expectation of receiving a commission or some form of compensation out of all or part of those yes but not exactly this be clear about the time the the local seattle agent first was a totally separate company run by a seattle person  en the business for fifteen years ok he did have a business where he was an agent for the more product the russian company and in his business were employed a dozen people here in seattle he did receive a judgment debtor fun so that the funds came in from a variety of sources six eight months prior to the garnishment some of it was proceeds of fish sales where fish caught above or these boats would be sold to buyers and then the money would be paid back being out if would it not to an attorney trust and have no where the client makes arrangements to have monies the positive from whatever stores and agent in this case is ultimately expected to be out of a portion of those well if it's not it doesn't represent a transfer of all legal right title and interest in the funds on the day the monies the positive in the bank well ok let's be clear because this is a very significant distinction i think needs to be made ok there were three attempts at washington mutual that seattle fishing services had one of those accounts was the designated hold back account ok seattle fishing services had all three accounts garnished its operating account and its payroll account that you know what i think the court you're trying to get at is well if it's like an attorney trust account the sole source of this is the reason you keep it there kind of thing you can maybe look at things the part of the judgment creditor to to garnish assets to satisfy that judgment yes does that then present us with a different situation then the cases that you're relying most heavily on from the supreme court which as i read them are judgment garnishments and i think there's a different due process analysis that it's hands if you're talking about judgment as opposed to just absolutely and let me get let me go to your question because now that i think about it the attorney of funds in dispute ok call that might betray a trust fund is also repository for a whole bunch of other things like attorney client retainers money for other clients all sorts of things like that now when time comes for the credit to come and seek the funds in dispute ok there are two ways the creditor can do it ok one they can garnish me saying and that's the proper way that's a post judgment garnishment against a debtor saying mr moran turn over all the funds of the debtor in your possession and that's not what was done here what was done here was they would go to they want to say to my bank and said give us all the money that's in mr moran's trust fund that's what they did now that that's distinction because that is a prejudgment garnishment as to me as opposed to the former is a post judgment garnishment as to the debtor that's the critical distinction and that's the due process distinction the first one the first if you don't know you got to ask first before you do the seizure as a lawyer you don't just get to decide that safer it's everything in mr moran's trust account is mine ok if you're going to do that if you're going to go to the court and sue and just garnish mr moran's trust account you've got to go to the court first and say look we and we intend to garnish all of mr moore and sponsors and then mr moran gets notice and i get to go in and say well wait a minute ok not all of the funds in my trust the in the litigation in london there was a consent decree between the principle of consent order between the principal and the party that turned out to be the creditor that they said we would we  as the as the b n p will ask our agent to set up an account and do full disclosure now what the agent did so basically the judgment debtor told the judge creditor through that and sent the career consent said would you create a separate account and set aside these proceeds in a separate account and then weekly disclose what goes in and what goes out of that account ok now that the seattle agent said sure and more than that what i'll do is all  my accounts so everybody knows everything ok and so he disclosed that account and his other account numbers ok so everybody knew everything he ever knew what his payroll was they knew what his operating expenses were ok and they knew the whole back account and they knew what the balance of the whole back account was easy and everybody knew that and then when the judgment came down in august everybody knew that too and seattle phishing services to took the position it's going to keep its books entirely open to everybody and if the time comes where somebody has a dispute about what's in the holdback account what should properly have been held back that will litigate it but what happened was something different i mean they said they left it for four months naming it calling all d f s property d m p property which it wasn't and we know that now but the whole point of due process is when your season the third parties property and agent ok you've got to ask first because you might be season alleged adequately alleging color of law and speed are well luke are i think it's very it's very clear on this and i was kind of perplexed by that other than i think there was maybe a misunderstanding about when s f s had its first hearing i think the judge got the dates wrong but any time lugar is very clear that anytime anyone walks into court walks it avails itself of the collection procedures whether it's prejudgment garnishment prejudgment attachment post judgment garnishment post judgment collection procedure state action ok where your seat where a private individual is availing itself of the of the state procedure for seizing property well if you're suing private parties so you're saying is that they are look at sneer at it you know it's when you do this when you walk into court you know you are putting on your state actor hat in every instance where there is collection in the for example the tulsa case was not a collection is none of the other collection there's no other collection case where state action was not found in this in the supreme court land of cases they all the there's always a state action making three in fact later makes a very important fifty don't have a remedy when you violate it