uncertainty with this virus causing anxiety turmoil and hardship throughout our communities but throughout the history of our country there has never been any uncertainty whatsoever about the core bedrock principle that underlies this appeal as stated in gompers vs but stove and range company if a person can set aside a judgement by his own disobedience then our courts are impotent and what is now fittingly called the judicial power of the united states would be a mere mockery optional worked long and hard years litigating to prove that the fifteen million dollars in fines that was sitting in alexandria's credit suisse bank account when the government arrested those funds in august of two thousand and five had been stolen from it the may rd two thousand and thirteen final judgment contains the district court's final expression of optional victory but we find ourselves here today because in a somewhat unusual manner judge virginia collins film judge virginia phillips misread that victory as being against the credit suisse bank account itself counsel is not against counsel didn't judge chief judge collins in her order back in two thousand and eleven didn't she essentially remove from the case the issue over the funds that had been withdrawn from the account and then proceeded only as to the remainder of what was in that account no your honor she could not have done that she was not requested to do that the citations that counsel takes out of context come from an order where we were requesting that the court exercise its discretion and require daunce to return the funds or to give the funds to the district court until the adjudication was made as to the ownership of those funds but there was never a request made by don's or any other person that those funds be released from the court's custody that didn't that the government had acquired for  now at that time judge collins exercised her discretion to not require daunce to return the fines at that time but then far different from two thousand and thirteen she had the court had not determined who actually own those funds and that was what this court in u s versus don's had mandated that the court do determine who is the owner of those funds that hadn't occurred in two thousand and eleven in any way shape or form and so but what optional was doing at that time was requesting that those funds be put specifically in the court and and you know judge collins we could not convince the court that judge collins abused her discretion in making the decision to not exercise her she writes and she declined to hold them in contempt in two thousand and eleven she then declined to order them to put the funds into escrow and then before the trial took place she dismissed them from the case and thereby by those rulings making clear that any issue about the funds that were in their possession that had been withdrawn from the accounting question were no longer in the case isn't that isn't that the clear important of those orders i've just described you know your honor they that could not be the clear import of those orders because the issues that you are describing about removing the funds from the jurisdiction of the court were not an issue there the only knowledge that she still jurisdiction if she wanted to you know render a potentially advisory or its justice blackmun call that a useless opinion but she declined to do so in light of her loss of effective control over them and that was not an abuse of discretion well it was not an abuse of discretion for her to decline to require  move the funds to the united states at that point in time and and it was not an abuse of discretion we submit because at that point in time the trans e of the funds to dos alexandria investment and the kims could still have been determined to be the owner in which case there would optional would then have no right to those funds but was not there and it been dismissed from the case on the grounds that they didn't have any interest in the remainder of the case that's your your reading of what she did absolutely that's what she did we never once gave up our claim to those funds it was you knew prepared the proposed judgment that she signed is that correct i did prepare the proposed thank you if you had added a paragraph that said that that made explicit that you were adding back in the dispute over between the competing claimants over these funds and that she was now deciding that you win versus the other claimant she had previously dismissed do you think she would have signed that judgment yes your honor and i don't read the record that i didn't want to be candid i just dismissed them from this case on the grounds at that issue wasn't in front of her and then you put a judgment in front of her that you now claim she knew all along she was heading back in the case your honor throughout the entirety of the trial and i would ask the court to look at and review judge collins findings of fact and conclusions of law which are contained in volume one of the record at pages thirteen through twenty and judge collins prepared her findings  one million that they can stole from it through the numerous financial transactions and multiple fraudulent or shell entities into the credit suisse account that it and therefore a stablish a constructive trust in those funds at the time that they were in the account in august th of two thousand and five and so therefore optional was the owner and entitled to was at all times the owner and that that constructive trust by definition and by the law of this court became follow those funds when they were transferred to dos but she went further and she said that the mere fact that optional was the remaining claimant the only person standing in court proving something for something to withdraw its claims without proving anything including the fact that there was no jurisdiction over t asd and therefore at the only claim to the above referenced properties how it's titled down by default property that at liz it issue in the case in the context she's resolving the issues in the context of how they've been framed by the prior orders and if you look at her order in november of two thousand and eleven she says that she found that  conduct was not contemptible and then she rejects your argument the da has spots be kept in the case and she said the court can still adjudicate the remaining competing claims to the property even though the value of the account has been diminished that seems a clear statement that the dispute over these funds between optional and das was no longer in the case and that's why das could be dismissed abstention had decided the rights between das and optional i i just don't see how you can claim that from what she said in this order at the time that statement was corporation we are here on an order denying a request for contempt sanctions the district court did not abuse its discretion and finding that optional did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that to this appeal is a set of orders this judge collins and rd and two thousand and eleven and again because we're here on a motion for contempt we have to look at the entirety of the record and the district court certainly is entitled  its factual determination of the previous history the statements that it made to dos and and the statements on which das was entitled to re clear from the context of the litigation that what the court was referring to there it was the remaining funds that were also present in the account as of two thousand and five so to the extent that there were funds before two thousand and five those would not be material and certainly about what various borders means all of that means that das cannot be held in contempt because once again we're here on a motion for contemp sanctions which requires a clear and