appeal on the first is that if the court has to take a look at the findings of fact that support the court the bankruptcy court's decision when to issue the injunction in the second instance in the first instance when the presented with the same exact facts there's no ability to succeed on the merits and that there is and that the balance of harm has not been shown to favor the moving part of two of the critical issues that have to be made in it in before court will enter any kind of an injunction now the only difference between the first injunction where the where the bankruptcy court says there is no ability to succeed and the second injunction is as the as you pointed out your honor that they sold the other dimmest looks or sold the tam property in another case and that has nothing to do with the ability to succeed in this case so to go from no ability to succeed which is a fairly strong statement to having a substantial likelihood of property that was an issue the only property that would be at issue would be the corporate stock itself the corporate stock even if it's in the middle of the tree fully owned one percent by a debtor does not convey the interest in the assets owned by the corporation that's just the stock so the only thing it does a ranch at all was the stock and because it was subject to a separate action that can't be done harm to be considered in connection with the desert ranch appeal apart it's not a separate not a different issue and because of simply the fact of that sale which we all know about doesn't change the ability to to prove their case it doesn't change the likelihood of success on the merits if anything it only goes to the value of collection which it doesn't even if you've been with us a can you address the question of understand the argument the opposing argument is that sure we have jurisdiction over an injunction if the injunction is coming up to us properly  appealable order to the district court and that would be the end of the you know actually it's the opposite is the complaint as i understand it said the bankruptcy court only had jurisdiction if they agreed to take it voluntarily which they did or as a matter of discretion w didn't exercise as such now and i think you said well he or someone said maybe the bankruptcy court well you know what will assume that that he's exercises or so there's there are three there are three categories reputable lawyers from the this is an this is a new order that is otherwise recognized as a separate appeal board to this court how can how can an injunction be a final appeal board under twelve ninety two to this court from the district court but not bankruptcies are different they move it a different pace they have a different feel to them they it's critical in some cases for the bankruptcy courts to and sometimes even that that specifically because he said specifically that it has a final order based upon the the anality well let me ask you to let me just think with respect to the terms of the injunction was anything further contemplated we guarding the injunction yes proceedings were contemplated on the underlying litigation well no further and further proceedings were were contemplated on this injunction because this injunction was just a channeling injunction you can't sell property without coming back to me and that never happened and that's i think is critical because it really turns this from from there's no argument that that is a final order it's purely interlocking because it really didn't finally determine anything and i think actually ministre to i mean it was administrative exactly correct him and didn't bar him from from selling any property or doing anything other than having to come back to the court slightly different i believe stern applies only to final judgments i think it's pretty clear that that's true it does not apply to other orders even final orders and there is a case to quickly case in the second circuit which said exactly that this is a final order it said it was an injunction and forcing the automatic stay it is a final order but stern doesn't apply to it because it's not a final judgment it doesn't determine any state law issues doesn't have any sort of judgment effect if you will it's just an order and there miss was a policeman or injunction little mary injunction correct didn't determine anything on the success of the especially and in order to fashion effective relief you need to have some property that's there that's recoverable and that's exactly the problem we ran into what was your solution to to deal with the with the juror if assuming there was a jurisdictional problem with your solution to deal with well the jurisdictional issue it makes a difference in this case it is reviewable connecticut national bank case makes that clear it is reviewable under twelve ninety two but it makes a difference in this if the district court were to decide there's no reason to take this and i'm this appeal and i'm not going to accept this appeal that is is not reviewable by this court that is it that ends it that ends it completely if however so that makes a difference and that's why that's why we raised the appellate jurisdiction argument because it does make a difference and it is an important consideration to take because either this court does if the district court does what it's supposed to do it either does denied the trust motion to enjoin the desert ranch any further desert ranch transfers that obviously was a mistake and a bsolutely predestines what happened the second time around and mr stillman says that there were no there was a finding of fact in the first case that there was no likelihood of success he admits in this reply brief that that doesn't really matter you can decide you can change your mind as the case goes along but the other thing to bear in mind is that is really not what the court decided in the first case he really did not decide that there was no likelihood of success on the merits he s said it pretty clearly but the rest of the opinion dealt with the fact that the tamarind o injunction was in place and therefore it's not necessary to impose another injunction in the desert ranch which would be why no reason that money wouldn't matter so be some other basis irreparably there was no irreparable harm perhaps to that to the trust because it was protected there was no balancing of the equities because the trust was protected but they might ultimately be no damages either that could be the case that's why they would be no success on the merits because of the no damages correct any number of different reasons but what what ended up happening was the court said no success on the on the merits but it really wasn't saying that and the rest of its opinion doesn't say that so here there and there clearly is success on the merits in this case judge kirshner had a full litigated trial which mr blix of participated completely and totally he came to the conclusion that the desert ranch transfers were part of tim blixseth actual intent to hinder delay or defraud the tru and his creditors there's no question that their success on the merits in this case no question and in fact that finding in the judgment very well may be collateral estoppel as to not only tim blixseth but as t desert rings because there is no real separate identity between those two so i believe we have all of the elements of the injunction that are in place it is it is absolutely a political couldn't possibly have any bearing on this case well would that it what it does say though is why it's useful to have actual cases welcome to court what the back east does say is that it is that there is the twelve ninety two applause and it and again this is this is also something the court addressed in the prior appeal of a thank you sixty four thank you very much