what good is that what good is the due process clause i mean if people can go in and get a prejudgment attachment not give proper notice or violent or use it to violate people's constitutional of you may and you may not and the interference with business releases you may in you may not and that's what lugar talks about nine hundred eighty three it says what is this here for it's here to protect the united states constitution sure you may way over time i'm sorry good morning your honour's i'm robert back with casey young and logan and i represent my law firm i've been allotted ten minutes but with your permission i'd like to grant two to sharon glenn who is here she represents another private party and that's washington mutual it is to know the background that gives rise to this one nine hundred eighty three claim it's a claim that you only can speak for you before you do that would you since this is kind of right on point here would you address the state action issue absolutely your honor and i do think that lugar is the case you need to take a look at what counsel i think is missed with respect to lugar is that the supreme court went to great pains to explain the relationship process i think that's where it does make a difference your honor but with respect to what happened there a creditor went to a court presented an application for issuance of a prejudgment read it was issued by a clerk that's where the similarity ends with respect to stamping it and handing it back to the lawyer it's private parties a private creditor trying to collect a private judgment against a private debtor using a private process server to serve the process against a private bank where the funds were held but the key thing about lugar is that the court looked at the one thousand nine hundred three claims and there were two possible ones there the court said that with respect to the private parties use or alleged misuse of the virginia statute there was no one thousand nine hundred eighty three claim even though in that case there was more state action you had a clerk not just that but you also had a share that served that out what the court did say was to the extent that the plaintiff was claiming that the genius statutes themselves were unconstitutional it would allow the one thousand nine hundred three claim to proceed that is not what the distinction between the two types of section one thousand nine hundred three claims which may have been presented by the plaintiff in that case the court said on nine forty that respondents invoked the statute without the grounds to do so with the court gives its summary holding it says that the petitioner did present a valid cause of action under section one hundred eighty three in so far as he challenge the constitutionality of the virginia statu he did not in so far as he alleged only misuse or abuse of the statute and in this case all of the briefing the complaint itself everything that's being presented to the court  are complaints about the behavior of private parties and how they used the statute claiming that there really prejudgment because some of their money was involved that's the allegation cases were attacking the constitutionality of the laws that were being used themselves because in those cases they were prejudgment and they allowed anyone to go in ex parte claim that somebody was a debtor and go and use the sheriff's present we complain dozens of proper cause of action that's right your honor because it's only private action and just to add emphasis this court decided in the gaskill case that we cited ministerial act of a clerk in receiving filed documents does not supply state action that's the only thing that the plaintiff can point to in this case there's no public participation otherwise it's all the actions of its the courts i'm not sure that's all that really well you can contrast what was done here against the howard stern case which i don't think was cited by any of the parties in the briefing but it's another one circuit decision which i think i within the state for that is seven zero eight federal second three eighty it's a decision from the early eighty's after lucar where this court found that and a vision procedure that was taking place in idaho where the landlords repeatedly brought along the local police with them to carry through the eviction process took on state action because of that direct involvement you don't have anything like that here because when it comes to taking the writ and executing it this would have garnishment was performed by private creditors using private process servers serving a private bank that the deprivation at issue must be caused by your right created by the state the second is if there is actions of either state officials or private party action only the exercise of a right under an unconstitutional garnishment statute that creates the first prong of a right created by state if it is a mere misuse of an otherwise account holder who was the parent here at the times their names were very similar names have since been changed to see that official services but at the time it had a very similar name to the russian company and the garnishment specifically listed those bank and so as a result it made the same response in the state court garnishment as it had in the federal court garnishment which is to note for the court confusion as to the identity of whether the judgment debtor was the same as the account holder and to request that allowed to deposit the funds into the registry of the court pending the identity hearing that was dying and so you at that point you are out of  because if people young and logan sends a letter to washington mutual acting as a private party saying please produce these funds in this guy's account washing neutral says huck right they freeze the funds when they get an order for signed by bruce with kind of the federal court it's not it's the financial equivalent to somebody putting on a badge and saying get out of your car that's the color of your make somebody do something because you're wrapping yourself up in the federal court that's not the color of law that's not state action that's called the state action is the state action is the what is the the initiation of the the state's creation of this process where private parties can pull themselves with this power and that's what's ne