definite order that dos of which the us was on notice violated that clearly did not happen here there was there was no definite order instructing das to return the funds there was no definite order stating that the funds that das had had transferred to it by swiss authorities in two thousand and eleven dos even though i stated that das would not be required to return the funds i'm now going to adjudicate ownership and instruct das to return the funds to optional we believe that there would be some some issues with respect to both the useless judgement rule as well as effectiveness if she had said that but that's not what she said and and it was very clear and i think the record is clear that when she was presented with a with a proposed judgment removing the funds from her practical control that were in clearly had do which are jurisdiction had attached did you learn her to that before you took those funds out of the swiss account before that i believe the record is silent on what happened before the funds were transferred by supporters to dos seem surprised by it and disappointed that that's that's correct your honor and also the other thing we have to keep in was another sovereign here switzerland that had concurrent jurisdiction and that's because the funds were in switzerland and swiss and the swiss government had actual control over those funds so there are a myriad things optional could have done to secure its rights both before the judgment before the two thousand and eleven transfer and afterwards and it chose not to do that optional could have initiated a competing investigation in switzerland chose not to do  optional could have coordinated with the us government to ensure that the freeze remained until the judgment chose not to do that optional could have requested that swiss authorities maintain the status quo either before two thousand and eleven or after and eleven made a request to swiss authorities to to revert to the status quo and exercise that sovereign state authority over bank accounts within its territory to either club back the funds or do something else back nature in order to ensure but she could have i mean she judged collins that had she wanted to do so she would have had jurisdiction to go ahead and proceed to decide the entitlement to the funds even though she had lost practical control thousand the total aviation case whenever you have actual property located abroad and there is an engram jurist proceeding in the united states the effectiveness of any judgment always relies on the believe it's a little bit more delights there and we would highlight this court's decision in the united states versus four hundred and ninety three thousand eight hundred and fifty in u s currency where it addressed what happens if property is dispersed for disposed of after the initiation of the option and this court held following the republican national bank decision by the supreme court that if the property is disposed of that useless judgment will applies and script as well we don't believe that you will have to reach that was those questions today because once again the record is clear that there is no clear and definite order that made th part of the judgment and certainly no clear and definite order to das instructing is instructing it to return those funds the other aspect that that is worth mentioning here is that if  orders after the final judgment when it certainly could have done so instead it just sort of waited five years and the other thing the das did not do during those five years is try to effectuate that it's docilely i'm sorry if optional believed that that it was entitled to the transferred funds as a result of the two thousand and thirty judgment it certainly could have tried to effectuate the judgment in switzerland the country that always had actual control over the funds it chose not to do that either so so the current procedural posture as one where we are left to sort of have it even if we credit all of options argument a disagreement about what these various orders mean and that means that contempt sanctions  sovereign switzerland and both the very same entity credit suisse and whether or not a district court has the power to enjoy conduct by a by a foreign sovereign or by credit suisse in both its credit suisse st the central district of california as well as in re philippine national bank this court held that a district court does not have the authority to do that and that's because once again we have a case  it would not maintain and watch for use in a swiss government made a decision to lift a an additional three that it had placed as a result of a money laundering investigation and order funds transferred to dollars in korea so philippine national bank and credit suisse are abundantly clear that a district court does not have the authority to be there in joint conduct by by a foreign sovereign or issue orders that would have to do conduct by a foreign sovereign and that's exactly what we have here and so we believe that in addition that the active state doctrine which this court identified articulated and credit suisse and re philippine national bank would would prohibit any order requiring that any transfers in two thousand and eleven and the swears no one in which a limp reported to resolve the legal issues surrounding the competing claims to the funds between entitled to funds but if we go back to that the factual scenario of of credit suisse versus central district of california and in race will it be national bank that's that's the exact same scenario that is presenting there where the republican of the republic of the philippines made a request to switzerland i think that accounts be frozen and that money is transferred to it even though there was an action pending in the united states with there was a class act united states by other victims a sword that marco's the former filipino president and this court held that you know regardless of the reasons why switzerland may choose to either effectuate a transfer or place or lift an important admission that the two thousand and eleven orders of judge collins were interlocutory orders they were not final expressions of the court's determinations  as to the merits of certainly not optional and even the question of jurisdiction and das by airlie dismissing it claims gave up its gave up those claims and by definition lost and was solely and totally dependent upon the claims of the hymns and it must have the funds that they had transferred to dos removed as a defendant to this case they proceeded in the trial and it up to the end including when optional was presenting its evidence to be parties and they voluntarily withdrew their claims ultimately during the trial but throughout those two years never once moved to have the court removed the twelve million six hundred thousand dollars that they had successfully transferred to dos from the jurisdiction of the court and so by her final expression of the final judgment here judge collins found and necessarily found that she had jurisdiction over the funds and she issued a order that isn't forcible it isn't forcible both by the language of the order council's argument that when she lost control of the fund he was essentially stripped jurisdiction to decide the spear that's an argument your honor it is contrary to what we believe th circuit law is the th circuit and even in this case in real property one found that jurisdiction once acquired is not subsequently lost it is an argument that is contrary to the very arguments dos made in two thousand and eleven in an attempt to defeat an order requiring it to move the property back to the united states to the five and gave notice to the parties that it was seeking to forfeit these funds to itself and that was recognized as well by this court in property number one