleven doesn't apply at all actually and hears all this law all this law on syria fascists and a proceeding which by the way it's a leap it's argued by analogy that it's the modern equivalent to some of these final process but you know it isn't exactly those processes and even the courts such as you know the older florida supreme court cases that they cite argue it as a similar process but not not the same and so when they're arguing about the repeal of fifty five point fifteen which was the prior statute that they argue applies instead of applied instead ninety five point eleven and now that it's repealed there is no statute of limitations according to the appellants that argument is not it's they haven't cited anything that equates sarah fascist to this discovery process so i think i think there are a lot of assumptions underlying why they argue that that the statute was repealed you know maybe it was redundant precedent it said they had five years they waited ten there's no reason for the delay apparent in the record the same thing happened in balfour only here it's worse because balfour exist in bell for at least it was a issue of first impression so i would go back to the idea that this issue really wasn't raised or preserved that it's the the question now before the court has raised for the first time on reply that there is a conflict within the that can you know really only be resolved by the florida supreme court is not necessary or really warranted to do that in this case with regard to this controversy which should be a very wise judge once said to me when the courts agreeing with you up and said down in is what did you learn from him or her i learned that i learned that bar you have any other questions i believe that the straight of the brief is plenty to convey my position to the florida supreme court i agree with you one hundred percent on the fact that the fourth dca is smarter than i am and has made the argument for me and therefore i am completely confident that the florida supreme court will make the proper decision barring any questions i better sit down and shut